Legal Opinion
In re the Estate of Halsted
New York Surrogate's Court
Decided May 18, 1940PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Delehanty, S.
In this accounting proceeding decision of several controversies is necessary. The first has to do with the powers of the executor and trustee. The will appointed one corporate trustee. The codicil substituted another “ with all the duties in said will imposed upon and all powers and rights in said will conferred upon ” the first named. Reading codicil and will together, as is required, there is no limitation by way of the codicil of the powers and discretions vested in the executor and trustee by the will. Accordingly such powers inure to the acting executor and trustee.
The…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Herzog v. . Title Guarantee Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1903
- Wetmore v. . ParkerNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Viele v. . KeelerNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- In re the Judicial Settlement of Account of Proceedings of CaswellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1934
- In re the Estate of StanfieldNew York Surrogate's Court · 1939
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- In re the Estate of BlumenthalNew York Surrogate's Court · 1943
- In re the Estate of KingNew York Surrogate's Court · 1957
- In re the Accounting of ZimtbaumNew York Surrogate's Court · 1954
- In re the Accounting of McKeonNew York Surrogate's Court · 1953
- In re the Estate of MartinNew York Surrogate's Court · 1941
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.