Legal Opinion

Rogers v. Rogers

New York Surrogate's Court

Decided January 15, 1881PublishedCited by 1 opinion

The testator, in and by his last will and testament, among other things, appointed Jacob S. Rogers, Columbus B. Rogers, Theodore Rogers and Thomas Rogers trustees of certain trusts, and provided as follows for the tilling of vacancies: “ And I hereby declare that if said trustees, or any of them, or any person or persons to be appointed under this clause, shall die, or be unwilling or incompetent to execute the trusts of my will, it shall be lawful for my said wife, during…

Read the full summary

The testator, in and by his last will and testament, among other things, appointed Jacob S. Rogers, Columbus B. Rogers, Theodore Rogers and Thomas Rogers trustees of certain trusts, and provided as follows for the tilling of vacancies: “ And I hereby declare that if said trustees, or any of them, or any person or persons to be appointed under this clause, shall die, or be unwilling or incompetent to execute the trusts of my will, it shall be lawful for my said wife, during her life, and, after her death, for the competent trustees or trustee for the time being, whether retiring from the…

1Opinion of the Court

The Surrogate.—At common law, the provision made in the will for filling vacancies in the office of trustee is good (Lewin on Trusts, 465; and see Hartnett v. Wandell, 60. N. Y., 346; and Belmont v. O’Brien, 12 Id., 394), and I am not aware of any statute contravening the right of appointment thus conferred upon the widow. The trust may be executed by the surviving trustees even if she should not exercise that right, (Ib., 267, 268.) She now proposes to appoint Judge Gifford to fill a vacancy. She is the donee of the power and *523may alone exercise it, without- any interference of this court,…

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. In re BoyleAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1915

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

Powered by the Exa API