Legal Opinion

In re Stuyvesant

New York Court of Chancery

Decided March 26, 1839PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Petition for substitution of trustees to act under the will of Mrs. Susan Barclay. The petition was made out in the names, as well of all the parties nominated trustees by the testatrix, as of the proposed substitutes. Two of the persons named had never acted, and now declined ; and the application was, to appoint others in their stead. The trustees had power to sell and convey real estate and pay over the proceeds to the executors.

1Opinion of the Court

The Vice-Chancellor

said, there should be a reference to a master to ascertain whether the persons nominated were *300suitable and as to the propriety or necessity of their giving security; and the following order was approved and entered : “ At, &c. In the matter of the petition of, &c. On reading and filing the petition of the above named Peter Gerard Stuyvesant, Morris Robinson, George Barclay, Anthony Barclay, Henry Barclay and Schuyler Livingston, duly verified by the oath of all the said petitioners ; and on motion of Francis Griffin, of counsel for the the said petitioners : it is ordered…

2Cited by4 opinions

  1. In re Estate of GilbertNew York Surrogate's Court · 1886
  2. In re WhiteheadNew York Surrogate's Court · 1884
  3. In re the Estate of BurkNew York Surrogate's Court · 1886
  4. Lane v. LewisNew York Surrogate's Court · 1886

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API