Legal Opinion
In re the Amendment to a Trust Agreement between Peabody & Dunnington
New York Court of Appeals
Decided April 16, 1959PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFuld, J.
Whether or not a child en ventre sa mere is a “ person beneficially interested ” in a trust, within the meaning of section 23 of the Personal Property Law, is the sole question presented. If it is such a person, then, there may be no revocation of the trust even though all the living beneficiaries interested have given their consents.
On May 11, 1951, five days after reaching her twenty-first birthday, Judith Dunnington Peabody, recently married, created the irrevocable trust here involved. The corpus consisted of the grantor’s remainder interest in two trusts created by her great aunt along…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Woods v. LancetNew York Court of Appeals · 1951
- Marsellis v. ThalhimerNew York Court of Chancery · 1830
- Mason v. JonesNew York Supreme Court · 1848
- Smith v. Title Guarantee & Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1942
- County Trust Company v. YoungNew York Court of Appeals · 1942
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Graf v. TaggertSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1964
- LaBello v. Albany Medical Center HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 1995
- Dorcy v. First Trust Co. of St. PaulSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
- Eckel v. HassanNew York Supreme Court · 1976
- Matter of SchrollSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.