Cox v. Wills
New Jersey Court of Chancery
On bill for direction &c. Heard on pleadings and proofs. The complainants are the executrix and executors of the will of Lydia H. Leeds, deceased, and the complainant Mary A. H. Cox is the residuary legatee named in that will.
Read the full summary
On bill for direction &c. Heard on pleadings and proofs. The complainants are the executrix and executors of the will of Lydia H. Leeds, deceased, and the complainant Mary A. H. Cox is the residuary legatee named in that will. Lydia H. Leeds was the surviving executrix of the will of her husband, John Leeds, who died in March, 1866. The ostensible object of the bill — which is filed against- his heirs at law, who are his next of kin, and also against the beneficiaries under the will of Lydia II. Leeds — is to obtain the direction of the court as to the disposition of the personal estate of…
1Opinion of the Court
Pitney, V. C.
I. The contention of the complainant Mrs. Cox is, that the-bequest of the residue to Mrs. Leeds, in the language above set forth, must be construed as an absolute gift, and that the limitation over is, therefore,' void, and that the house and lot, being-subject to a power of sale, must be treated as converted into personalty and subject to the same disposition.
The defendant Mrs. Wills, on the other side, claims that the bequest of the residue was not an absolute gift, but subject to a trust — first, in favor of the widow as to so much thereof as she might need and actually use…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Howard v. CarusiSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
3Cited by10 opinions
- Ryder v. MyersNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1933
- Central Hanover Bank Trust Co. v. HelmeNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1937
- Bankers Trust Co. v. NY, Etc., AnimalsNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1952
- First-Mech. Nat. Bank v. First-Mech. Nat. BankNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1945
- Smith v. FieldNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1926
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.