Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

70 A.D. 102

Duchardt v. Cassidy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1902-03-15

<p>Will — when am estate in fee simple absolute is conveyed thereby.</p> <p>A testator by his will; after devising certain specified real property in fee to each of his children with the exception of his daughter Charlotte, devised certain specified real property to Charlotte “ to have the income and rents thereof ‘ during her natural life, at her death to be divided amongst all my remaining ■children, share and share alike.” The residuary clause provided as follows: “ All my other real estate and personal property to be divided share and share alike between all my children.” After the residuary clause was- the following: “I hereby appoint my son Henry Duchardt to act as trustee for my daughter 'Charlotte D; Duchardt, her houses to be rented and kept in repair, the money her share to be put in bank or bond and mortgage for her benefit while living.” - .“The real and personal estate of which my daughter Charlotte D. Duchardt is possessed during her lifetime, at her death is to be divided equally between my heirs.”</p> <p>Held, that the testator’s children acquired an estate in fee simple absolute in all the property which passed under the residuary clause, and that the clauses following the residuary clause related solely to the property in which Charlotte had a life estate.</p> <p>Van Brunt, P. J., dissented on the- ground that the submission upon which the question was presented was irregular in form.</p>

Decided 1902-03-15

Van Brunt, P. J. (dissenting):

¶1I dissent. I think that the submission is entirely irregular. The parties have attempted to limit the effect of the decision, for which there is not the slightest authority.- The judgment to be entered is precisely the same' as the judgment in an action and has the same effect, controlling' the same parties.

¶2Judgment ordered for plaintiff, with costs.

/70/ad/102 · .json · Public domain