Livingston v. . Murray
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, affirming a judgment entered upon the report of a referee. (Reported helow, 4 Hun, 619.) This action was brought to obtain a judicial construction of the will of James B. Murray, late of the city of Hew York, and of a codicil thereto. The clauses of the will relating to the question presented on this appeal are as follows: “ Secondly.
Read the full summary
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, affirming a judgment entered upon the report of a referee. (Reported helow, 4 Hun, 619.) This action was brought to obtain a judicial construction of the will of James B. Murray, late of the city of Hew York, and of a codicil thereto. The clauses of the will relating to the question presented on this appeal are as follows: “ Secondly. All the rest of my estate, of whatsoever kind, I hereby direct shall be divided equally among all my children ; and in case of their death before me, among their…
1Opinion of the CourtEarl, J.
The sole complaint made by the appellant of the decision below is, that it ordered her share to be paid and delivered to the Flew York Life Insurance and Trust Company, instead of to her. Her claim is that she was entitled to such share absolutely, and if not, that she was entitled to have it paid and delivered to her either with or without security therefor on her part.
The will and the codicil together constitute the last will and testament of the testator, and to arrive at his intention they must be considered and construed together.
It is undisputed that a testator may in form make an…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Ide v. IdeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- Terry v. . WigginsNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Tyson v. . BlakeNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- Clark v. ClarkNew York Court of Chancery · 1840
- Forrest v. PhillipsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1859
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Hodgman v. CobbAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
- In Re the Will of Von KleistNew York Court of Appeals · 1934
- In re FernbacherNew York Surrogate's Court · 1886
- Patterson & Co. v. LawrenceSupreme Court of Georgia · 1889
- In re the Estate of PennockNew York Surrogate's Court · 1939
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.