In re the Estate of Kraetzer

New York Surrogate's Court

In re the Estate of Kraetzer

147 Misc. 609, 264 N.Y.S. 443, 1933 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1161

CourtNew York Surrogate's Court

DecidedMay 10, 1933

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 147 Misc. 609 (In re the Estate of Kraetzer) 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 Kraetzer, 147 Misc. 609, 264 N.Y.S. 443, 1933 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1161 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Wingate, S.

Since it is firmly established in the law that a document purporting to exercise a power of appointment is to be read into and construed with the document granting the power (Matter of Terwilligar, 135 Misc. 170, 174; affd., 230 App. Div. 763; Matter of Davison, 137 Misc. 852, 858; affd., 236 App. Div. 684; Matter of Wickham, 139 Misc. 729, 731; Matter of Harbeck, 142 id. 57, 59), it follows that the devolution of the property in the inter vivos trust is determinable by a construction of that document into which must be read the pertinent testamentary directions of the donee of the power. Since any compromise in respect to this agreement involves an interpretation of the inter vivos trust, which act is not within the jurisdiction of this court (Matter of Rosenblum, 146 Misc. 537, 538), it follows that this court has no authority to pass upon this phase of the question submitted. (Matter of McCafferty, 147 Misc. 179.)

The compromise of the testamentary controversy is, however, within the authority of the court (Dec. Est. Law, § 19), and it is in accord with the able and painstaking report of the special guardian that approval thereof is advisable. He will, therefore, be permitted to execute a similar instrument to the one submitted, which instrument shall deal only with the testamentary trust created under the will of the above-named decedent.

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

Wingate, S.

Since it is firmly established in the law that a document purporting to exercise a power of appointment is to be read into and construed with the document granting the power (Matter of Terwilligar, 135 Misc. 170, 174; affd., 230 App. Div. 763; Matter of Davison, 137 Misc. 852, 858; affd., 236 App. Div. 684; Matter of Wickham, 139 Misc. 729, 731; Matter of Harbeck, 142 id. 57, 59), it follows that the devolution of the property in the inter vivos trust is determinable by a construction of that document into which must be read the pertinent testamentary directions of the donee of the power. Since any compromise in respect to this agreement involves an interpretation of the inter vivos trust, which act is not within the jurisdiction of this court (Matter of Rosenblum, 146 Misc. 537, 538), it follows that this court has no authority to pass upon this phase of the question submitted. (Matter of McCafferty, 147 Misc. 179.)

The compromise of the testamentary controversy is, however, within the authority of the court (Dec. Est. Law, § 19), and it is in accord with the able and painstaking report of the special guardian that approval thereof is advisable. He will, therefore, be permitted to execute a similar instrument to the one submitted, which instrument shall deal only with the testamentary trust created under the will of the above-named decedent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 Misc. 609, 264 N.Y.S. 443, 1933 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-kraetzer-nysurct-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack