Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

In re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Proceedings of Richardson

New York Surrogate's Court

Decided December 13, 1929PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Schulz, S.

The decree as presented should not be signed. A person cannot legally be the sole trustee and the sole beneficiary of the same identical interest. (Rose v. Hatch, 125 N. Y. 427, 431; Greene v. Greene, Id. 506, 510; Weeks v. Frankel, 197 id. 304, 310; Matter of Farrell, 133 App. Div. 97, 99; affd., 198 N. Y. 579; Major v. Major, 177 App. Div. 102, 106.) Woodward v. James (115 N. Y. 346), to which my attention is drawn, does not change the law in this respect, but, on the contrary, reaffirms it. Under the will in question the person named as cestui que trust takes a legal life estate.…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Woodward v. . JamesNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
  2. Rose v. . HatchNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
  3. Livingston v. . MurrayNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
  4. In re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of RowlandAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1912
  5. In re Shipman's EstateNew York Supreme Court · 1889

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. In re the Estate of JohnsonNew York Surrogate's Court · 1956
  2. In re the Estate of MerrittNew York Surrogate's Court · 1944
  3. In re the Estate of SeidmanNew York Surrogate's Court · 1976
  4. In re the Estate of ConnollyNew York Surrogate's Court · 1935
  5. In re the Estate of BermanNew York Surrogate's Court · 1962

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API