In re Hoagland

CourtNew York Court of Appeals
Citation297 N.Y. 920,79 N.E.2d 746
Decision Date22 April 1948
PartiesIn re HOAGLAND'S WILL.

297 N.Y. 920
79 N.E.2d 746

In re HOAGLAND'S WILL.

Court of Appeals of New York.

April 22, 1948.


Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 272 App.Div. 1040, 74 N.Y.S.2d 911.

Proceeding by the Bank of New York as trustee under the will of Ella J. Hoagland, deceased, for the judicial settlement of its first account as such trustee and for the construction of the provisions of the will creating a trust for ‘Summerland’ and the provisions regulating the investment of the trust for ‘Summerland’. The court was asked to determine whether the consolidation of the Hopewell Society with the Sevilla Corporation affected continuance of the trust for the benefit of the Hopewell Society. Elinor Gates Clendenin filed an answer to the petition in which it was alleged that the trust for ‘Summerland’ had terminated and in which it was asked that the principal of the trust should be paid over to Margaret M. Gates, as executrix of the last will and testament of Hoagland Gates, deceased.

The claim that the trust for ‘Summerland’ had terminated was based upon the fact that ‘Summerland’ was sold by the Hopewell Society in 1928. The provision of the will involved created a trust for the benefit of ‘Summerland’, as long as it continued to be operated independently as the summer home for children under the auspices of the Hopewell Society. It was provided that if ‘Summerland’ should cease to be operated independently as the summer home for children under the auspices of the Hopewell Society, the trust should terminate. A determination that certain investments of the trustee were unauthorized was also sought.

From a decree of the Surrogate's Court, which overruled objections to the account of the Bank of New York as trustee, and also determined that the trust had not terminated and that the investments in question were authorized, Elinor Gates Clendenin and others appealed. The decree, 190 Misc. 480,74 N.Y.S.2d 156, was affirmed by the Appellate Division, 272 App.Div. 1040, 74 N.Y.S.2d 911. A motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied, 272 App.Div. 1053, 75 N.Y.S.2d 775, and Elinor Gates Clendenin and others appeal by leave of the Court of Appeals.

[79 N.E.2d 746]

Thomas A. Ryan, of New York City, for appellants.

Emmett, Marvin & Martin, of New York City (George W. Martin, Richard S. Emmet, John L. Merrill, Jr., and Eunice M. O'Neill, all of New York City, of counsel) for Respondent Bank of New York.


Frueauff, Burns, Ruch &amp...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • DiMauro v. Pavia, Civ. No. H-74-79.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • 17 Abril 1979
    ...S.Ct. at 655; cf. In re Hoagland's Estate, 194 Misc. 803, 74 N.Y.S.2d 156 (Sur.Ct.), aff'd, 272 A.D. 1040, 74 N.Y.S.2d 911 (1947), aff'd, 297 N.Y. 920, 79 N.E.2d 746 (1948). This is not inconsistent with the rule that a proceeding in rem to determine interests in property is conclusive upon......
  • Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank Trust Co, No. 378
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 24 Abril 1950
    ...See Matter of Hoaglund's Estate, 194 Misc. 803, 811—812, 74 N.Y.S.2d 156, 164, affirmed 272 App.Div. 1040, 74 N.Y.S.2d 911, affirmed 297 N.Y. 920, 79 N.E.2d 746; Matter of Bank of New York, 189 Misc. 459, 470, 67 N.Y.S.2d 444, 453; Matter of Security Trust Co. of Rochester, 189 Misc. 748, 7......
  • Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. Ackerman, No. C--1986
    • United States
    • Superior Court of New Jersey
    • 15 Febrero 1952
    ...Estate, 158 Misc. 740, 287 N.J.S. 908 (Supr.Ct.1936); In re Hoaglund's Estate, 194 Misc. 803, 74 N.Y.S.2d 156 (Sur.Ct.1947), affirmed 297 N.Y. 920, 79 N.E.2d 746 (Ct.App.1948); In re Martin's Estate, 96 N.Y.S.2d 842 (Sur.Ct.1950); Re Hagan, 234 Iowa 1001, 14 N.W.2d 638, 152 A.L.R. 1296 (Sup......
  • Matter of Lincoln Rochester Trust Co.
    • United States
    • New York Surrogate Court
    • 27 Febrero 1952
    ...and this very objection in a like case has been held to be invalid. (Matter of Hoaglund 194 Misc. 803, affd. 272 App. Div. 1040, affd. 297 N.Y. 920.) The latter case, at page 811, is also controlling authority for dismissal of items A, B, C, D & E of objection 26, the holding being that par......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • DiMauro v. Pavia, Civ. No. H-74-79.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • 17 Abril 1979
    ...S.Ct. at 655; cf. In re Hoagland's Estate, 194 Misc. 803, 74 N.Y.S.2d 156 (Sur.Ct.), aff'd, 272 A.D. 1040, 74 N.Y.S.2d 911 (1947), aff'd, 297 N.Y. 920, 79 N.E.2d 746 (1948). This is not inconsistent with the rule that a proceeding in rem to determine interests in property is conclusive upon......
  • Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank Trust Co, No. 378
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 24 Abril 1950
    ...See Matter of Hoaglund's Estate, 194 Misc. 803, 811—812, 74 N.Y.S.2d 156, 164, affirmed 272 App.Div. 1040, 74 N.Y.S.2d 911, affirmed 297 N.Y. 920, 79 N.E.2d 746; Matter of Bank of New York, 189 Misc. 459, 470, 67 N.Y.S.2d 444, 453; Matter of Security Trust Co. of Rochester, 189 Misc. 748, 7......
  • Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. Ackerman, No. C--1986
    • United States
    • Superior Court of New Jersey
    • 15 Febrero 1952
    ...Estate, 158 Misc. 740, 287 N.J.S. 908 (Supr.Ct.1936); In re Hoaglund's Estate, 194 Misc. 803, 74 N.Y.S.2d 156 (Sur.Ct.1947), affirmed 297 N.Y. 920, 79 N.E.2d 746 (Ct.App.1948); In re Martin's Estate, 96 N.Y.S.2d 842 (Sur.Ct.1950); Re Hagan, 234 Iowa 1001, 14 N.W.2d 638, 152 A.L.R. 1296 (Sup......
  • Matter of Lincoln Rochester Trust Co.
    • United States
    • New York Surrogate Court
    • 27 Febrero 1952
    ...and this very objection in a like case has been held to be invalid. (Matter of Hoaglund 194 Misc. 803, affd. 272 App. Div. 1040, affd. 297 N.Y. 920.) The latter case, at page 811, is also controlling authority for dismissal of items A, B, C, D & E of objection 26, the holding being that par......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT