Matter of New York Life Insurance and Trust Company
Cases that cite this one
60 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Flournoy v. Erdman (Cal. Ct. App. 1968)
- Security-First National Bank v. Green (Cal. Ct. App. 1935)
- In re the Final Accounting of Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. (N.Y. 1964)
- The First National Bank of Chicago, and Frank J. Kelly and Helen H. Hexter v. John A. Ettlinger (1st Cir. 1972)
- In re the Final Accounting of Chase Manhattan Bank (New York Supreme Court 1962)
- In re the Estate of Wilde (New York Surrogate's Court 1961)
- Bussing v. Hough (Iowa 1946)
- Barton Trust (Pa. 1943)
- Graves v. Schmidlapp (Supreme Court of the United States 1942)
- In re the Estate of Trotter (New York Surrogate's Court 1940)
- In re the Estate of Barnhart (New York Surrogate's Court 1930)
- In re the Trusts Created by Chappell (New York Surrogate's Court 2009)
- In re the Estate of Brown (New York Surrogate's Court 1983)
- In re the Final Accounting of Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. (N.Y. 1971)
- In re the Estate of King (New York Surrogate's Court 1967)
- In re the Estate of Nicholas (New York Surrogate's Court 1966)
- In re the Estate of Hopkins (New York Surrogate's Court 1964)
- In re the Estate of Prince (New York Surrogate's Court 1964)
- In re the Final Accounting of Bankers Trust Co. (New York Supreme Court 1962)
- In re the Estate of Wells (New York Surrogate's Court 1962)
- In re the Final Accounting of Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1961)
- In re the Final Accounting of Grace National Bank (New York Surrogate's Court 1961)
- In re Hanover Bank (New York Supreme Court 1961)
- In re the Probate of the Will of Dunscombe (New York Surrogate's Court 1960)
- In re the Final Accounting of Guaranty Trust Co. (New York Supreme Court 1959)
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
The learned and exhaustive opinion of Surrogate Fowler makes it unnecessary for us to discuss at length the important and interesting question involved in this case. We regard his reasoning as sound, but prefer to put our decision squarely on the ground that the construction and effect of the will of Madame Franchetti, in so far as it involved an exercise of the power of appointment conferred by the will of her father, is governed by the law of this state, the domicile of the donor of the power, and the situs of the property. The learned surrogate was able to find as a fact that she intended her will, in that respect to be construed according to the law of this state and so did not consider it necessary to determine whether as matter of law such an intent would be presumed. We adopt the rule applied in Massachusetts and concur in the reasoning of Chief Justice Gray in support of it in Sewall v. Wilmer (132 Mass. 131).
The order should be affirmed, with costs. •
Cullen, Oh. J., Gray, Werner, Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan and Miller, JJ., concur.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.