Tilden v. . Green’s Empirical Analysis
1891
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 223 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 240 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2009 · most notably Herzog v. . Title Guarantee Trust Co. (1903), Boyd v. Frost National Bank of S.A. (1946)
6 federal appellate · 223 state decisions — followed in 30 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Ould v. Washington Hospital for Foundlings · Manice v. . Manice · Savage v. . Burnham · Schettler v. . Smith · Cutting v. . Cutting
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 240 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““By an efo-rceable trust is meant one in which some person or class of persons have a right to all or a part of a designated fund, and can demand'its conveyance to them, and in case such demand is refused may sue the trustee in a court of equity and compel compliance with the demand. In this case the testator devolved upon his executors the duty of selecting the benefiiciary, and there is no person who has the right to enforce that duty or demand any part of the, estate in case the executors refuse or neglect to act. The power attempted to be vested in the trustees cannot be controlled or enforced; and, whether the provisions of the will relating to the residuary estate be regarded as creating a trust or power in trust, they are in either case void.” Tilden v. Green, 130 N. Y. 29, 65 , 28 N. E. 880 , 14 L. R. A. 33, 27 Am. St. Rep. 487 ; Perry on Trusts (6th Ed.) §§ 116, 248-253; Underhill on Trusts and Trustees, pp. 19, 20, 328-330.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Annis v. Huggins““This rule can only be applied in aid and assistance of the manifest intent • of the testator, and never where it would lead to a result contrary to the purpose of the will, or work injustice among the beneficiaries, or defeat the testator’s scheme for the disposal of his property. The rule, as applied in all reported cases, recognizes this limitation, that, when some of the trusts in a will are legal and some illegal, it they are so connected together as to constitute an entire scheme, so that the presumed wishes of the testator would be defeated if one portion was retained and other portions rejected, or if manifest injustice would result from such construction to the beneficiaries, or some of them, then all the trusts must be construed together, and all must be held illegal and must fall.” Tilden v. Green, 130 N. Y. 50 , 28 N. E. 880 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Brandt v. Brandt““The Supreme Court held that the effect of the thirty-fifth and thirty-ninth articles of the will was to create one general trust for charitable purposes, embracing the entire residuary estate, and vested in the trustees a discretion with respect to the disposition of such estate by them; that the testator did not intend to, and did not, confer upon any person or persons any enforceable right to any portion of said residuary estate, and did not • designate any beneficiary who was or would be entitled to demand the execution of the trust in his or its behalf, and declared the provision of the will relating to the disposal of the residuary estate for such reasons illegal and void.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hill v. Hill
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.