Merritt v. Merritt
Decision Date | 18 October 1887 |
Citation | 43 N.J.E. 11,10 A. 835 |
Parties | MERRITT v. MERRITT and others. |
Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
Bill for accounting and relief. On demurrer to complainant's bill.
M. P. Gray and W. H. Hepburn, for complainant. Thomas N. McCarter and A. V. Schenok, for demurrants.
MCGILL, Ch. The complainant's bill alleges that George Merritt made his will on October 3, 1871, at Perth Amboy, in this state, in and by which he gave to each of his four unmarried daughters the sum of $10,000; directed his executors to invest $15,000, and pay the income thereof to his married daughter, Isabella M. Hawley, during her life, and the principal sum to her children at her death; directed the investment of $15,000 on bond and mortgage, and the payment of the interest and income therefrom to his son, in quarter-yearly payments during his life, and, at the son's death, the payment of the principal to the son's issue, if any, and, if none, then to the testator's surviving children, and gave the residue of his estate to his four unmarried daughters, and made those daughters the executrices of the will.
On the twenty-ninth day of December in the same year, Mr. Merritt executed a codicil to his will, in which he provided as follows:
The testator died in December, 1874, and his four unmarried daughters proved his will and the codicil thereto, and took upon themselves the executorship. Shortly afterwards, while the legal interest in New Jersey was 7 per centum per annum, the executors invested $17,000 to produce the $1,000 annually for the complainant. For a time the $1,000 was promptly paid to the annuitant; then the legal rate of interest was lowered to 6 per centum per annum, and it became difficult to invest at that rate, and, indeed, at all; so that, through delay in looking for investments, and because of the incidental expenses of the trust, the $17,000 did not yield $1,000 per annum above the expenses of the trust. For a considerable time $600 of the moneys which should have been deposited in bank for the benefit of the complainant remained due undeposited, and unpaid to him, and at the riling of the bill $100 yet remained due and unpaid. The bill...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Merriam v. Merriam
...for appellants. Counsel cited: Moore v. Alden, 80 Me. 301; Pierrepont v. Edwards, 25 N.Y. 128; Boomhower v. Babbitt, 67 Vt. 327; Merritt v Merritt, 43 N.J.Eq. 11; Additon v. Smith, 83 Me. 551; May Bennett, 1 Russ. 370; Boyd v. Buckle, 10 Simon, 595, 596; Trevor v. Trevor, 5 Russ. 24; Davies......
-
Commercial Trust Co. of N.J. v. Kohl
...to be paid absolutely and usually without contingency. 3 C.J. § 2, p. 201, and § 29, p. 212; 3 C.J.S., Annuities, § 1 and § 5; Merritt v. Merritt, 43 N.J.Eq. 11. 10 A. 835; Welsh v. Brown, 43 N.J.L. 37; Pennington v. Metropolitan Museum of Art, 65 N.J.Eq. 11, 55 A. 468; Steelman v. Wheaton,......
-
Blanchard v. Blanchard
...v. Allen, 76 N. J. Eq. 245, 74 A. 274, 139 Am. St. Rep. 758; Blundell v. Pope (N. J. Err. & App.) 21 A. 456. The case of Merritt v. Merritt, 43 N. J. Eq. 11, 10 A. 835, seems to be authority for this court to now require the setting apart in a trust fund of sufficient securities (including ......
-
Liberty Title & Trust Co. v. Stevens
...in cases such as this is not upon mistake either in law or fact on their part, but on the theory of accident. In Merritt v. Merritt, 43 N. J. Eq. 11, 10 A. 835, the court dealt with the question of a deficiency of moneys invested to provide an annuity, and in this case it appeared that when......