In re the Construction of the Will of Dawson

192 Misc. 783, 82 N.Y.S.2d 453, 1948 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3136
New York Surrogate's Court·Decided September 14, 1948·Published

Opinion

G-rieeiths, S.

In this independent proceeding for a construction, the court determines that the child of testator born after the execution of the will is mentioned therein within the purview of section 26 of the Decedent Estate Law. Since no provision is made for the benefit of any after-born child, the younger son of testator does not succeed to the share which he would have received if decedent had died intestate.

Under the will executed at a time when he had but one child, the testator named his wife as his sole beneficiary. He then directed that ‘ ‘ this my will shall remain in full force and effect notwithstanding that I may have children hereafter born to me. ’ ’ Thus the will clearly demonstrates that testator contemplated the possibility of after-born children in framing a scheme for the testamentary disposition of his property (see McLean v. McLean, 207 N. Y. 365, 371), and determined that no testamentary provision was to be made for the benefit of any. such child.

Settle decree accordingly.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In re the Construction of the Will of Dawson, 192 Misc. 783, 82 N.Y.S.2d 453, 1948 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3136 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1948).

192 Misc. 783 (In re the Construction of the Will of Dawson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McLean v. . McLean
101 N.E. 173 (New York Court of Appeals, 1913)