van Syckel v. van Syckel
Decision Date | 20 February 1893 |
Citation | 51 N.J.E. 191,26 A. 156 |
Parties | VAN SYCKEL v. VAN SYCKEL et al. |
Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
Bill in equity by Sarah E. Van Syckel to obtain a share of the proceeds arising from the sale of land devised by a will under which petitioner alleges that she is a beneficiary. Bill dismissed.
Martin Wyckoff, for petitioner.
John A. Bullock, for respondents.
GREEN, V. C. John Van Syckel, late of the county of Hunterdon, deceased, in and by his last will and testament, made provision for his son, Elijah, for life, hereinafter set out in full. At the date of the will and death of the testator, Elijah had a wife living, named Hannah Van Syckel. After the death of the testator, Hannah Van Syckel died, and Elijah afterwards married the petitioner, Sarah E. Van Syckel, and afterwards Elijah died. The provision of the will is as follows: The real estate limited over was sold for $5,270.22, and this amount of the purchase money paid into court. John Van Syckel, a son of Elijah Van Syckel, was declared a bankrupt, and his interest in the devise was sold to George A. Allen, who is since deceased; Mary B. Allen, Charles W. Allen, Alexander B. Allen, and Edward B. Allen being entitled to any interest which the said George A. Allen, deceased, acquired by the purchase of the said bankrupt's interest. The surviving children of Elijah Van Syckel, and the children of any child who had died, with the Aliens, applied to this court for an order for the payment to them of the fund in court; and an order was made directing said payment, which has been made in pursuance thereof. Sarah E. Van Syckel, the widow of Elijah, thereupon filed this petition, alleging that the said order had been improvidently made, and that the same was a fraud upon her rights, claiming that, under the terms of the will before quoted, she, as the wife of Elijah Van Syckel, was entitled to an equal share of the proceeds of the said land, and, further, that the Aliens were not entitled to any portion thereof.
The question presented, therefore, is whether she comes under the following provision of the will, namely: "And at the death of my said son, Elijah, 1 give and devise the said farm and wood lot to the children and wife...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Erny's Trust, In re
...Niblock, 39 Eng.Reprint 240; Beers v. Narramore, 61 Conn. 13, 22 A. 1061; Johnson v. Webber, 65 Conn. 501, 33 A. 506; Van Syckel v. Van Syckel, 51 N.J.Eq. 194, 26 A. 156; Hill v. Aldrich, 326 Mass. 630, 96 N.E.2d 147; Re Schluechterer's Estate, Sur., 90 N.Y.S.2d 867; Gannett v. Shepley, 351......
-
In re Erny's Trust
...Niblock, 39 Eng.Reprint 240; Beers v. Narramore, 61 Conn. 13, 22 A. 1061; Johnson v. Webber, 65 Conn. 501, 33 A. 506; Van Syckel v. Van Syckel, 51 N.J.Eq. 194, 26 A. 156; Hill Aldrich, 326 Mass. 630, 96 N.E.2d 147; Re Schluechterer's Estate, Sur., 90 N.Y.S.2d 867; Gannett v. Shepley, 351 Mo......
-
Scullin v. Mercantile-Commerce Bank & Trust Co., MERCANTILE-COMMERCE
...would have upon his son for support and assistance, it was held that the word 'wife' included a second wife. In Van Syckel v. Van Syckel, 51 N.J.Eq. 194, 26 A. 156, 157, it was held that a provision giving certain property, after the death of testator's son, 'to the children and wife of my ......
-
Hill v. Aldrich
...[1903] 2 Ch. 102; Willis v. Hendry, 127 Conn. 653, 672, 20 A.2d 375; Gannett v. Shepley, 351 Mo. 286, 172 S.W.2d 857; Van Syckel v. Van Syckel, 51 N.J.Eq. 194, 26 A. 156; Van Brunt v. Van Brunt, 111 N.Y. 178, 19 N.E. 60. Compare Williams v. Fundingsland, 74 Colo. 315, 321, 221 P. 1084, 63 A......