Summary
inserting the word "not" into the residuary clause of a will when the omission was an apparent scrivener's error, and inserting the missing word "would transform the clause in question from an unusual one to a usual one, make the distribution equitable and consistent with all the expressions of the will and with well-recognized rules of construction"
Summary of this case from In re GancazOpinion
Argued January 5, 1932
Decided February 9, 1932
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
Walter J.A. Mack and Theodore G. Clarke for appellants.
Edward A. Ingraham and George S. Ingraham for respondents.
Order affirmed, with costs payable out of the estate, on the ground stated in the concurring memorandum at the Appellate Division; no opinion.
Concur: CARDOZO, Ch. J., POUND, LEHMAN, KELLOGG, O'BRIEN and HUBBS, JJ. Not sitting: CRANE, J.