Donovan v. Vandemark
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant, entered upon the trial of this action by the court without a jury. Tho action was one in ejectment. Its determination depended upon the question whether or not a trust attempted to be created by the will of Andrew Schoonmalcer, deceased, was valid.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant, entered upon the trial of this action by the court without a jury. Tho action was one in ejectment. Its determination depended upon the question whether or not a trust attempted to be created by the will of Andrew Schoonmalcer, deceased, was valid. The will provided : “I give, devise and bequeath to my friend George Chambers * * # all my real and personal estate, of every name and kind, wheresoever the same may be, intrust, nevertheless, for the necessary support and maintenance of my son Abraham, during his natural life, and, after the death…
1Opinion of the Court
Boardman, J.:
I am entirely satisfied with the conclusions reached by the learned judge at Special Term, as expressed in his memorandum or opinion.
In Leggett v. Perkins (2 Comst., 297) it was settled, by a divided court, that a trust to receive the rents and profits and pay them over to the beneficiary is valid. Before that decision many learned judges thought such a trust within the prohibition of the Revised Statutes. Since then we have had numerous cases relating to these kind of trusts, but no well considered case is produced which would sustain the appellant’s views. In Rawson v. Lampman…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Vernon v. . VernonNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Rawson v. . LampmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1851
- Wright v. . DouglassNew York Court of Appeals · 1853
- Jarvis v. BabcockNew York Supreme Court · 1849
- Selden v. . VermilyaNew York Court of Appeals · 1850