Crackanthorpe v. Sickles

1. Deeds (§ 133*)—Trusts (§ 59*)—Tr^st Deed—Construction—Rights of Remaindermen—“Beneficially 'Interested.” Plaintiff executed a trust deed. of personal property, conveying such property to a trustee to manage, invest, and pay the income to plaintiff for life, and after her death to distribute it among such persons as she should designate by will, and in case of her death intestate to divide the property equally among her lawful issue surviving her, and in case she died intestate and without issue to certain others. Held, that the deed vested an equitable estate in plaintiff, with a general power of appointment by will to any person or persons whom she might designate, and in default of an appointment remainder to her lawful issue surviving, so that on the birth of each child of plaintiff a vested remainder was created, subject to open and let in after-born children, and to be .divested by the death of such child without issue before plaintiff’s death, or by plaintiff’s exercising her power of appointment by will, which interest constituted the children “beneficially interested,” within Personal Property Law (Consol. Laws 1909, c. 41) § 23, providing that the creator of a trust of personal property may revoke the same on the consent of all persons beneficially interested therein. [Ed. Notes.—For other cases, see Deeds, Cent. Dig. §§ 368-371; Dec. Dig. § 133;* Trusts, Cent. Dig. §§ 78-81; Dec. Dig. § 59.* • For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 1, pp. 749, 750.] 2. Deeds (§ 133*)—Remainders—Limitation—Power of Appointment—De- fault in Exercise. Estates in remainder, limited to take effect on default of the exercise of a power of appointment, are not prevented from vesting by the exercise of the power, but take effect in the same manner as if no power existed, subject to be divested by the exercise of the power. [Ed: Note.—For other cases, see Deeds, Cent. Dig. §§ 368-371; Dec. Dig. § 133.*] 3. Remainders (§ 14*)—Vested Interest—Alienability. A vested remainder, though subject to be divested by the exercise of a power of appointment, is an alienable interest. [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Remainders, Cent. Dig. § 10; Dec. Dig. § 14.*]

Appeal from Special Term, New York County. Action by Eda S. Crackanthorpe against Daniel E. Sickles. From an order sustaining a demurrer • to the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.