In re the Last Will & Testament & Codicils of Bertuch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Last Will & Testament & Codicils of Bertuch

225 A.D. 773

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 15, 1928·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Order of the Surrogate’s Court of Suffolk county, made on the 10th day of September, 1928, denying the applications of appellants to direct the trustees to pay to them the principal sum bequeathed to each for the purchase of an annuity, reversed upon the law, without costs, and applications granted, without costs. Since the testamentary gift of an annuity must be regarded as a legacy of the definite sum required to purchase it (Matter of Cole, 174 App. Div. 534; affd., 219 N. Y. 435; Reid v. Brown, 54 Misc. 481), the subsequent provisions in the will that the direction to the executors and trustees to purchase the annuity shall be mandatory, and that the annuitants shall not be entitled to claim or accept direct payment in lieu of such annuity, are repugnant to the terms of absolute gift and of no effect. (Arden v. Goodacre, 11 C. B. 883; Stokes v. Cheek, 28 Beav. 620; Matter of Mabbett [Pitman v. Holborrow], L. R. [1891] 1 Ch. 707.) Lazansky, P. J., Rich, Kapper, Hagarty and Carswell, JJ., concur. [132 Misc. 731.]

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

Order of the Surrogate’s Court of Suffolk county, made on the 10th day of September, 1928, denying the applications of appellants to direct the trustees to pay to them the principal sum bequeathed to each for the purchase of an annuity, reversed upon the law, without costs, and applications granted, without costs. Since the testamentary gift of an annuity must be regarded as a legacy of the definite sum required to purchase it (Matter of Cole, 174 App. Div. 534; affd., 219 N. Y. 435; Reid v. Brown, 54 Misc. 481), the subsequent provisions in the will that the direction to the executors and trustees to purchase the annuity shall be mandatory, and that the annuitants shall not be entitled to claim or accept direct payment in lieu of such annuity, are repugnant to the terms of absolute gift and of no effect. (Arden v. Goodacre, 11 C. B. 883; Stokes v. Cheek, 28 Beav. 620; Matter of Mabbett [Pitman v. Holborrow], L. R. [1891] 1 Ch. 707.) Lazansky, P. J., Rich, Kapper, Hagarty and Carswell, JJ., concur. [132 Misc. 731.]

In re the Last Will & Testament & Codicils of Bertuch, 225 A.D. 773 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

225 A.D. 773 (In re the Last Will & Testament & Codicils of Bertuch) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related