In re the Accounting of Morris
Cases that cite this one
35 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Tumlin v. Troy Bank & Trust Co. (Ala. 1952)
- In re the Construction of the Will of Yadach (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1958)
- Kane v. Mercantile Trust Co. National Association (Mo. 1974)
- In re Construction of the Will of Getman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1968)
- Lanza v. DiFronzo (Cuyahoga County Probate Court 1949)
- In re the Will of Hamilton (New York Surrogate's Court 1945)
- Sedgwick v. National Savings & Trust Co. (D.C. Cir. 1942)
- In re the Estate of Breckwoldt (New York Surrogate's Court 1941)
- In re the Estate of Walter (New York Surrogate's Court 1933)
- In re the Estate of Ward (Cal. Ct. App. 1932)
- In re the Estate of Smallman (New York Surrogate's Court 1931)
- In re the Final Judicial Settlement of the Account of Proceedings of Atkinson (New York Surrogate's Court 1923)
- In re the Estate of Beckley (New York Surrogate's Court 1977)
- In re the Estate of McCarthy (New York Surrogate's Court 1973)
- In re the Estate of Klein (New York Surrogate's Court 1963)
- In re the Estate of Connolly (New York Surrogate's Court 1963)
- In re the Accounting of Union Trust Co. (New York Surrogate's Court 1951)
- In re the Probate of the Will of Baeuchle (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1950)
- In re the Accounting of Coppers (New York Surrogate's Court 1950)
- In re the Accounting of Roth (New York Surrogate's Court 1949)
- In re the Construction of the Will of Lawless (New York Surrogate's Court 1949)
- In re the Accounting of Rochester Trust & Safe Deposit Co. (New York Surrogate's Court 1945)
- In re the Construction of the Last Will & Testament of Idem (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1939)
- In re the Judicial Settlement of the Final Account of Proceedings of Lyon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1938)
- In re the Estate of Clark (New York Surrogate's Court 1938)
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 testatrix, an aged widow, made her will on June 10, 1916. She died shortly thereafter and letters testamentary were issued to the executor and executrix therein named. She left seventeen nephews and nieces in Wales, her only next of kin. By her will she makes pecuniary legacies to seven of them in various amounts aggregating $10,000. She also gives $100 to “ my friend Susie Teman ” and $300 to “ my faithful friend Catherine Morris,” to whom she also gives all the personal property in the house. Catherine Morris and her husband, since deceased, are named as the executors of the will. Paragraph eighth of the will reads as follows:
“ I bequeath all the rest, residue and remainder of my estate to my executor hereinafter named to pay funeral expenses, say masses and put a modest tombstone over my remains ”
The residuary estate amounts to nearly $6,000 and the courts below have sustained the contention of one of the next of kin that this bequest should be limited to an amount necessary to fulfil the objects designated, which has been fixed at $187.50 for funeral expenses, $5.00 for a funeral mass and $350.00 for monument, leaving for the next of kin, as unbequeathed assets of the estate, upwards of $5,000. It is said that in law testatrix intended only to have so much of the estate *144 expended for these purposes as would be suitable to her condition of Ufe and that the balance should go to the next of kin.
The intention of the testatrix is not thus expressed. The next of kin are remembered and provided for. The law permitted, if it did not require, the executors, without any directions from the testatrix, to expend for funeral expenses, including the funeral mass and the monument, as much as has been expended for such purposes from this estate, and it is not to be inferred that her words were superfluous and without meaning. It seems perfectly clear that she intended the residue of her estate to pass to her faithful friend and her faithful friend’s husband to be expended for the purposes designated by her and that she did not intend to die in partial intestacy. The words of gift are explicit. The distinction between an absolute gift and a direction to expend a given sum for a given purpose is pointed out in Matter of Arrow-smith (162 App. Div. 623; affd., 213 N. Y. 704), and it is held that the court may not cut down the gift because the amount is disproportionate to the purpose.
But it is urged that this is a gift in trust and that the statement of purpose is, therefore, limited to a reasonable amount beyond which the trustees may not take. This contention does not fortify the claims of the next of kin. The testatrix was free to judge for herself what was reasonable. “ Masses are religious ceremonials or observances of the church of which she was a member, and come within the religious or pious uses which are upheld as public" charities.” (Schouler, Petitioner, 134 Mass. 426.) She could give her estate outright to any charity and she was free to dedicate it to this particular charity. Although the specific objects of the charity are not named by the testatrix, the trust is no longer void for indefiniteness in this state. (Holland v. Alcock, 108 N. Y. 312; Matter of MacDowell, 217 N. Y. 454.) The construction which upholds the main purpose of the testatrix is that *145 the executors shall take title to the residuary estate in trust and that they shall, after paying funeral expenses, dispose of the estate by having masses said in a Roman Catholic church, according to the customs of that communion. The test of_ reasonableness has no place as between the next of kin and the charitable trust, and the court will not take the estate from the trustees to bestow it upon the next of kin in disregard of the expressed desires of testatrix, but will, “ in a broad and liberal spirit ” uphold the will as it was written.
The order of the Appellate Division and decree of surrogate appealed from should be modified by directing the payment of the entire residuary estate to the executors in trust for the purposes named in the will, and as so modified affirmed, with costs in all courts to the appellants, payable out of the estate.
Hiscock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, McLaughlin and Andrews, JJ., concur; Chase, J., not voting.
Ordered accordingly.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.