In re the Estate of Jackson

142 Misc. 352, 255 N.Y.S. 373, 1931 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1778
CourtNew York Surrogate's Court
DecidedDecember 29, 1931
StatusPublished

This text of 142 Misc. 352 (In re the Estate of Jackson) 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 Jackson, 142 Misc. 352, 255 N.Y.S. 373, 1931 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1778 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1931).

Opinion

Wheeler, S.

This proceeding for the judicial settlement of the accounts of Arthur J. Straub and Livingston County Trust Company, as administrator with the will annexed and as successor trustees of the last will and testament of Kate J. Jackson, deceased, involves the construction of the provisions of the will relative to the time of the termination of the trust therein created.

The will was dated January 6, 1919, and was probated in Surrogate’s Court, Livingston county, March 1, 1921, and letters testamentary were issued to J. Arthur Jackson, therein named, who entered upon the discharge of his duties, and continued to act as such executor and trustee to the time of his death which occurred November 15, 1922.

The 3d paragraph of the will disposes of the residuum of the estate to the executor named, in trust, however, the income to be paid to decedent’s grandson, James Arthur Jackson, Jr., until the principal of the trust be disposed of as in the will provided.

The 4th paragraph, which is under consideration, reads:

“ 4th. I further will and direct my said executor and trustee to pay one third of the principal of said trust fund, comprising the entire residuum of my estate, to my said grandson, James Arthur Jackson, Jr., when my said grandson shall attain the age of thirty years; to pay one third of the same, or an amount equal to the first payment so directed to be made, to my said grandson when [354]*354he shall attain the age of thirty five years; and to pay the balance of the remaining one third of the principal of said trust fund with all gains and increase of capital thereof to my said grandson when he shall attain the age of forty years, such gifts to my said grandson to be absolute for his own use and benefit forever. I further expressly provide that the net income from whatever amount of the principal of such trust fund shall remain in the hands of my said executor and trustee shall continue to be paid to my said grandson semi-annually until the last installment of the principal of such fund shall be paid to him upon his attaining the age of forty years.
I further direct and provide that in case the Rochester Trust and Safe Deposit Company of Rochester, New York, shall, by reason of any provisions herein, be executor or trustee of this, my will, when or at any time after, my said grandson shall attain the age of thirty years, then and in that event, that the trust herein created shall immediately terminate, and the entire property of my estate shall be promptly turned over to my said grandson to be his absolutely for bis own use and benefit forever.”

The testatrix in nominating the executor and trustee of her will employed the following language:

“ Lastly. I name, constitute and appoint my son, J. Arthur Jackson, to be the sole executor of this my last will and testament, hereby revoking all former wills and codicils by me made, and I further direct that my said executor shall not be required to give any bond as such, in any event whatsoever.
I further provide that in case of the death of my son, J. Arthur Jackson, prior to the probate of this, my will, or in case, for any reason, my said son shall fail to qualify as such executor, then and in that event, I name, constitute and appoint Rochester Trust and Safe Deposit Company of Rochester, New York, to be executor of, and trustee under, this my will.
I further direct and provide that, in case of the death of my said son, J. Arthur Jackson, after the issuance of letters testamentary to him, and prior to the termination of the trust herein created, then and in that event I name, constitute and appoint the Rochester Trust and Safe Deposit Company of Rochester, New York, executor of and trustee under this, my will, to succeed my said son, J. Arthur Jackson.”

The exact conditions contemplated by the testatrix as evidenced by the last paragraph, relative to the appointment of the Rochester Trust and Safe Deposit Company as successor executor and trustee, happened, viz., J. Arthur Jackson, after the issuance of letters to him and prior to the termination of the trust created, died [355]*355on November 15, 1922, and the time in the due administration of this estate for the qualification and appointment of the Rochester Trust and Safe Deposit Company occurred. The Rochester Trust and Safe Deposit Company, however, failed to qualify and formally renounced the right to such letters and the petitioners herein were duly appointed in the place of the successor trustee, contemplated by the will of decedent.

Under the foregoing circumstances, the petitioning administrators with the will annexed contend that the trust terminated when the beneficiary became Thirty years of age, the Rochester Trust and Safe Deposit Company having formally declined to act.

The special guardian for the infant, James Edward Jackson, and counsel for James A. Jackson, Jr., submits that the trust was not terminated by the failure of the Rochester Trust and Safe Deposit Company to act, and asks that the court should construe the will and direct the payment of one-third of the bequest to James A. Jackson when he attains the age of thirty years; one-third when he attains the age of thirty-five, and the remainder when he attains the age of forty years.

The son named as executor and trustee by the testatrix having died within the time contemplated by the will, and the grandson, James A. Jackson, Jr., being now over thirty years of age, and the Rochester Trust and Safe Deposit Company having declined to act, as provided in decedent’s will, creates the sole question for the court, stated briefly as follows: Was the trust terminated by the death of the executor and the failure of the Rochester Trust and Safe Deposit Company to qualify and act as successor executor and trustee.

In construing wills the expressed intention of the testator always controls.

Intention is the will or wish of the decedent respecting the disposition of his estate, and it is the duty of the courts to .see that the person receives the benefit contemplated by the decedent, through the language used.

The testator’s intention is the primary guide governing the construction of wills. (Matter of Bump, 234 N. Y. 60; Rezzemini v. Brooks, 118 Misc. 791; Matter of Trevor, 119 id. 277; Matter of Van Tassell, Id. 478; Matter of James, 146 N. Y. 78; Miller v. Gilbert, 144 id. 68, 70; Delaney v. Van Aulen, 84 id. 16.)

The first step is to ascertain the intent of the testatrix and to effectuate it if it be lawful. (Matter of Gallien, 221 App. Div. 409.)

Precedents, however, have but slight value in the interpretation of wills, for the reason that wills are rarely similar in terms (Robinson v. Martin, 200 N. Y. 159,164; Greene v. Greene, 125 id. 506, 512), and [356]*356decided cases may be readily distinguished on the ground of dissimilarity of purpose, the fortune, family or affections of the individual whose will is presented for construction. (Kinkele v. Wilson, 151 N. Y. 269, 277.)

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

Related

Kinkele v. . Wilson
45 N.E. 869 (New York Court of Appeals, 1897)
Collister v. . Fassitt
57 N.E. 490 (New York Court of Appeals, 1900)
In Re the Will of Bump
136 N.E. 295 (New York Court of Appeals, 1922)
In Re the Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of James
40 N.E. 876 (New York Court of Appeals, 1895)
Robinson v. . Martin
93 N.E. 488 (New York Court of Appeals, 1910)
Bowditch v. . Ayrault
34 N.E. 514 (New York Court of Appeals, 1893)
Matter of Hoffman
94 N.E. 990 (New York Court of Appeals, 1911)
In re Gallien
221 A.D. 409 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1927)
Rezzemini v. Brooks
118 Misc. 791 (New York Supreme Court, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
142 Misc. 352, 255 N.Y.S. 373, 1931 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1778, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-jackson-nysurct-1931.