In re the Estate of Barnum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Barnum

29 A.D.2d 945, 289 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4329

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

DecidedApril 1, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 945 (In re the Estate of Barnum) 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 Estate of Barnum, 29 A.D.2d 945, 289 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4329 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the remainderman of the trust created under the testator’s will, as limited by his brief, from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, dated September 25, 1967, as construed the trust provisions of the will. Decree reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, without costs; in accordance, the decretal provisions construing the trust provisions, granting an allowance to the attorneys for the children of De Witt C. Howell and directing distribution to or on behalf of the children of De Witt C. Howell are struck out; and the principal of the trust is directed to he paid to Francis P. Howell, the exclusive remainderman of the trust. The simple and plain meaning of the testamentary provision bequeathing the trust principal to the “ child or children ” of Ethel Barnum Howell surviving her, to be divided between, them equally, is that such surviving child or children alone are qualified to take. There is nothing to show a different intent on the part of testator. The stirpal distribution embraced in the construction of the learned Surrogate also is at odds with the direction to divide the stock equally between those who qualify. Accordingly, appellant is the exclusive remainderman of the trust. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Benjamin and Martuscello, JJ., concur; Munder, J., dissents and votes to affirm the decree insofar as appealed from, upon the opinion of the Surrogate. [53 Misc 2d 413.]

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

Appeal by the remainderman of the trust created under the testator’s will, as limited by his brief, from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, dated September 25, 1967, as construed the trust provisions of the will. Decree reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, without costs; in accordance, the decretal provisions construing the trust provisions, granting an allowance to the attorneys for the children of De Witt C. Howell and directing distribution to or on behalf of the children of De Witt C. Howell are struck out; and the principal of the trust is directed to he paid to Francis P. Howell, the exclusive remainderman of the trust. The simple and plain meaning of the testamentary provision bequeathing the trust principal to the “ child or children ” of Ethel Barnum Howell surviving her, to be divided between, them equally, is that such surviving child or children alone are qualified to take. There is nothing to show a different intent on the part of testator. The stirpal distribution embraced in the construction of the learned Surrogate also is at odds with the direction to divide the stock equally between those who qualify. Accordingly, appellant is the exclusive remainderman of the trust. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Benjamin and Martuscello, JJ., concur; Munder, J., dissents and votes to affirm the decree insofar as appealed from, upon the opinion of the Surrogate. [53 Misc 2d 413.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 945, 289 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-barnum-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack