McKenzie v. L'Amoureux
New York Supreme Court
• Demurrer. The plaintiffs stated in their complaint, that the action was brought as well on their own account as on account of the other legatees of Mary McKay, deceased.
Read the full summary
• Demurrer. The plaintiffs stated in their complaint, that the action was brought as well on their own account as on account of the other legatees of Mary McKay, deceased. They then set forth the will, from which it appeared that they, together with Margaret ■ Heinzelman, Eliza McIntosh and Mary, wife of John Horton, were entitled to legacies, and that the estate of the testatrix, real and personal, chargeable, as they alledged, with the payment of those legacies, was given and devised to Elizabeth, Caroline, Jane and Hallowell Matilda, daughters of the late Lachlane Stewart. These .three…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Harris J.
The learned judge who decided this cause at the special term, admitted that as the practice existed at the time of the adoption of the code, this action might properly have been brought by the plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the other legatees who were not made parties. The authorities to which he has referred, show that one legatee might sue on behalf of himself and all the rest, and that all might avail themselves of the benefit of the decree. (Brown v. Rickets, 3 John. Ch. 553. Thompson v. Brown, 4 Id. 619. See also Ross v. Crary, 1 Paige, 416. Hallett v.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Piggot v. MasonNew York Court of Chancery · 1829
3Cited by29 opinions
- Brenner v. Title Guarantee & Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1937
- Palmer v. WaddellSupreme Court of Kansas · 1879
- Kerr v. . BlodgettNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Thompson v. Reno Savings BankNevada Supreme Court · 1885
- Day v. BuckinghamWisconsin Supreme Court · 1894
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.