Legal Opinion

Kemp v. Kemp

New York Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1901Published

Action for the construction of a will. The clause, in the will of Juliet Augusta Kemp, stated in the opinion as recited at folio 133 of the complaint, was as follows: “And all the residue of such two-fifth parts of such residuary estate of my said deceased husband George Kemp by his will devised and bequeathed to be held in trust for my benefit during my life, which shall not be required to be set apart and' held by' virtue of this my will to produce the aforesaid net annual…

Read the full summary

Action for the construction of a will. The clause, in the will of Juliet Augusta Kemp, stated in the opinion as recited at folio 133 of the complaint, was as follows: “And all the residue of such two-fifth parts of such residuary estate of my said deceased husband George Kemp by his will devised and bequeathed to be held in trust for my benefit during my life, which shall not be required to be set apart and' held by' virtue of this my will to produce the aforesaid net annual income of nine thousand dollars, I give, devise, bequeath and appoint upon my death/ in fee simple and absolutely, to…

1Opinion of the CourtFitzgerald, J.

The principal questions to be decided are:

First. The construction of the clause in the will of Juliet " Augusta Kemp, recited at folio 133 of the complaint.

Second. The validity of the trust created by her will for th© benefit of her son George; and

Third. Was the power granted her to set apart in her lifetime or appoint by will an imperative power?

To properly determine these propositions it will be necéssary to consider together the wills of the father and mother, as both instruments appear in many respects to have sprung from a common inspiration, and the same underlying purpose manifests…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Tilden v. . GreenNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
  2. Beardsley v. . HotchkissNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
  3. Morris v. . SicklyNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
  4. Stimson v. . VromanNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
  5. Doe ex dem. Barnes v. ProvoostNew York Supreme Court · 1809

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API