" The following cases from other jurisdictions are in accord: In re Keeler's Estate, 334 Pa. 225, 3 A.2d 413, 121 A.L.R. 1301; Epstein v. Corning, 91 N.H. 474, 22 A.2d 410; In re Tompkins, 28 Misc. 351, 59 N.Y.S. 902; Holmes v. Bushnell, 80 Conn. 233, 67 A. 479; Mitchell v. Choctaw Bank, 107 Miss. 314, 65 So. 278. See, also, 1A Bogert on Trusts and Trustees (1951 ed.) 513, § 226; 1 Scott on Trusts (1939 ed.) 770, § 154; Restatement, Trusts, 379, § 154. The trial court correctly determined that respondent is not required to comply with the assignment of income.
The rule prohibiting assignments is therefore held to be inapplicable to an agreement by the beneficiary that a designated part of the income should be paid to his wife for her support or the support of their children and the courts have directed the trustee to comply with the agreement. (Matter of Yard, 116 Misc. 19; Matter of Randolph, 159 Misc. 688; Bursch v. Bursch, 60 N.Y. S. 2d 633; Restatement, Trusts,§ 157, comment a; 3 Syracuse L. Rev., 326, 327; 3 Bradford Butler on New York Surrogate Law & Practice, § 2491; Griswold on Spendthrift Trusts [2d Ed.],§ 338; but see Matter of Tompkins, 28 Misc. 351.) But it does not follow from these cases that, in the absence of an assignment by the beneficiary, the members of the family have an independent right to obtain a share of the income directly from the trustee.