In re the Estate of Fox

New York Surrogate's Court

In re the Estate of Fox

126 Misc. 767, 215 N.Y.S. 648, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 958

New York Surrogate's Court·Decided February 24, 1926·Published

Opinion

O’Brien, S.

The executor’s discretion to be exercised in carrying out the directions of paragraph “ second ” of the will was not controlled or limited by the language used in said paragraph or in the rest of the will. Failure to comply precisely and literally with the directions set forth therein by omitting the stones deemed to be “ imitation ” or damaged or of small value from the ostensorium is not such a variance from the directions of testatrix as will warrant the court’s disapproval of the account. Let the stones omitted [768] and the ostensorium be delivered to the beneficiary and let the statement in “ Schedule E-l ” alleging the tender and refusal of the bequest be stricken from said account. Submit decree on notice.

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

O’Brien, S.

The executor’s discretion to be exercised in carrying out the directions of paragraph “ second ” of the will was not controlled or limited by the language used in said paragraph or in the rest of the will. Failure to comply precisely and literally with the directions set forth therein by omitting the stones deemed to be “ imitation ” or damaged or of small value from the ostensorium is not such a variance from the directions of testatrix as will warrant the court’s disapproval of the account. Let the stones omitted [768] and the ostensorium be delivered to the beneficiary and let the statement in “ Schedule E-l ” alleging the tender and refusal of the bequest be stricken from said account. Submit decree on notice.

In re the Estate of Fox, 126 Misc. 767, 215 N.Y.S. 648, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 958 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1926).

Pincite

126 Misc. 767 (In re the Estate of Fox) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.