Legal Opinion

In re the Estate of Hanna

New York Surrogate's Court

Decided January 28, 1936PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Wingate, S.

As this court has pointed out in two previous memoranda (N. Y. L. J. June 14, 1935, p. 3083, and Sept. 19, *1781935, p. 832), it was the obvious expectation of the testatrix that the Hempstead property, which was the main asset of her estate, should be the source of the moneys to pay the legacies under her will. Apparently realizing that economic conditions were such as to make a prompt disposal impossible, she gave her executors a broad discretion as to the time when liquidation should be effected, and expressly postponed the due dates of the bequests “ until said real property…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. In the Matter, Etc., of Estate of WestonNew York Court of Appeals · 1883
  2. In re the Estate of SurplessNew York Surrogate's Court · 1932

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. In re the Estate of DenariNew York Surrogate's Court · 1937
  2. In re the Estate of SegalNew York Surrogate's Court · 1939
  3. In re the Estate of DesmondNew York Surrogate's Court · 1937
  4. In re the Estate of FroehlichNew York Surrogate's Court · 1985

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

Powered by the Exa API