Carter v. Martin, 210.
| Decision Date | 25 May 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 210.,210. |
| Citation | 124 N.J.Eq. 106,199 A. 589 |
| Parties | CARTER et al. v. MARTIN, State Tax Com'r, et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Court of Chancery.
Suit for construction of will by William T. Carter, Jr., and Stuart A. Young, executors of the estate of Benjamin W. Keen, deceased, opposed by J. H. Thayer Martin, State Tax Commissioner, George A. K. Sutton and others. From an adverse decree, 122 N.J.Eq. 262, 193 A. 704, George A. K. Sutton appeals.
Reversed.
Lum, Tamblyn & Fairlie and Ralph E. Lum, all of Newark, for appellant. Davit T. Wilentz, of Perth Amboy, and William A. Moore, of Trenton, for State Tax Commissioner. Child, Riker, Marsh & Shipman, Francis Child, and Everett M. Scherer, all of Newark, for Mary H. K. Stockton. Robert E. Burke, of Morristown, for All Souls' Hospital. Henry Young, Jr., of Newark, for Mary P. C. Huston.
The appeal in this case brings up for review the construction of the will of Oscar Keen. The will is dated May 11, 1905, and testator died January 9, 1913. Thereafter the will was admitted to probate by the Surrogate of Essex County. Testator left him surviving his widow, a son, Benjamin W. Keen, and a daughter, Mary Keen Stockton. The widow died May 10, 1926. The son died August 17, 1935, without leaving issue, and Mrs. Stockton, the daughter, survives but has no children and can have none.
The testator, after the payment of his debts, gave all of his property to trustees directing them to divide the net income into three parts and to pay the same in equal shares to his widow and to each of his children; on the death of his widow to transfer to his son one-sixth of the principal of his estate and thereafter to pay two-fifths of the income to his son, and three-fifths to his daughter. If the son died before his daughter and after his wife, leaving issue, the trustees were to transfer two-fifths of the principal to his issue in equal shares; but if the son should die before his daughter and after his widow leaving no lawful issue, then the daughter should take the entire income and thereafter upon her death the trustees were directed to convey and pay over the entire principal to testator's heirs at law and next of kin. Somewhat similar provisions were made with respect to other possible contingencies, the testator always providing in the event of the failure of the direct line that the estate should go to testator's heirs at law and next of kin.
The last paragraph of the will directs that the income to be paid to testator's son and daughter ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Abruzzese v. Oestrich
...arguments as he may deem proper. The joinder is not without precedent. Shippee v. Shippee, 122 N.J.Eq. 570, 195 A. 728; Carter v. Martin, 124 N.J.Eq. 106, 199 A. 589. On general principles, the Supervisor appears to be a proper, although not a necessary party. Chancery Rule 6, N.J.S.A. Tit.......
-
Barnhart v. Barnhart, 32493
...196 Mass. 35, 81 N.E. 654; New York Life Insurance & Trust Co. v. Winthrop, 237 N.Y. 93, 142 N.E. 431, 31 A.L.R. 791, and Carter v. Martin, 124 N.J.Eq. 106, 199 A. 589. Counsel have discussed at length the question whether in any event the widow could be considered an heir-at-law of the tes......
-
Zeigenfus v. Snelbaker
...also been held that the words 'heirs-at-law and next of kin' have no fixed meaning to be applied in all cases. Carter v. Martin, 124 N.J.Eq. 106, 199 A. 589, 590 (E. & A. 1938), and that the intention of the testator as to the meaning to be accorded to those words, whether technical or othe......
-
Commercial Trust Co. Of N.J. v. Adelung
...Ordinary Buchanan held that the words meant those who would be her distributees under the statute of distribution. See Carter v. Martin, 124 N.J.Eq. 106, 199 A. 589; Trenton Trust Co. v. Gane, 125 N.J.Eq. 389, 6 A.2d 112, affirmed 126 N.J.Eq. 273, 8 A.2d 708; Francisco v. Citizens Trust Co.......