In re the Estate of Donald

149 Misc. 142, 267 N.Y.S. 505, 1933 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1687
CourtNew York Surrogate's Court
DecidedOctober 9, 1933
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 149 Misc. 142 (In re the Estate of Donald) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Surrogate's Court 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 Donald, 149 Misc. 142, 267 N.Y.S. 505, 1933 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1687 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1933).

Opinion

Pelletreau, S.

The court is asked to construe the tenth paragraph of the will of Henry W. Donald, which paragraph reads as follows:

“ Tenth. All the rest, residue and remainder of my property, both real, personal and mixed, of which I shall die seized or possessed, or to which I may be entitled at the time of my decease, I give and devise as follows: One-fourth thereof to Mecca Temple A. A. O. N. M. S. of New York, N. Y.; the remaining three-fourths in equal quarterly shares to Riverside Chapter, No. 399, Order of the Eastern Star; Suffolk Chapter, Daughters of American Revolution; Riverhead Lodge No. 645, F. & A. M.; said three-fourths to be used jointly by the said Riverside Chapter, No. 399, Order of the Eastern Star, Suffolk Chapter, Daughters of American Revolution, and Riverhead Lodge No. 645, F. & A. M., for the purpose of erecting and building a joint meeting hall and office building for the said organizations in the Village of Riverhead, Suffolk County, N. Y ”

It is not necessary to go to great length in the construction of this paragraph. The residue of the estate, which is a large one, is only involved, and the gifts therein were for a specific purpose. There is no gift over. The testator had the right to subject his gift to conditions. The conditions here imposed, however, are subsequent and not precedent. Had the conditions been precedent there could be no gift until the conditions had been fulfilled. That situation does not exist here.

In my opinion, the conditions here imposed are inoperative and of no effect, in the absence of a gift over.

The gifts provided in this paragraph became vested rights upon the death of the testator, and were absolute bequests.

Decree accordingly.

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

Related

Dubrowsky v. Benedict
67 Misc. 2d 189 (New York Supreme Court, 1971)
In re the Estate of Kempf
159 Misc. 298 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1936)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
149 Misc. 142, 267 N.Y.S. 505, 1933 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-donald-nysurct-1933.