Merritt v. Corties

New York Supreme Court

Merritt v. Corties

24 N.Y.S. 561, 54 N.Y. St. Rep. 215, 71 Hun 612

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 28, 1893

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 24 N.Y.S. 561 (Merritt v. Corties) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Merritt v. Corties, 24 N.Y.S. 561, 54 N.Y. St. Rep. 215, 71 Hun 612 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

PEATT, J.

There is neither reason nor authority to support the contention of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has referred us to many decisions laying down undoubted rules of law, but the difficulty with them is they have no application to the case in hand. By a reference to the will it will be observed that a discretionary power is vested in the trustees, and a court of equity will not assume the power to abrogate such a trust, especially in the absence of proof of misconduct on the part of the trustee. The contention that the property claimed should be distributed under the laws of the state of Georgia, where he resides, has no merit. The testator lived, .made his will, and died in New York, and the property is located in this state, and must be distributed under the laws thereof. Cross v. Trust Co., 131 N. Y. 330, 30 N. E. Rep. 125. The case is too plain to admit of discussion.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

PEATT, J.

There is neither reason nor authority to support the contention of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has referred us to many decisions laying down undoubted rules of law, but the difficulty with them is they have no application to the case in hand. By a reference to the will it will be observed that a discretionary power is vested in the trustees, and a court of equity will not assume the power to abrogate such a trust, especially in the absence of proof of misconduct on the part of the trustee. The contention that the property claimed should be distributed under the laws of the state of Georgia, where he resides, has no merit. The testator lived, .made his will, and died in New York, and the property is located in this state, and must be distributed under the laws thereof. Cross v. Trust Co., 131 N. Y. 330, 30 N. E. Rep. 125. The case is too plain to admit of discussion.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 N.Y.S. 561, 54 N.Y. St. Rep. 215, 71 Hun 612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merritt-v-corties-nysupct-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack