21 N.J. Super. 331 - Renner v. Castellano’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently November 1994
2 district · 3 state decisions
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 In Re the Accounting of the Manufacturers National Bank of Troy · Holden v. . Strong · Rezzemini v. . Brooks · Stempel v. Middletown Trust Co. · Hoops v. Stephan
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Cases are numerous where a testator created a trust, providing that the beneficiary should receive the income, and in the event of its insufficiency for his comfortable support, so much of the corpus as may be necessary for that purpose. It is generally held that such a disposition constitutes an absolute gift of support and that the beneficiary's independent means and earning capacity are not to be considered in the determination of the amount of money requisite for such support. Pearce v. Marcellus, 137 N.J. Eq. 599 ( E. & A. 1945); Hicks v. Jones, 138 N.J. Eq. 280 ( Ch. 1946); Orange First National Bank v. Preiss, 2 N.J. Super. 486 ( Ch. Div. 1949); Rezzemini v. Brooks, 236 N.Y. 184 , 140 N.E. 237 ( Ct. App. 1923); Hoops v. Stephan, 131 Conn. 138 , 38 A. 2 d 588 ( Sup. Ct. 1944). There is a line of cases where the beneficiary is given the income from a trust fund and a right of access to the corpus, if it be required for his support. In these it is generally held that the corpus may be invaded only upon proof by the beneficiary that the income from the trust, supplemented by his independent income and earnings, is insufficient to provide for his support. In re Willey, 139 N.J. Eq. 118 ( Prerog. 1946); In re Martin's Will, 269 N.Y. 305 , 199 N.E. 491 ( Ct. App. 1936); Hull v. Holloway, 58 Conn. 210 , 20 A. 445 ( Sup. Ct. 1889); Stempel v. Middletown Trust Co., 127 Conn. 206 , 15 A. 2 d 305 ( Sup. Ct. 1940).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“as used here in the first paragraph, considered with the context, and in the light of the surrounding circumstances, refers to what is required to accomplish testator's intention, namely, the comfortable maintenance and care of his widow, the scope, the range, and the cost of it. Without doing violence to every other expression in the will, it could not be said that the benefaction was conditional upon the widow's financial ability to support and maintain herself. Cf. Camden Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Read, 124 N.J. Eq. 599 , 4 A.2d 10 (Ch. 1939), in which it was held that the word”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.