# Drake v. Drake

> New York Supreme Court · May 16, 1890 · 10 N.Y.S. 183

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5498683

## Case

- **Full name:** Drake v. Drake
- **Court:** New York Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 16, 1890
- **Citations:** 10 N.Y.S. 183; 63 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 590; 31 N.Y. St. Rep. 921; 56 Hun 590; 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2023
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Barrett
- **Judges:** Barrett, Brunt
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5498683

## Opinion text

Barrett, J.
I concur. This is a case where the legal meaning given to technical words corresponds with the testator’s intention. Those words were used advisedly to express that intention. The free use of the disjunctive in the same connection favors this view. The power was plainly to operate upon an area co-extensive with parents, children, grandchildren, etc., concurrently; in other words, upon the area of lawful issue in the full sense of descendants. And for this extensive and all-embracing power, within the limits of the testator’s blood, there was, as clearly pointed out by the presiding justice, adequate reason as matter of fact.
Bartlett, J., concurs.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5498683. Public record. Not legal advice.