In re the Estate of Garland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Garland

249 A.D. 923, 293 N.Y.S. 283, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10172

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 1937

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 249 A.D. 923 (In re the Estate of Garland) 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 Garland, 249 A.D. 923, 293 N.Y.S. 283, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10172 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Memorandum: The trust for which provision was made in the agreement of August 13, 1930, was for the life of John E. Garland only and a reversion and not a remainder was reserved in John E. Garland. (Doctor v. Hughes, 225 N. Y. 305.) The devolution of the property after the death of John E. Garland was by virtue of the laws of the State of New York for the descent and distribution of decedent’s property and of this the surrogate had exclusive jurisdiction. All concur. (The order denies application of trustee to vacate that part of an order which directs Mm to turn over trust property to the temporary admimstrator.) Present — Sears, P. J., Edgcomb, Thompson, Crosby and Lewis, JJ.

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

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Memorandum: The trust for which provision was made in the agreement of August 13, 1930, was for the life of John E. Garland only and a reversion and not a remainder was reserved in John E. Garland. (Doctor v. Hughes, 225 N. Y. 305.) The devolution of the property after the death of John E. Garland was by virtue of the laws of the State of New York for the descent and distribution of decedent’s property and of this the surrogate had exclusive jurisdiction. All concur. (The order denies application of trustee to vacate that part of an order which directs Mm to turn over trust property to the temporary admimstrator.) Present — Sears, P. J., Edgcomb, Thompson, Crosby and Lewis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D. 923, 293 N.Y.S. 283, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-garland-nyappdiv-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack