In re the Construction of the Will of Orr

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Construction of the Will of Orr

275 A.D.2d 702

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 29, 1949·Published

Opinion

Callahan and Yan Yoorhis, JJ.

(dissenting). We dissent and vote to reverse the decree appealed from so as to construe subdivision “ c ” of paragraph “ Fourteenth ” of the will of Jennie Orr, deceased, as giving the remainder of the trust therein created to the issue of the lifetime income beneficiary, Robert M. Dunham, such gift to take effect as of the date of the death of the testator, not to be subject to being divested by the death of such issue prior to the death of Robert M. Dunham; and sustaining the right of appellants to receive the remainder under their assignments from Donald O. Dunham (Matter of McParlan, 169 Misc. 1028; Matter of Embree, 9 App. Div. 602, affd. 154 N. Y. 778; Doe ex dem. Barnes v. Provoost, 4 Johns. 61; Moore v. Lyons, 25 Wend. 119, 144; Livingston v. Greene, 52 N. Y. 118, 123; Nelson v. Russell, 135 N. Y. 137, 140-141; Connelly v. O’Brien, 166 N. Y. 406, 408; Matter of Bump, 234 N. Y. 60, 65; Matter of Watson, 262 N. Y. 284; 7 Heaton on Surrogates’ Courts, §§ 571, 572; 69 C. J., Wills, § 1730, p. 641).

Peck, P. J., Glennon and Shientag, JJ., concur in decision; Callahan and Yan Yoorhis, JJ., dissent in opinion.

Decree affirmed, with costs. No opinion. [192 Misc. 608.]

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

Callahan and Yan Yoorhis, JJ.

(dissenting). We dissent and vote to reverse the decree appealed from so as to construe subdivision “ c ” of paragraph “ Fourteenth ” of the will of Jennie Orr, deceased, as giving the remainder of the trust therein created to the issue of the lifetime income beneficiary, Robert M. Dunham, such gift to take effect as of the date of the death of the testator, not to be subject to being divested by the death of such issue prior to the death of Robert M. Dunham; and sustaining the right of appellants to receive the remainder under their assignments from Donald O. Dunham (Matter of McParlan, 169 Misc. 1028; Matter of Embree, 9 App. Div. 602, affd. 154 N. Y. 778; Doe ex dem. Barnes v. Provoost, 4 Johns. 61; Moore v. Lyons, 25 Wend. 119, 144; Livingston v. Greene, 52 N. Y. 118, 123; Nelson v. Russell, 135 N. Y. 137, 140-141; Connelly v. O’Brien, 166 N. Y. 406, 408; Matter of Bump, 234 N. Y. 60, 65; Matter of Watson, 262 N. Y. 284; 7 Heaton on Surrogates’ Courts, §§ 571, 572; 69 C. J., Wills, § 1730, p. 641).

Peck, P. J., Glennon and Shientag, JJ., concur in decision; Callahan and Yan Yoorhis, JJ., dissent in opinion.

Decree affirmed, with costs. No opinion. [192 Misc. 608.]

In re the Construction of the Will of Orr, 275 A.D.2d 702 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

275 A.D.2d 702 (In re the Construction of the Will of Orr) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related