Legal Opinion

In re the Estate of Shevlin

New York Surrogate's Court

Decided March 26, 1932PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Wingate, S.

The problem presented in this proceeding for construction arises by reason of the occurrence of certain contingencies which the testator, at the time of the execution of his will, apparently failed to foresee and against which he certainly did not provide. There is, therefore, here no question of intent of the testator, as “ the court is powerless to construe the will on the basis of the eventualities which have actually transpired since such an act would not amount to a construction of the will which was actually made, but would be a rewriting of the instrument by the court in the…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. In re the Estate of SmallmanNew York Surrogate's Court · 1931
  2. Williamson v. WilliamsonNew York Court of Chancery · 1837
  3. Matter of Accounting of BensonNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
  4. Matter of StanfieldNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
  5. Hennessy v. . PattersonNew York Court of Appeals · 1881

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. In re the Estate of StulmanNew York Surrogate's Court · 1933
  2. In re the Estate of LarneyNew York Surrogate's Court · 1933
  3. In re the Estate of DuffyNew York Surrogate's Court · 1932
  4. In re the Estate of LavineNew York Surrogate's Court · 1938
  5. In re the Estate of BatesNew York Surrogate's Court · 1940

6 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