Legal Opinion

Paul v. Paul

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided June 7, 1926PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The single inquiry herein presented is whether by the provisions of her will testatrix intended to exercise the power of appointment which she enjoyed under the will of her father.

Nowhere in her will does testatrix make specific reference to the power. Standing alone, the instrument would be declared inoperative upon the trust estate. Farnum v. Pennsylvania Co.,87 N.J. Eq. 108; affirmed, Ibid. 652. But when the provisions of the will are viewed in the light of extrinsic circumstances disclosed by the evidence, it seems impossible to doubt that it was the obvious intent of testatrix to…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Farnum v. Pennsylvania Co. for Insurance on Lives & Granting AnnuitiesNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1916
  2. German Pioneer Verein v. MeyerNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1906
  3. Van Nostrand v. Board of Domestic Missions of the Reformed Church in AmericaNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1899
  4. Wooster v. CooperNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1900
  5. Lippincott v. HavilandNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1922

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Carlisle v. Delaware Trust Co.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1953
  2. Board of Home Missions, C. v. SaltmerNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1939
  3. In Re BurnettNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1957
  4. Busch v. PlewsNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1952
  5. Camden Safe Deposit Trust Co. v. FitlerNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1938

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

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

Powered by the Exa API