Smith v. . Robertson

89 N.Y. 555, 1882 N.Y. LEXIS 257
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 10, 1882
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 89 N.Y. 555 (Smith v. . Robertson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Smith v. . Robertson, 89 N.Y. 555, 1882 N.Y. LEXIS 257 (N.Y. 1882).

Opinion

Bapallo, J.

We are of the opinion that on the death of John J. Scott, the testator, the real estate in controversy descended to his infant daughter, under the provision of 2 R. S. 65, § 49, in the same manner as it would have descended if the father had died intestate, and that the infant does not take under the will, or subject to any of its provisions.

The statute, instead of declaring the entire will revoked by the subsequent birth of issue for whom no provision is made, renders, it inoperative as to that portion of the testator’s estate which, if he had died intestate, would have descended, or been distributed to the after-born child. When, as in this case, there is no other heir, the whole of the real estaté descends to the child, as it would have done had there been no will, subject only to the dower of the widow, and the power of sale contained in the will fails. The remedies given by the statute against devisees, to recover a portion of the property where only a portion descends to an after-born child, do not operate to subject the estate of such child to a power of sale contained in the will, or to confine his remedies to a pursuit of the proceeds of sale. He is entitled by the plain terms of the statute to recover the same portion of the corpus of the estate which he would have been entitled to had his father died intestate.

The order should be affirmed, and judgment absolute rendered against the defendants on their stipulation; but as it appears that, at the time of the death of the testator, the real *559 estate was subject to a mortgage which the purchaser discharged, the judgment should be without prejudice to his rights to a lien for the amount paid to discharge the mortgage, or to be subrogated to the rights of the mortgagee.

All concur.

Order affirmed and judgment accordingly.

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

Related

In re the Estate of Nelson
195 Misc. 2d 652 (New York Surrogate's Court, 2003)
In re the Estate of McGraw
29 Misc. 2d 555 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1961)
In re the Accounting of Vicedomini
285 A.D. 62 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1954)
In re the Estate of Smith
202 Misc. 64 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1951)
In re the Probate of the Will of Heckel
200 Misc. 52 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1951)
Conroy v. Conroy
110 S.W.2d 568 (Texas Supreme Court, 1937)
In re the Estate of Hume
139 Misc. 327 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1931)
In Re Haines
129 A. 867 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1925)
Gillespie v. Truka
175 N.W. 883 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1919)
In re the Estate of Sauer
13 Mills Surr. 555 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1915)
In re the Will of Campbell
12 Mills Surr. 418 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1914)
Yung v. Blake
163 A.D. 501 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1914)
In re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Godwin
10 Mills Surr. 30 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1912)
Tavshanjian v. . Abbott
93 N.E. 978 (New York Court of Appeals, 1911)
Obecny v. Goetz
116 A.D. 807 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1907)
Van Wickle v. Van Wickle
44 A. 877 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1899)
Matter of Murphy
39 N.E. 691 (New York Court of Appeals, 1895)
Luce v. Burchard
85 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 537 (New York Supreme Court, 1894)
Gooch v. Botts
20 S.W. 192 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1892)
Newman v. Waterman
23 N.W. 696 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1885)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
89 N.Y. 555, 1882 N.Y. LEXIS 257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-robertson-ny-1882.