In re the Construction of the Will of Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Construction of the Will of Smith

275 A.D.2d 720

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 21, 1949

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 720 (In re the Construction of the Will of Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Construction of the Will of Smith, 275 A.D.2d 720 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

In our opinion the resettled decree construing the “ Fifth ” paragraph of the will as vesting the residuary estate in James S. Smith, subject to and charged with the payment of the reasonable, proper and comfortable support, maintenance and care of testator’s son, Fenton G. Smith, is in conformity with the intent of the testator as expressed in the will (Matter of Forde, 286 N. Y. 125, 128; Meeks v. Meeks, 161 N. Y. 66, 70; Fell v. McCready, 236 App. Div. 390, 395, affd. 263 N. Y. 602; Matter of Nelson, 268 N. Y. 255, 258); and that the amount of such cost of support so to be charged may properly be determined by trial before the Surrogate, as directed by the decree. (Surrogate’s Ct. Act, § 40; Matter of Buehler, 186 Misc. 306, 309, affd. 272 App. Div. 757, same case 274 App. Div. 770.) Present — Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and MacCrate, JJ.

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

In our opinion the resettled decree construing the “ Fifth ” paragraph of the will as vesting the residuary estate in James S. Smith, subject to and charged with the payment of the reasonable, proper and comfortable support, maintenance and care of testator’s son, Fenton G. Smith, is in conformity with the intent of the testator as expressed in the will (Matter of Forde, 286 N. Y. 125, 128; Meeks v. Meeks, 161 N. Y. 66, 70; Fell v. McCready, 236 App. Div. 390, 395, affd. 263 N. Y. 602; Matter of Nelson, 268 N. Y. 255, 258); and that the amount of such cost of support so to be charged may properly be determined by trial before the Surrogate, as directed by the decree. (Surrogate’s Ct. Act, § 40; Matter of Buehler, 186 Misc. 306, 309, affd. 272 App. Div. 757, same case 274 App. Div. 770.) Present — Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and MacCrate, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-construction-of-the-will-of-smith-nyappdiv-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack