State v. Meeker
| Decision Date | 08 November 1897 |
| Citation | 38 A. 749,61 N.J.L. 146 |
| Parties | STATE (MEEKER, Prosecutrix) v. MEEKER et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Certiorari to court of general quarter sessions, Essex county.
Certiorari by the state, on the prosecution of A. P. Meeker, against Irene H. Meeker, guardian of Henry L. Meeker and others, to review an order directing the prosecutrix to pay to said guardian $10 per week for the equal relief and maintenance of three infant wards of said guardian, grandchildren of said prosecutor. Order set aside.
Argued June term, 1897, before DIXON, LUDLOW, and COLLINS, JJ.
George P. Tuttle, for prosecutrix.
Joseph A. Beecher, for defendants.
The writ in this case brings up an order of the court of general quarter sessions of the peace of the county of Essex, directing Anna P. Meeker to pay to the guardian of her three infant grandchildren, or to the overseer of the poor of the city of Newark, $10 per week for the equal relief and maintenance of said grandchildren. The infants are the children of a deceased son of the prosecutrix, who is a widow with a large income. The only foundation for the order is section 30 of the (2 Gen. St. p. 2510), which charges upon the grandmother, among various relatives (when of sufficient ability), of every poor person not able to work the relief and maintenance of such poor person, in such manner as the court of quarter sessions shall direct. There are several technical objections to this order. There is no adjudication that the infants are unable to work. The petition admits and the proofs show that one of them does work, at three dollars weekly wages. The order does not provide for relief and maintenance, but directs payment arbitrarily to the guardian or the overseer of the poor. This is not authorized by the statute. Ackerman v. Ackerman, 55 N. J. Law, 422, 27 Atl. 807. The order is joint as to all the infants. It should be several for each, by the plain words of the law. It may be doubtful, however, if the causes assigned for reversal cover these defects.
On the merits, the prosecutrix must prevail. The infants are not poor persons. They have a vested remainder in an undivided fourth part of the residuary estate of their grandfather, William S. Meeker, deceased, which estate is admittedly worth upwards of $400,000. The grandfather's will was published in 1880. By its fourth clause the residuary estate was given to the testator's wife, the said Anna P. Meeker, for life, for the support of herself and his children. The wife was appointed executrix, with power of sale. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kahn v. Rockhill
...contingent." See, also, Dutton v. Pugh, 45 N.J. Eq. 426, 18 A. 207, affirmed Jones v. Jones, 46 N.J.Eq. 554, 21 A. 950; Meeker v. Meeker, 61 N.J.L. 146, 38 A. 749. Tiffany, in his work on Real Property, Vol. I, § 136, p. 489, states "A gift in remainder to those of a class of persons who ma......
-
Simpkins v. Simpkins
...Stout v. Cook, 79 N.J.Eq. 573, 81 A. 821; Lorillard v. Kent, 99 N.J.Eq. 509, 133 A. 881; Post v. Herbert's Ex'rs, supra; Meeker v. Meeker, 61 N.J.L. 146, 38 A. 749; see also Clapp, supra, Sec. 51 on the rule of A vigilant examination of the will fails to supply any indication that the testa......
-
Kahn v. Rockhill
...v. Cook, 79 N.J.Eq. 573, 81 A. 821; Lorillard v. Kent, 99 N.J.Eq. 509, 133 A. 881; Post v. Herbert's Ex'rs, 27 N.J.Eq. 540; Meeker v. Meeker, 61 N.J.L. 146, 38 A. 749; see, also, Clapp, Wills and Administration in New Jersey, § 51, on the rule of The testator's daughter Mary, a life tenant,......
-
Hewitt v. Hollahan
...the court to find as a fact upon competent evidence that the relative is not only poor, but unable to work. Meeker v. Meeker, 61 N.J.L. 146, 147, 38 A. 749 (Sup.Ct.1897). In the case at bar the trial court made no such finding. When a trial court fails to make an essential finding but repor......