Brinkerhoff v. Seabury
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal from a judgment entered in New York county clerk’s office January 20, 1910.
1Opinion of the Court
Judgment affirmed on the opinion of Bisohoff, J., in the court below.
The following is the opinion of the court below:
Bisohoff, J.:
The provision for the accumulation of income for fifteen years being obviously void, I am to determine the extent to which other directions in *917the will, depending upon or connected with the invalid provision, may be enforced. The payment of §3,000 annually for their lives to the testator’s two daughters, as directed in paragraph 5, must be considered as upon a trust, separate and distinct from the trust provision for their benefit in paragraph 7. The 5th paragraph…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Kalish v. . KalishNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
- Fargo v. . SquiersNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
3Cited by12 opinions
- In Re the Accounting of SilsbyNew York Court of Appeals · 1920
- In Re the Probate of Will of HitchcockNew York Court of Appeals · 1917
- In re the Accounting of HellerNew York Court of Appeals · 1954
- In re Proving the Last Will & Testament of BerryAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1913
- In re the Estate of LoebNew York Surrogate's Court · 1935
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.