Northwestern Trust Co.
North Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from the district court court of Grand Forks county, Cooley, J. The question, therefore, is: Are the general and residuary legatees to be placed on the same footing as to the taking of their beneficial interests for the purpose of meeting expenses and debts ? To this question, we submit, the answer must be in the negative. There is no other rule or method directed than that prescribed by § 5722, and it is clear, definite and mandatory.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the district court court of Grand Forks county, Cooley, J. The question, therefore, is: Are the general and residuary legatees to be placed on the same footing as to the taking of their beneficial interests for the purpose of meeting expenses and debts ? To this question, we submit, the answer must be in the negative. There is no other rule or method directed than that prescribed by § 5722, and it is clear, definite and mandatory. Dealing with this precise question, the California Supreme Court, in May, 1920, said: “Section 1516 of the Code of Civil Procedure (8730, C. I,.) and §…
1Opinion
On Rehearing
Bird.zell, C. J.
After reargument, a majority of the court remains .of the opinion that the conclusion formerly reached is correct. This ■opinion is based upon the facts and circumstances relating to the property of the testator, the relation of the parties, the arrangement of the clauses, and the language of the will under consideration. In the petition for rehearing and upon the oral argument it was forcibly contended that the court had held in effect that a gift of one-third of the estate was a gift of one-third of the property, without regard to the debts or the expenses of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- In re McLennan's EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
- Blakeslee v. PardeeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1903
- Willcox v. BeecherSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1858
- Bell v. RaymondSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1850
- Walker v. HillSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1905