Maxwell v. Hoge

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maxwell v. Hoge

178 A.D. 936

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

DecidedMay 15, 1917

StatusPublished

This text of 178 A.D. 936 (Maxwell v. Hoge) 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

Maxwell v. Hoge, 178 A.D. 936 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

We think the proper construction of the will of Margaret J. Maurice, deceased, is that it gave to her incompetent sister, Sarah, as much of the income as was “ required or necessary ” for her “ proper care, comfort, maintenance and support.” That amount did not rest in the uncontrolled' discretion of the trustees, but was capable of judicial aseer-, tainment, and the amount was determined by the order of the court in the ineompeteney proceedings to be $300 per month. It follows that under all the circumstances the will must be construed as devoting to the use of the beneficiary, Sarah, the income of the estate up to $300 per month. (Rudland v. Croizier, 2 DeGex & Jones, 143; Forman v. Whitney, 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 163.) But whatever rights either plaintiff or the administratrix of the estate of Sarah E. Maurice might draw from this construction of the will are lost by the adjudication of the Surrogate’s Court on the accounting of the executors of Margaret J. Maurice, deceased, and of the Supreme Court, in Hoge v. Babcock. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Jenks, P. J., Mills, Rich, Putnam and Blaekmar, JJ., concurred.

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

We think the proper construction of the will of Margaret J. Maurice, deceased, is that it gave to her incompetent sister, Sarah, as much of the income as was “ required or necessary ” for her “ proper care, comfort, maintenance and support.” That amount did not rest in the uncontrolled' discretion of the trustees, but was capable of judicial aseer-, tainment, and the amount was determined by the order of the court in the ineompeteney proceedings to be $300 per month. It follows that under all the circumstances the will must be construed as devoting to the use of the beneficiary, Sarah, the income of the estate up to $300 per month. (Rudland v. Croizier, 2 DeGex & Jones, 143; Forman v. Whitney, 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 163.) But whatever rights either plaintiff or the administratrix of the estate of Sarah E. Maurice might draw from this construction of the will are lost by the adjudication of the Surrogate’s Court on the accounting of the executors of Margaret J. Maurice, deceased, and of the Supreme Court, in Hoge v. Babcock. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Jenks, P. J., Mills, Rich, Putnam and Blaekmar, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 A.D. 936, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maxwell-v-hoge-nyappdiv-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack