In re the Estate of Hager

New York Surrogate's Court

In re the Estate of Hager

181 Misc. 431, 45 N.Y.S.2d 468, 1943 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2640

CourtNew York Surrogate's Court

DecidedNovember 18, 1943

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 181 Misc. 431 (In re the Estate of Hager) 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 Hager, 181 Misc. 431, 45 N.Y.S.2d 468, 1943 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2640 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

Foley, S.

This is an application brought pursuant to sec-

tion 206-a of the Surrogate’s Court Act to compel the administratrix of the estate to turn over to the petitioner eight United States Savings Bonds, series E, each of the face value of fifty dollars, alleged to be in her possession. On the return day of the citation the respondent administratrix appeared and filed an answer claiming that the bonds were delivered to her in payment of an indebtedness due her from the decedent and asserting ownership to them. The petitioner thereupon moved to dismiss the answer as insufficient in law. The motion is granted. (Matter of Deyo, 180 Misc. 32; Matter of Karlinski, 180 Misc. 44; Personal Property Law, § 24, added by L. 1943, ch. 632.) The bonds were issued in the name of the decedent, payable on death to Nathan Hager, the petitioner. As I pointed out in Matter of Beyo, under the form in which the bonds were issued, the beneficiary acquired a present interest at .the time the bonds were purchased by the decedent, though such interest could not take effect in enjoyment until after the death of the decedent. Under the Treasury Regulations (§ 315.8) they are not transferable and are payable only to the persons therein named. Mere delivery of the bonds to the respondent, even though for valuable consideration as claimed by her, could not confer title in her. The decedent could have surrendered the bonds for redemption in his lifetime, but he was without power to eliminate the name of the petitioner as beneficiary during the latter’s lifetime. I accordingly hold that the bonds are the propérty of the petitioner.

Submit decree on notice directing the delivery to him accordingly.

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

Foley, S.

This is an application brought pursuant to sec-

tion 206-a of the Surrogate’s Court Act to compel the administratrix of the estate to turn over to the petitioner eight United States Savings Bonds, series E, each of the face value of fifty dollars, alleged to be in her possession. On the return day of the citation the respondent administratrix appeared and filed an answer claiming that the bonds were delivered to her in payment of an indebtedness due her from the decedent and asserting ownership to them. The petitioner thereupon moved to dismiss the answer as insufficient in law. The motion is granted. (Matter of Deyo, 180 Misc. 32; Matter of Karlinski, 180 Misc. 44; Personal Property Law, § 24, added by L. 1943, ch. 632.) The bonds were issued in the name of the decedent, payable on death to Nathan Hager, the petitioner. As I pointed out in Matter of Beyo, under the form in which the bonds were issued, the beneficiary acquired a present interest at .the time the bonds were purchased by the decedent, though such interest could not take effect in enjoyment until after the death of the decedent. Under the Treasury Regulations (§ 315.8) they are not transferable and are payable only to the persons therein named. Mere delivery of the bonds to the respondent, even though for valuable consideration as claimed by her, could not confer title in her. The decedent could have surrendered the bonds for redemption in his lifetime, but he was without power to eliminate the name of the petitioner as beneficiary during the latter’s lifetime. I accordingly hold that the bonds are the propérty of the petitioner.

Submit decree on notice directing the delivery to him accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 Misc. 431, 45 N.Y.S.2d 468, 1943 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-hager-nysurct-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack