TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Meldon v. Devlin

Albert Meldon, Respondent, v. Angela M. Devlin Et Al., Respondents, and Mary E. J. Devlin Et Al., Appellants

Meldon v. Devlin, 60 N.E. 1116 (N.Y. 1901)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 14, 1901
Judges
<italic>Per Curiam</italic>.
Citations
60 N.E. 1116167 N.Y. 5731901 N.Y. LEXIS 1139
Cited by 16
Summary
Appeal by permission from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 27, 1899, modifying and affirming as modified an interlocutory judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

Per Curiam.

The appeal herein was taken by permission of the Appellate Division, and brings up for review two certified questions, which are as follows:

First.

Were, and are, *574 the persons mentioned in paragraph three of the judgment of the Special Term herein, during the time herein mentioned, entitled to the due and undisposed of income of the trust created by the fourth paragraph of the second codicil of the last will and testament of Daniel Devlin, deceased, such due and undisposed of income being described in paragraph two of said judgment of the Special Term; or does, and did, such income belong to the persons who during the said period would have been entitled to the next eventual estate in the principal of said trust in ease both Jeremiah Devlin and William Devlin, the trustees, h,ad died without having made any disposition of such principal by will or deed, such persons so entitled being at such times the relatives of Daniel Devlin, deceased, namely, his next of kin ?

Second.

Must the proceeds of sale of the premises mentioned in paragraph sixteen of the judgment of said Special Term as modified by the order of this court, paid, and to' be paid, by the defendant Peter W. Felix, be apportioned between principal and income of said trust estate as provided in paragraph seventeen of the judgment of said Special Term; or should such proceeds be solely considered the principal of said trust and the property of the children of Jeremiah Devlin, pursuant to the terms of his will, in which he appointed such principal to go to his children pursuant to the power of disposition given in said fourth paragraph of the second codicil of the last will and testament of Daniel Devlin, deceased? For the reasons stated in the prevailing opinion below the questions certified to us must be answered as follows:

First.

The persons mentioned in paragraph three of the judgment of the Special Term herein were, and are, during the times therein mentioned entitled to the due and undisposed of income of the trust created by the fourth paragraph of the second codicil of the last will and testament of Daniel Devlin, deceased, such due and undisposed of income being described in paragraph two of said judgment of the Special Term.

Second.

The proceeds of sale of the premises mentioned in paragraph sixteen of the judgment of said Special Term, as modified by the-order of the Appellate Division, paid, and to be paid, by the defendant Peter W. Felix, must be apportioned between prin *575 cipal and income of said trust estate, as provided in paragraph seventeen of the judgment of said Special Term. These answers require an affirmance of the order of the Appellate Division.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs to each of the respondents, payable out of the estate.

Parker, Oh. J., Gray, O’Brien, Landon and Werner, JJ., concur; Haight and Cullen, JJ., not voting.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 16 cases

View all citing references →
1920: 11927: 11929: 11935: 21936: 41937: 31941: 11943: 11947: 11959: 119202026peak 1936 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re the Estate of Shupack158 Misc. 873 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1936)
  2. In re the Estate of Pelcyger157 Misc. 913 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1936)
  3. In re the Will of Chapal199 N.E. 762 (N.Y. 1936)
  4. In re the Accounting of Bankers Trust Company, as Trustee Under the Will of Otis11 N.E.2d 556 (N.Y. 1937)
  5. In re the Accounting of Sanford74 N.E.2d 310 (N.Y. 1947)
  6. In re the Estate of West46 N.E.2d 501 (N.Y. 1943)

Most recent

  1. In re the Construction of the Will of Creveling7 A.D.2d 150 (1959)
  2. In re the Accounting of Sanford74 N.E.2d 310 (N.Y. 1947)
  3. In re the Estate of West46 N.E.2d 501 (N.Y. 1943)
  4. In re the Estate of West175 Misc. 1044 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1941)
  5. In re the Accounting of Bankers Trust Company, as Trustee Under the Will of Otis11 N.E.2d 556 (N.Y. 1937)
  6. In re the Estate of Manning165 Misc. 467 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1937)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list