New York Court of Appeals, 1882

Smith v. . Robertson

New York Court of Appeals · Decided October 10, 1882 · Bapallo

89 N.Y. 555; 1882 N.Y. LEXIS 257

Cases that cite this one

20 later published cases cite this decision.

In re the Estate of Smith (New York Surrogate's Court 1951)
Obecny v. Goetz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1907)
Newman v. Waterman (Wis. 1885)
In re the Estate of Nelson (New York Surrogate's Court 2003)
In re the Estate of McGraw (New York Surrogate's Court 1961)
In re the Accounting of Vicedomini (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1954)
In re the Probate of the Will of Heckel (New York Surrogate's Court 1951)
Conroy v. Conroy (Tex. 1937)
In re the Estate of Hume (New York Surrogate's Court 1931)
In re Haines (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1925)
Gillespie v. Truka (Neb. 1919)
In re the Estate of Sauer (New York Surrogate's Court 1915)
Yung v. Blake (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1914)
In re the Will of Campbell (New York Surrogate's Court 1914)
In re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Godwin (New York Surrogate's Court 1912)
Tavshanjian v. . Abbott (N.Y. 1911)
Van Wickle v. Van Wickle (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1899)
Matter of Murphy (N.Y. 1895)
Luce v. Burchard (New York Supreme Court 1894)
Gooch v. Botts (Mo. 1892)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Bapallo, J.

We are of the opinion that on the death of John J. Scott, the testator, the real estate in controversy descended to his infant daughter, under the provision of 2 R. S. 65, § 49, in the same manner as it would have descended if the father had died intestate, and that the infant does not take under the will, or subject to any of its provisions.

The statute, instead of declaring the entire will revoked by the subsequent birth of issue for whom no provision is made, renders, it inoperative as to that portion of the testator’s estate which, if he had died intestate, would have descended, or been distributed to the after-born child. When, as in this case, there is no other heir, the whole of the real estaté descends to the child, as it would have done had there been no will, subject only to the dower of the widow, and the power of sale contained in the will fails. The remedies given by the statute against devisees, to recover a portion of the property where only a portion descends to an after-born child, do not operate to subject the estate of such child to a power of sale contained in the will, or to confine his remedies to a pursuit of the proceeds of sale. He is entitled by the plain terms of the statute to recover the same portion of the corpus of the estate which he would have been entitled to had his father died intestate.

The order should be affirmed, and judgment absolute rendered against the defendants on their stipulation; but as it appears that, at the time of the death of the testator, the real *559 estate was subject to a mortgage which the purchaser discharged, the judgment should be without prejudice to his rights to a lien for the amount paid to discharge the mortgage, or to be subrogated to the rights of the mortgagee.

All concur.

Order affirmed and judgment accordingly.

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