Warren T. Godfroy v. Suzanne De Charette
This text of 84 S.W.2d 66 (Warren T. Godfroy v. Suzanne De Charette) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Opinion op the Court by
Reversing.
This appeal is prosecuted from the same judgment affirmed in part in St. Matthews Bank v. De Charette, 259 Ky. 802, — S. W. (2d) — , decided June 4, 1935. It is on the same record.
The circuit court held that the power of appointment given Sue T. Henning by the will of Bettie Meriwether was a special power, and that Sue T. Henning’s appointment or devise of a remainder interest in the *148 subject-matter to Warreu T. Godfroy and Matt J. Holt was ineffectual and void, since they were not within those for whom the power was created. Our decision was that it was a general and not a special power. Hence it follows that Sue T. Henning’s appointment to Godfroy and Holt was a valid exercise of the power.
The judgment in this regard was therefore erroneous, and to that extent it is reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
84 S.W.2d 66, 260 Ky. 147, 1935 Ky. LEXIS 449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warren-t-godfroy-v-suzanne-de-charette-kyctapphigh-1935.