Cromer v. Pinckney
New York Court of Chancery
This-was an appeal from a decree of the vice chancellor of (he first circuit, settling the construction of the fourth .clause of the will of Peter Marks deceased, and authorizing the' defendants, as" executors of the decedent, to pay to the’ complainant and others their several legacies of $506 each, in conformity to that construction.
Read the full summary
This-was an appeal from a decree of the vice chancellor of (he first circuit, settling the construction of the fourth .clause of the will of Peter Marks deceased, and authorizing the' defendants, as" executors of the decedent, to pay to the’ complainant and others their several legacies of $506 each, in conformity to that construction. Peter Marks, the testator, died in March, 1845, leaving real estate, and personal property of the value of about $23,000 over and above his debts. He died without issue ; and'his collateral relatives at the time of his death were as follows : John Marks his…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The objection that the residuary legatees and all other persons w.ho were entitled to legacies under the will should have been made parties to the suit, was not made imthe answer of the defendants. It was too late, therefore, to make it at the hearing; even if the objection would have been valid if made in the answer, or by a demurrer to .the complainant’s bill. I think, however, all the necessary parties Were before the court to enable the complainant to claim his general legacy under the fourth clause of the will. The bill showed that no account was necessary ; and as a…
2Cited by21 opinions
- Presley v. HanksCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1989
- Central Trust Co. v. SkillinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1912
- Johnstone v. TaliaferroSupreme Court of Georgia · 1899
- Shalkhauser v. BeachCuyahoga County Probate Court · 1968
- Fedi v. RyanSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1937
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.