In re the Estate of Filor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Filor

244 A.D. 808

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

DecidedMay 15, 1935

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 244 A.D. 808 (In re the Estate of Filor) 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 Filor, 244 A.D. 808 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Rockland county reversed on the law, with costs payable out of the estate, and the petition dismissed, without costs. The bequest in the second paragraph of the will was a specific legacy and not a demonstrative legacy. (Crawford v. McCarthy, 159 N. Y. 514; Leonard v. Harney, 173 id. 352; Matter of Tailer, 147 App. Div. 741; affd., on opinion below, 205 N. Y. 599; Platt v. Moore, 1 Dem. 191; Gardner v. Printup, 2 Barb. 83.) The decedent having made a change of beneficiary which precluded the estate from receiving the money ir. the event the new beneficiary survived the testator, and having done this by a formal deliberate act prior to his death, the specific legacy was adeemed. (Davids New York Law of Wills, § 1110; Humphrey v. Robinson, 52 Hun, 200, 203; Langdon v. Astor’s Executors, 16 N. Y. 9, 57; Powys v. Mansfield, 3 Myl. & C. 359, 376.) The case of Tifft v. Porter (8 N. Y. 516) is not to the contrary, and the authority of that case is seriously impaired, if not destroyed, by Matter of Security Trust Co. (221 N. Y. 213, 220). Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Scudder, J.T., concur. [154 Misc. 596.1

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

Decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Rockland county reversed on the law, with costs payable out of the estate, and the petition dismissed, without costs. The bequest in the second paragraph of the will was a specific legacy and not a demonstrative legacy. (Crawford v. McCarthy, 159 N. Y. 514; Leonard v. Harney, 173 id. 352; Matter of Tailer, 147 App. Div. 741; affd., on opinion below, 205 N. Y. 599; Platt v. Moore, 1 Dem. 191; Gardner v. Printup, 2 Barb. 83.) The decedent having made a change of beneficiary which precluded the estate from receiving the money ir. the event the new beneficiary survived the testator, and having done this by a formal deliberate act prior to his death, the specific legacy was adeemed. (Davids New York Law of Wills, § 1110; Humphrey v. Robinson, 52 Hun, 200, 203; Langdon v. Astor’s Executors, 16 N. Y. 9, 57; Powys v. Mansfield, 3 Myl. & C. 359, 376.) The case of Tifft v. Porter (8 N. Y. 516) is not to the contrary, and the authority of that case is seriously impaired, if not destroyed, by Matter of Security Trust Co. (221 N. Y. 213, 220). Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Scudder, J.T., concur. [154 Misc. 596.1

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D. 808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-filor-nyappdiv-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack