Hooker v. Hooker
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the plaintiff, Caroline C. Hooker, and by the defendants, Adah Louise Hooker and Hattie Emma Hooker, from so much of a judgment of the.
Read the full summary
Appeal by the plaintiff, Caroline C. Hooker, and by the defendants, Adah Louise Hooker and Hattie Emma Hooker, from so much of a judgment of the. Supreme Court in favor of the defendants George Hooker and others, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 16th day of February, 1899, upon the decision of the court, rendered after a trial at the Kings County Special Term, as adjudges that the trusts created by the last will and testament of Matthew Hooker, deceased, are valid, and that there is no unlawful suspension of the power of alienation.
1Opinion of the Court
Cullen, J. :
This action was brought to obtain a construction of the will of Matthew Hooker, who died November 30, 1897, possessed of real and personal estate amounting to about $50,000, and whose will is as follows:
“ I, Matthew Hooker, of the city of Brooklyn, do make, publish and declare this to be my last will and testament as follows:
“ First. I order and direct the payment of my funeral and testamentary expenses and all my just debts.
“ Second. I give and bequeath to my wife, Caroline C. Hooker, all my household furniture of every description.
“ Third. I give, devise and bequeath to my…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Savage v. . BurnhamNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Cochrane v. . SchellNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
- Buchanan v. . LittleNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
- Verplanck v. TompkinsNew York Court of Appeals · 1898
- Buchanan v. LittleAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
3Cited by3 opinions
- In re ErbNew York Surrogate's Court · 1929
- People's Trust Co. v. FlynnAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1905
- In re GallienNew York Surrogate's Court · 1926