Legal Opinion

Casperson v. Dunn

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided October 15, 1886PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1. An executor or administrator has no right to the opinion of the court upon matters arising under the will, not connected with his administration. 2. It is the duty of an executor or administrator, where personal property is given by the will to a trustee to be held in trust, and the trustee has refused to serve, and, no one has been appointed in his place, to take charge of the property, and protect and preserve it until a trustee shall have been appointed to receive it.

Read the full summary

1. An executor or administrator has no right to the opinion of the court upon matters arising under the will, not connected with his administration. 2. It is the duty of an executor or administrator, where personal property is given by the will to a trustee to be held in trust, and the trustee has refused to serve, and, no one has been appointed in his place, to take charge of the property, and protect and preserve it until a trustee shall have been appointed to receive it. Bill for construction of will &c. On final hearing on pleadings and proofs.

1Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor.

The bill is filed by the administrator with the will annexed of Mrs. Susan Eliza Dunn, deceased, late of Salem county, for a *88construction of her will, and instructions as to the administrator’s duty thereunder. By the will, which is dated April 22d, 1879, the testatrix, after ordering payment of her debts and funeral expenses, gave all her estate to her trustee, thereinafter appointed, and to his successor in the trust, in trust, for the execution of the will and for the uses and purposes thereinafter mentioned and more particularly set forth. She then gave to the trustee and…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. De Peyster v. ClendiningNew York Court of Chancery · 1840
  2. Dunning v. . Ocean National BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
  3. Landford v. DunklinSupreme Court of Alabama · 1882
  4. King v. DonnellyNew York Court of Chancery · 1835
  5. Pate v. M'ClureCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1826

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. First Camden, Trust v. Hiram Lodge No. 81New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1944

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

Powered by the Exa API