Legal Opinion
In re Seitz
New York Surrogate's Court
Decided May 15, 1918PublishedCited by 5 opinions
Proceeding to compel executors to render and settle their account.
1Opinion of the Court
Ketcham, S.
Construction is necessary of the following provision of the will:
‘ ‘ YIH. I bequeath all the rest, residue and remainder of my estate to my executor hereinafter named to pay my funeral expenses, say Masses and put a modest tomb-stone over my remains.”
That this gift was to the executors by that designation and not to them by name “ negatives the view that the executors were to keep the property as their own.” This was the language used, in Gross v. Moore, 68 Hun, 412. In Matter of Keenan., 107 App. Div. 234, Mr. Justice Bartlett, in distinguishing the case of Gross v. Moore, says: “…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Gross v. MooreNew York Supreme Court · 1893
- Stewart v. FranchettiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1915
- In re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of KeenanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1905
3Cited by5 opinions
- In re the Probate of the Last Will & Testament of TurkNew York Surrogate's Court · 1927
- In re WelchNew York Surrogate's Court · 1918
- In re Construction of the Will of GetmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1968
- In re the Accounting of HalpernNew York Surrogate's Court · 1949
- In re the Appraisal under the Acts in Relation to the Taxable Transfer of the Property of the Estate of HendricksonNew York Surrogate's Court · 1919