Opinion

Lightfoot v. Kane

  • 16 Mills Surr. 46
Court
New York Surrogate's Court
Filed
Dec 10, 1915
Status
Published
Author
Laughlin
On the bench
Clarke, Ingraham, Latjghlin, Laughlin, Scott, Smith, Soott
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

Laughlin, J. (concurring).—

I concur in the views expressed by Mr. Justice Smith, and vote for reversal. I am of opinion that the provisions of the will directing that the residuary estate be divided into as many shares or portions as the testator left children him surviving is qualified by the further provisions with respect to the prior death of a child leaving issue, and that the true construction of the will is that if the testator left children and the issue of a deceased child, no matter whether the death of such child occurred before or after the making of the will, the residuary estate should be divided into a number of shares equal to the number of sons and daughters of the testator who survived him, plus the number of his sons and daughters who pre-deceased him, leaving issue surviving the testator.

The plaintiff and the defendant Rosemary Kane, who are the children of the testatrix’s son Michael, are, therefore, entitled to take the share which Michael would have taken had he survived the testatrix.

Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Soott and Smith, JJ., concurred.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.