Hillen v. Iselin
Decision Date | 15 January 1895 |
Citation | 39 N.E. 368,144 N.Y. 365 |
Parties | HILLEN v. ISELIN et al. |
Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from supreme court, general term, First Department.
Action by Sophia Frick Hillen, individually and as executrix, etc., against Adrian Iselin and others, for the construction of a will, and to set aside as void the exercise of a power conferred thereby. From a judgment of the general term (22 N. Y. Supp. 282) in defendants' favor, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
This action if for the construction of the will of Columbus O'Donnell, in his lifetime a citizen and resident of Maryland, who died in 1873, leaving four children surviving him, including a daughter, Mrs. Emily Hillen, who died in 1888, leaving two children, Thomas Hillen and Emily McSherry, and to have an appointment made by Emily Hillen in her will, in attempted exercise of a power conferred upon her by the will of her father, Columbus O'Donnell, declared to be invalid, as not in conformity to this power. Both of the children of Emily Hillen were living at the death of Columbus O'Donnell, and also at her death, in 1888. Her son, Thomas Hillen, died about a month after the death of his mother, leaving, surviving him, his widow, the plaintiff in this action, and an infant son, the defendant Thomas O'Donnell Hillen, who was living at the death of his grandmother, Emily Hillen. The defendants Adrian Iselin, Jr., and Richard M. McSherry, are trustees under the appointment made by the will of Emily Hillen. The two former reside in the city of New York, and have possession of the stock, bonds, and securities which were transferred by the trustees and executors of the will of Columbus O'Donnell to them as trustees under the appointment in the will of Emily Hillen, and of the reinvestments made from time to time. Thomas Hillen, the son of Emily Hillen, who, as stated, died after the death of his mother, left a will, bequeathing and devising all his property to his wife, the plaintiff, without any appointment under the provisions of his mother's will, he claiming that the power of appointment conferred on Emily Hillen by the will of Columbus O'Donnell was never validly exercised by her, and that, in consequence, he took an absolute title on the death of Emily Hillen to one-half of the four-twentieth parts of the estate of Columbus O'Donnell, given to Emily Hillen for life, under the clause in his will providing for its disposition in default of an appointment by her. If the appointment was valid, the infant son of Thomas Hillen took the two-twentieths under the appointment in the will of Emily Hillen. The controversy, therefore, is between the mother, claiming under the will of her husband, Thomas Hillen, and the son, claiming under the appointment of his grandmother.
It is necessary to state with more particularity the provisions in the will of Columbus O'Donnell and of the appointment made by Emily Hillen upon which the questions arise. Columbus O'Donnell, in the sixteenth article of this will, devised four-twentieths of his residuary estate to Charles Oliver O'Donnell (his son), Adrian Iselin, C. Morton Stewart, and Elliott O'Donnell Poor, the survivors and survivor, the heirs, executors, and administrators of the survivor, and their successors in trust, during the life of his daughter Emily Hillen, to pay the net income to her, for her sole and separate use; and the will then proceeds as follows: The appointment in the will of Mrs. Emily Hillen is in these words: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Erdman's Estate, In re
...of the power of appointment. Sewall v. Wilmer, 132 Mass. 131; Hogarth-Swann v. Weed, 274 Mass. 125, 130, 174 N.E. 314; Hillen v. Iselin, 144 N.Y. 365, 378, 39 N.E. 368; Re New York Life Ins. & Trust Co., 209 N.Y. 585, 103 N.E. 315. But a transfer which has in fact been effected by recourse ......
-
Graves v. Schmidlapp
...of the power of appointment. Sewall v. Wilmer, 132 Mass. 131; Hogarth-Swann v. Weed, 274 Mass. 125, 130, 174 N.E. 314; Hillen v. Iselin, 144 N.Y. 365, 378, 39 N.E. 368; In re New York Life Ins. & Trust Co., 209 N.Y. 585, 103 N.E. 315. But a transfer which has in fact been effected by recour......
-
In re Cadwell's Estate
... ... Verplanck, 42 N.Y.S. 412); a ... descendant is one who descends as offspring (Warden v ... Taylor, 32 W.Va. 284; 2 Jarman Wills, 632; Hillen v ... Iselin, 144 N.Y. 365, 39 N.E. 308; Twaites v ... Waller, 133 Ia. 84; Hadcox v. Cody, 135 N.Y ... 861); a Michigan statute providing that ... ...
-
Wilmington Trust Co. v. Wilmington Trust Co.
... ... extent. This rule is based on the principle that the lesser ... right is [25 Del.Ch. 150] included in the greater. Hillen ... v. Iselin , 144 N.Y. 365 , 39 N.E ... 368 ; Harker v. Reilly , 4 Del. Ch ... 72 ; In re French's Estate , 119 ... Misc. 445 , 196 ... ...