Matter of Seebeck

7 Citing cases

  1. Miller v. Oliver

    54 Cal.App. 495 (Cal. Ct. App. 1921)   Cited 16 times

    Laws, c. 50]) contains the same language as said section 780 Indeed, as directly supporting respondents' position that the estate of Harriet A. Miller was a vested estate and not a contingent remainder, we may cite the following New York decisions: Byrnes v. Stilwell, 103 N.Y. 453 [57 Am. Rep. 760, 9 N.E. 241]; Nelson v. Russell, 135 N.Y. 137 [31 N.E. 1008]; Matter of Seebeck, 140 N.Y. 241 [ 35 N.E. 429]; Stokes v. Weston, 142 N.Y. 433 [ 37 N.E. 515]; Miller v. Gilbert, 144 N.Y. 68 [ 38 N.E. 979]; Vanderpoel v. Burke, 63 Misc. Rep. 545 [118 N.Y. Supp. 548]. It is sufficient to quote from the last of these the following: "When the testator gave all his estate to his wife for life, on her death to be divided among his children, the children living at the time of the testator's death took 'vested remainders.' "

  2. Matter of Russell

    61 N.E. 166 (N.Y. 1901)   Cited 51 times
    In Matter of Russell (168 N.Y. 169, 179), the court, per O'BRIEN, J., say: "When a testator intends to confine the gift to a class to be ascertained at a future time, his purpose may be so easily accomplished by the use of a few clear and simple words that courts are not warranted, in the absence of such language, in giving to his dispositions of property an exceptional legal character."

    Applying these principles of construction to the will in this case, it will, I think, be impossible to hold that the gift was to a class and not to the widow and five children distributively as tenants in common. When a devise or bequest is made direct to wife and children, in the absence of clear language indicating a gift to them as a body or a class, it should be held that they take individually as tenants in common and that their interest does not depend upon survivorship. ( Savage v. Burnham, 17 N.Y. 561; Delafield v. Shipman, 103 N.Y. 463; Matter of Young, 145 N.Y. 535; Matter of Seebeck, 140 N.Y. 241; Matter of Tienken, 131 N.Y. 391; Moffett v. Elmendorf, 152 N.Y. 475; Thomas on Estates by Will, vol. 2, 1428, and cases cited; Wagram on Wills, ch. 23, 288; Williams on Ex. 1320.) If the gift in this case was to the widow and children nominatim, it would not then be claimed that they took as a class, and yet the mere fact that the testator omits to designate his children by name is ordinarily a circumstance of little importance in any inquiry as to the legal nature and character of the gift. That circumstance may sometimes be considered with other provisions of the will in which the language indicates an intention to make the gift to a class.

  3. Matter of Disney

    118 A.D. 378 (N.Y. App. Div. 1907)   Cited 3 times

    The property was given to Mary E. Disney and Fannie K. Cohn equally as tenants in common. ( Matter of Seebeck, 140 N.Y. 241; Matter of Kimberly, 150 id. 90.) If Mary E. Disney had survived the testator, she would have been entitled to an undivided share of this property as tenant in common. The testator then provided that in the event of her death, "without issue surviving," her share or portion should go to the survivor.

  4. Quade v. Bertsch

    65 App. Div. 600 (N.Y. App. Div. 1901)   Cited 5 times
    In Quade v. Bertsch (65 App. Div. 600, 607; affd., 173 N.Y. 615) it was said, "the deferring of payment, through the creation of a power in trust meanwhile, is not a suspension of the absolute ownership of property."

    The intent of the testator, as gathered from the four corners of the will, is the cardinal canon of construction, and the rules invoked by the appellants, like almost all other rules, are said to be subordinate to it and not destructive of it. ( Dougherty v. Thompson, 167 N.Y. 472; Matter of Crane, supra; Goebel v. Wolf, 113 N.Y. 405, 412; Matter of Young, 145 id. 536, 538.) It is our duty first to search diligently throughout the will to find, if possible, in the scheme, the provisions and the text thereof the intent of the testator, mindful, too, that the law favors the vesting of estates. ( Dougherty v. Thompson, supra; Matter of Seebeck, 140 N.Y. 241, 246.) At the death of the wife the executors are directed to set apart one of the shares of the estate for each child, and in the case of the death of any child before the wife, its share is to be paid, divided and distributed to and among its lawful issue as and when such issue becomes twenty-one years of age.

  5. Gwyer v. Gwyer

    5 App. Div. 156 (N.Y. App. Div. 1896)

    Another is that, unless a different intention is expressed, the children referred to in a will "are those living at the testator's death." ( Matter of Seebeck, 140 N.Y. 241.) This case and those of Goebel v. Wolf (113 id. 405) and Matter of Tienken (131 id. 391) are in principle, upon the questions here involved, controlling.

  6. Matter of Daniell

    12 Misc. 2d 359 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 1958)   Cited 1 times

    Failure of either of the class members to survive the life tenant would not cause an intestacy as to the share of the one so dying. It would instead result in the addition of that share to the balance passing to the sole survivor as is typical of gifts made to a class ( Matter of Seebeck, 140 N.Y. 241; Holbrook v. Shepard, 220 App. Div. 64, affd. 245 N.Y. 618; Appleton v. Fuller, 61 Hun 626). The decision here reached has its counterpart in Matter of Von Helmolt ( 204 Misc. 377); Matter of Weiland (143 N.Y.S.2d 152, affd.

  7. Matter of Lowerre

    104 Misc. 570 (N.Y. Misc. 1918)   Cited 3 times

    Meeks v. Meeks, 161 N.Y. 66. The estates of the children of testator being vested, subject to be devested only on the death of a child leaving issue, prior to the testator's widow, the children of such "remaindermen" are interested and proper parties to the trustees' accounting. Respecting the income accrued which was paid to Thomas H. Lowerre, 3d, during his life, the same should be paid to the executors of his estate ( Matter of Seebeck, 140 N.Y. 241), the remainder and the income given him in the will having been vested in Thomas H. Lowerre, 3d, indefeasibly. Decreed accordingly.