Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1939

Summit Trust Co v. McAuley Water Street Mission

Summit Trust Co v. McAuley Water Street Mission
Supreme Court of New Jersey · Decided May 5, 1939 · PER CURIAM.
6 A.2d 406; 125 N.J. Eq. 505 (Atlantic Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

This is an appeal from a decree of the court of chancery construing the will of William Halls, Jr., advised by Yiee-Chaneellor Stein, who delivered the following opinion:, “All of the parties interested in the subject-matter herein are before the court, all have joined in the prayer for the construction of the will and they will be bound by the decree., Messrs. Williams xfs Dempsey, for the complainants-respondents., Messrs. Lehlbach, Johnson <& Ormond, for the defendant-respondent McAuley W-ater Street Mission., Mr. Frank Mery, for the defendants-respondents New York City Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church and others., Mr. George White-field Betts, Jr., for the defendant-respondent Stuyvesant Square Hospital., Messrs. Lum, Tamblyn & Fairlie, for the defendant-respondent Overlook Hospital Association of Summit, New Jersey., Messrs. Smith vfc Slingerland, for the defendant-respondent Centenary Pund and Preachers Aid Society of the Newark Annual Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church., Mr. William J. O’Hagan, for the defendant-respondent The Methodist Episcopal Home for the Aged of New Jersey., Mr. William E. Torrance, for the defendant-respondent Trustees of Newark Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church., Messrs. Hicks, Euhlthau Thompson, for the defendants-respondents The Brooklyn Children’s Aid Society and another., Mr. Sydney G. Soons, for the defendant-respondent Long Island College Hospital., Messrs. Pitney, Hardin d? Skinner, for the defen dantsappellants.

Summit Trust Co v. McAuley Water Street Mission

Opinion of the Court

*511 Pee Curiam.

We concur in the views as expressed by the learned vice-chancellor, excepting that part thereof which holds that the so-called second group of legatees are entitled to interest upon the several amounts due them from and after one year after the death of the testator. Interest upon a legacy commences to run when payment of the legacy is demandable. Ashton v. Wilkinson, 53 N. J. Eq. 227. Inasmuch as the corpus of the trusts included in the first group is to be drawn upon for the payment of legacies provided for in the second group, it necessarily follows that such payment cannot be made until the life tenancies of the first group have terminated, and therefore the legacies in the second group are not payable until that times arrives.

The decree under review will be modified to the extent that no interest will be allowed on the amounts due to the legatees named in the second group.

For reversal — Parker, Bodine, Donges, JJ. 3.

For Modification — The Chief-Justice, Case, Heher, Perskie, Porter, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, JJ. 10.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.