Cross v. Cross

I respectfully dissent from the principal opinion for the following reasons: (1) The will of Mary Forbes Cross in my opinion is not ambiguous. (2) Section 347 Restatement of the Law of Property, is not in my opinion applicable to the facts of this case. For those reasons, it is my conclusion that Matthew Forbes Cross did not effectively exercise the power of appointment granted to him by his aunt Mary.

I

The legal principle stands established beyond any possible question that a donor of a power of appointment may effectively restrict the manner in which that power may be exercised. That well…