In re the Accounting of Fanoni
In the Matter of the Accounting of Emily S. Fanoni Et Al., as Trustees Under the Will of Abbie A. Merrill, Deceased, Appellants. Florence Harrison, Respondent
In re the Accounting of Fanoni, 110 N.E. 1040 (N.Y. 1915)
Summary
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered June 4, 1915, which affirmed a decree of the Kings County Surrogate’s Court sustaining objections to the accounts of the trustees herein. After the setting aside of the trust fund, the executors reserved out of the income upon the securities a certain proportion as a sinking fund to meet, depreciation in the value of said securities between the date of the establishment of the trust fund and the maturity of the various bonds, in order that the principal of the trust fund might not be depleted by reason of the maturity of the securities and the payment of the par value only as against the market value at which the same were set aside. The beneficiary of the trust objected to the setting aside, out of the income, of the sums of money set forth in the account, claiming that they were improper charges against the income and that the said amounts ought to be paid over to the beneficiary according to the terms of the last will and testament of the decedent. The surrogate sustained the objection upon the ground that the apparent intent of the testatrix was to give the entire income to the beneficiary without deduction to meet depreciation in the value of the investment.
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan, Seabury and Pound, JJ.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.