Legal Opinion
In re the Estate of Southmayd
New York Surrogate's Court
Decided January 16, 1925PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
Foley, S.:
On this accounting a construction of the will and codicils is necessary in order to determine to whom certain legacies given under these instruments are to be paid.
The testatrix left a will dated April 8, 1915, a codicil dated May 7, 1915, and a second codicil dated June 20, 1919. These instruments were admitted to probate after a contest. The will contains the following residuary clause:
“ Twenty-fourth. All the rest, residue and remainder of the property and estate of every kind and nature and wheresoever situate which I may own at the time of my death, I give, devise and bequeath…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Riker v. . CornwellNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Lamb v. . LambNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- In Re the Probate of the Last Will & Testament of MinerNew York Court of Appeals · 1895
- In Re the Transfer Tax Upon the Estate of ColeNew York Court of Appeals · 1923
- Osburn v. Rochester Trust & Safe Deposit Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1913
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- In re the Estate of MahlstedtNew York Surrogate's Court · 1931