Legal Opinion
In re the Accounting of Gordon
New York Surrogate's Court
Decided May 12, 1944PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Taylor, S.
This case involves determination of that elusive element known as intent. There is not the slightest difference of opinion in the cases that it is the duty of courts to ascertain the testator’s intent and then effectuate it, if it may be done without running counter to established rules of law. (Deal v. Abramson, 132 F. 2d 252; Matter of Loomis, 149 Misc. 417.)
There is no doubt either that one’s intention is to he ascertained from the words he used in his will and from the surrounding circumstances at the time of the execution of the instrument. (Security Trust Co. of Rochester v.…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Manice v. . ManiceNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Smith v. . EdwardsNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Herzog v. . Title Guarantee Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1903
- In Re the Accounting of WilcoxNew York Court of Appeals · 1909
- Vanderpoel v. . LoewNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Partridge v. Von AhndenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
- In re the Accounting of GravesNew York Surrogate's Court · 1949
- In re the Accounting of GreacenNew York Surrogate's Court · 1945