Lahey v. Kortright
The Superior Court of New York City
On a sale by Eichard V. Harnett, in partition proceedings, of portions of the estate of the late Nicholas G. Kortright, the plaintiff Lahey was the purchaser of premises for §36,300, and the plaintiff Marshall purchased other premises for §44,800. When the title came to be examined, it was found that Edward Minturn and George W. Blunt, who were named as trustees, under the will, with power of sale, having renounced the right to serve, the defendants, then minors, after an…
Read the full summary
On a sale by Eichard V. Harnett, in partition proceedings, of portions of the estate of the late Nicholas G. Kortright, the plaintiff Lahey was the purchaser of premises for §36,300, and the plaintiff Marshall purchased other premises for §44,800. When the title came to be examined, it was found that Edward Minturn and George W. Blunt, who were named as trustees, under the will, with power of sale, having renounced the right to serve, the defendants, then minors, after an interval of several years, were appointed as trustees by the supreme court. But it was claimed that no power was given…
1Opinion of the CourtFreedman, J.
Assuming that the power of sale given by the will was an imperative and general power in trust, which, although discretionary as to the time of execution, could, on the death, removal, resignation or refusal to act of the trustees, be conferred by the supreme court on a trustee appointed by that court to carry out the trusts created by the will, the question still remains whether the supreme court really did confer the power. If it was conferred, it must be found in the order of appointment, for a trustee so appointed takes all his power from the order of his appointnient.
In Kortright,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Farrar v. . McCueNew York Court of Appeals · 1882