Hillen v. . Iselin
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal irom judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered upon an order made February 17, 1893, which affirmed a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term.
Read the full summary
Appeal irom judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered upon an order made February 17, 1893, which affirmed a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term. This action was for the construction of the will of Columbus O’Donnell, in his lifetime a citizen and resident of Maryland, who died in 1813, leaving four children surviving him, including a daughter, Mrs. Emily Hillen, who died in 1888, leaving two children, Thomas Hillen and Emily McSherry, and to-have an appointment made, by Emily Hillen in…
1Opinion of the Court
Andrews, Ch. J.
The validity of the appointment made by Emily Hillen depends upon the true construction of the power of appointment conferred upon her by the will of Columbus O’Donnell. The donee of a special power to appoint an estate, given by deed or will, is invested with an authority merely, and unless the 'appointment confprms to the authority given, the appointment is invalid, in so far, at least, as it transcends the power. The validity of an act in execution of a power is determined by the principles of agency. The appellant claims that the appointment made by the will of Emily Hillen…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Purdy v. . HaytNew York Court of Appeals · 1883
- Thomas v. GreggCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1892
3Cited by51 opinions
- Graves v. SchmidlappSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Fargo v. . SquiersNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
- In re HornidgeNew York Surrogate's Court · 1929
- Bishop v. BishopNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
- Bartlett v. SearsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1908
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.