Legal Opinion

In re the Estate of Stephens

New York Surrogate's Court

Decided March 30, 1966PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

John M. Keane, S.

It is not likely that the cunning conveyancer in the 15th century or earlier, who first conceived the idea of a “ feoffment to such uses as the feoffor should appoint by will”, envisioned some of the collateral offspring of the concept which we characterize today as a power of appointment. At its inception, the dominant purpose was to circumvent restrictive laws relating to real property. (See 5 American Law of Property — Part 23, pp. 459-479.)

Interestingly enough, its most publicized use today retains the basic concept of circumvention — only this time the villain is most…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. In Re the Accounting of WildNew York Court of Appeals · 1932
  2. In Re the Accounting of Bank of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1945
  3. In re the Estate of FarollNew York Surrogate's Court · 1963
  4. In re the Accounting of DreyfusNew York Surrogate's Court · 1945
  5. In re the Estate of EdwardsNew York Surrogate's Court · 1944

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. In re the Estate of BurnhamNew York Surrogate's Court · 1968
  2. In re the Estate of SmithNew York Surrogate's Court · 1974
  3. In re the Estate of SnelhamNew York Surrogate's Court · 1972

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

Powered by the Exa API