Legal Opinion
Hughes v. Hiscox
New York Supreme Court
Decided January 15, 1920PublishedCited by 2 opinions
Motion for judgment on the pleadings.
1Opinion of the CourtVan Siclen, J.
The defendants move for judgment on the pleadings after demurring to the complaint. It appears that the will of David Hiscox, who died in 1906, provided as follows: “ I will and direct that my son-in-law, Charles E. Hughes, be .retained, and *142employed in the conduct of said business of the Hiscox Chemical Works at a salary of $2,000 per year.”
The will further provided that said business be continued by his two sons whom he nominated as his executors. The said sons did continue said business, but have at all times refused to employ the plaintiff as directed, and he has brought this action to…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Brearley School, Ltd. v. WardNew York Court of Appeals · 1911
- Claim for a Ring of Van Slooten v. DodgeNew York Court of Appeals · 1895
- In Re the Accounting of CaldwellNew York Court of Appeals · 1907
- In re the Second Judicial Settlement & Intermediate Accounting of WallachAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1914
- In Re the Accounting of WallachNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- In re the Construction of the Will of LawlessNew York Surrogate's Court · 1949
- In re the Estate of WilderNew York Surrogate's Court · 1988