Stagg v. Beekman
New York Court of Chancery
The late colonel Henry Rutgers made his will and also added several codicils to it. By the will, he directed his executors to pay the sum of one thousand dollars to Henry Rutgers Stagg, the complainant, which he gave and bequeathed to him for ever.
Read the full summary
The late colonel Henry Rutgers made his will and also added several codicils to it. By the will, he directed his executors to pay the sum of one thousand dollars to Henry Rutgers Stagg, the complainant, which he gave and bequeathed to him for ever. He directed that all his devisees and legatees should receive the shares and bequests free from any charge ; and authorised his executors, at their discretion, to compound debts where the debtors, from misfortune or otherwise, might be unable to pay or, if his executors thought it just, to forbear suing such debtors altogether. By one of the…
1Opinion of the Court
The Vice-Chancellor:
As the codicil revokes the bequest of the legacy and the devise of the lot, and substitutes the direction to the executors to hold the same for the complainant’s personal use and benefit (subject to the order and direction of the court), it is manifest the testator intended to create a trust which equity should protect and preserve, if possible, for the benefit of the complainant, to the exclusion *91of his creditors; and if this could not be done, then for the same to fall into the residuum of his estate. This is an intention which the court is competent to carry into…
2Cited by9 opinions
- In re the Estate of JamesNew York Surrogate's Court · 1933
- In re the Estate of Van NostrandNew York Surrogate's Court · 1941
- In re the Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of CramerNew York Surrogate's Court · 1904
- In re the Estate of FewerNew York Surrogate's Court · 1941
- Massey v. LeamingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1792
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.