Morgan v. Williams

66 How. Pr. 139
New York Supreme Court·Decided December 15, 1883·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Van Vorst, J.

—Upon an examination of the various clauses of the will of Edward E. Powers, which is now before me, and upon a consideration of the briefs submitted upon the reargument, I am satisfied that upon the happening of the death of one of the beneficiaries, to whom a share of the income was, by the terms of the will of Powers, made payable during the life of Adaline W. Turner, as provided for in the tenth clause of the will, the share of the person so dying should thereafter be paid to the legal representatives of the person so dying up to the .time of the death of Adaline W. Turner (Savery agt. Dyer, Ambler, 139).

Jefferson W, Williams, who was entitled to a share of the income up to the time of the death of Adaline W. Turner, disposed of the legacy coming to him from the estate of Edward E. Powers by his will. Such testamentary disposition doubtless carries his proportion of the income bequeathed to him by Powers, and it should be paid to the person entitled to receive the same under his will.

Such is the construction to be given to the clause of the will of Powers under consideration upon a reargument and consideration of the question.

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

Morgan v. Williams, 66 How. Pr. 139 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1883).

66 How. Pr. 139 (Morgan v. Williams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re the Estate of Deaken
143 Misc. 647 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1932)
In re Real Estate Title Insurance & Trust Co.
122 Misc. 73 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1923)
Matter of Ossman v. . Von Roemer
117 N.E. 576 (New York Court of Appeals, 1917)
Routt v. Newman
159 Ill. App. 456 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1911)
Davison v. Tams
30 Misc. 156 (New York Supreme Court, 1899)
Davy v. Stewart
54 N.Y.S. 774 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)
Kelly v. Casey
17 N.Y.S. 86 (New York Supreme Court, 1891)