Carroll v. Conley
New York Supreme Court
Case submitted on agreed statement. This controversy arises upon the question of the right of plaintiff, as surviving executrix of her father, Hugh Kelly, deceased, to convey property of her testator. Defendant, John Conley, Jr., claims that, under that will, plaintiff has no right to convey the premises in question, and that she has only life-estate therein, and is not entitled to convey as executrix.
1Opinion of the CourtBarrett, J.
Two questions are here presented: First, whether Mary E. Carroll took an absolute estate in fee under her father’s will; second, whether the plaintiff, as surviving executrix, was entitled to convey the premises in question under the power conferred by the fifth clause of the will. Both questions should be decided in the plaintiff’s favor.
By the third clause of the will an absolute estate in fee was given to Mrs. Carroll. That clause reads as follows: “Third. It is my will, and I do hereby so direct, that all the rest, residue, and remainder of my property and estate, both real and personal,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Quackenbos v. . KingslandNew York Court of Appeals · 1886
- Roseboom v. MosherNew York Supreme Court · 1846
- Black v. WilliamsNew York Supreme Court · 1889
- Taylor v. . MorrisNew York Court of Appeals · 1848
3Cited by1 opinion
- Wellbrock v. RoddyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1915