Legal Opinion

In re the Estate of Dooley

New York Surrogate's Court

Decided March 8, 1935PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Wingate, S.

In the absence of a pertinent statute, the question of whether a legatee is entitled to preference in payment of his legacy, where an abatement becomes necessary, is purely one of the intention of the testator. (Matter of Smallman, 138 Misc. 889, 892.) Such intent is determinable only from the language of the will itself (Matter of Rossiter, 134 Misc. 837, 840; affd., 229 App. Div. 730; affd., 254 N. Y. 583; Matter of Weissman, 137 Misc. 113, 114; affd. on opinion of this court, 232 App. Div. 698; Matter of Quinby, 134 Misc. 296, 299; Matter of Shumway, 138 id. 429, 434) when read…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. In re the Estate of SmallmanNew York Surrogate's Court · 1931
  2. In re Brooklyn Trust Co.New York Surrogate's Court · 1929
  3. In Re the Accounting of Brooklyn Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1930
  4. In re the Estate of WeissmannNew York Surrogate's Court · 1930
  5. In re PrattNew York Surrogate's Court · 1929

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. In re the Estate of KelloggNew York Surrogate's Court · 1935
  2. In re the Estate of FriedmanNew York Surrogate's Court · 1936

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

Powered by the Exa API