TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re the Estate of Knapp

In the Matter of the Estate of Elizabeth Laing Knapp

In re the Estate of Knapp, 122 Misc. 346 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1924)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
New York Surrogate's Court · State Specialty Courts
Decided
January 15, 1924
Judges
Brien
Citations
122 Misc. 346

Opinion of the Court — Brien

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

O’Brien, S.

This is an accounting in which a question of construction is presented for decision involving the following paragraph of the will: “ I give to my first granddaughter born to Archibald G. Mclllwaine, Jr., my string of pearls, all bracelets and some diamond rings — in case of no granddaughter, then to my eldest son’s wife, provided she meets with the approval of my son Archibald G. Mclllwaine, Jr.”

The testatrix left her surviving her only child, Archibald G. Mclllwaine, Jr. At the time of his mother’s death he was married, but no daughter has been born to him up to the present time.

The question submitted to this court is: To whom did the testatrix leave the above named articles of jewelry? She drew her own will and it is presumed that she intended to dispose of all of her property and not die intestate as to any part thereof. Hadcox v. Cody, 213 N. Y. 570 . The gift is outright to the granddaughter, if there be one. It is evident that the testatrix intended to leave the jewelry to a granddaughter who might be born to her son during her lifetime. As none was born, the jewelry should go to the eldest son’s wife, if this disposition meets with the approval of such son. He is the executor named in the will and the residuary legatee, and he desires that his wife possess the jewelry. This construction would seem to be fair and proper under all the circumstances. Under any other construction it would be necessary that the disposal of the jewelry be withheld pending the possibility of the birth of a daughter. I, therefore, hold that the son’s wife is entitled to the jewelry in question.

Tax costs and submit decree construing the will and settling the account accordingly.

Decreed accordingly.

How later courts describe this case

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

1926: 119262026peak 1926 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Proceedings of Arnolt127 Misc. 579 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1926)

Most recent

  1. In re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Proceedings of Arnolt127 Misc. 579 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1926)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Hadcox v. Cody, 108 N.E. 84 (N.Y. 1915) 27

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