Warren T. Godfroy v. Suzanne De Charette

84 S.W.2d 66, 260 Ky. 147, 1935 Ky. LEXIS 449
Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)·Decided June 18, 1935·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Opinion op the Court by

Stanley, Commissioner—

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

Warren T. Godfroy v. Suzanne De Charette, 84 S.W.2d 66, 260 Ky. 147, 1935 Ky. LEXIS 449 (Ky. 1935).

84 S.W.2d 66 (Warren T. Godfroy v. Suzanne De Charette) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

De Charette v. De Charette
264 Ky. 525 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1936)
Decharette v. Decharette
94 S.W.2d 1018 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1936)