In re Lawrence Estate

4 Citing cases

  1. Amoskeag Trust Co. v. Preston

    222 A.2d 158 (N.H. 1966)   Cited 4 times

    Romprey v. Brothers, 95 N.H. 258, 260. In re Lawrence Estate, 104 N.H. 457, 460. To follow this course would not serve the best interest of justice.

  2. Matter of Estate of Lewis

    738 P.2d 617 (Utah 1987)   Cited 13 times
    Noting that respondent was precluded from seeking affirmative relief by failure to timely file a cross-appeal and holding that respondent could “not raise [his] argument by way of his brief”

    , In re Estate of Schaff, 19 Ill. App.3d 662, 312 N.E.2d 348 (1974) (right to sell estate assets and gift proceeds to identifiable class upheld); In re Estate of Kuttler, 160 Cal.App.2d 332, 325 P.2d 624, 8 Cal.Rptr. 160 (1958) ("Notify Earl Hayter or my sister Bertha McQuarrie . . . for them to dispose of my belongings as they see fit" was upheld to confer a power of appointment upon two named persons.); In re Lawrence's Estate, 104 N.H. 457, 189 A.2d 491 (1963) ("I give, devise and bequeath to such relatives of mine and in such amounts as my Executor or Executrix may decide in his or her sole discretion" was held to grant a power of appointment to co-executrixes.). Utah Code Ann. §§ 74-2-1, -2 (1953) (repealed 1977).

  3. Smoot v. McCandless

    461 S.W.2d 776 (Mo. 1971)   Cited 4 times

    Instances may be found where the power attempted to be granted was held to be too indefinite as: in Egleston v. Trust Co. of Georgia, 147 Ga. 313, 93 S.E. 878, the power was to provide liberally for any person "overlooked by me," if the executors should feel that such was an "oversight"; in Clark v. Campbell, supra, where the power was to give mementos to "friends"; or, as in Nichols v. Allen et al., 130 Mass. 211, 39 Am.Rep. 445, where the grant was to the executors to dispose of the surplus by distributing it "to such persons, societies or institutions as they may consider most deserving." But, In Re Lawrence's Estate, 104 N.H. 457, 189 A.2d 491, a power granted to the executrices to distribute property to such of decedent's relatives and in such amounts as the executrices should determine in their sole discretion was held valid. The Court stated that such had long been the New Hampshire law, so long as the donee of the power acted "within the bounds of reason."

  4. Ministers Baptist Convention v. McKay

    64 Misc. 2d 231 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1970)   Cited 2 times

    The object, so far as his relatives are made the distributees, is certain." To the same effect is Matter of Lawrence ( 104 N.H. 457), wherein the testatrix's will contained 39 specific bequests of money and personal property to sisters, nieces, nephews, grandnieces, grandnephews, nonrelatives and charities. The residuary clause (41st) of the will provided that: "All the rest and residue of my estate * * * I give, devise and bequeath to such relatives of mine and in such amounts as my Executor or Executrix may decide in his or her sole discretion".