Opinion · Nylaw New York

MATTER OF BROOKLYN TRUST COMPANY, 258 App. Div. 901 (1939)

In the Matter of Acct. of the BROOKLYN Tr. Co. as Successorto the MECHANICS BANK as Substituted Tr. of the Tr. for the Benefit ofEDWARD WHITAKER under the Last Will & Testament of ELLEN C. McMANUS, Lateof the County of Kings, Deceased.ANNIE M. VERRY, Appellant; BROOKLYN Tr. Co., as Tr. under theWill of ELLEN C. McMANUS & JANE F. WHITAKER, Individually & asExecutrix, etc., of EDWARD WHITAKER, Respo

Type
Opinion
Court
Nylaw New York
Jurisdiction
Nylaw
Date
1939-12-11
Topic
general

MATTER OF BROOKLYN TRUST COMPANY, 258 App. Div. 901 (1939) In the Matter of the Accounting of the BROOKLYN TRUST COMPANY as Successorto the MECHANICS BANK as Substituted Trustee of the Trust for the Benefit ofEDWARD WHITAKER under the Last Will and Testament of ELLEN C. McMANUS, Lateof the County of Kings, Deceased.ANNIE M. VERRY, Appellant; BROOKLYN TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee under theWill of ELLEN C. McMANUS and JANE F.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed MATTER OF BROOKLYN TRUST COMPANY, 258 App. Div. 901 (1939). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

MATTER OF BROOKLYN TRUST COMPANY,258 App. Div. 901(1939)
In the Matter of the Accounting of the BROOKLYN TRUST COMPANY as Successor
to the MECHANICS BANK as Substituted Trustee of the Trust for the Benefit of
EDWARD WHITAKER under the Last Will and Testament of ELLEN C. McMANUS, Late
of the County of Kings, Deceased.
ANNIE M. VERRY, Appellant; BROOKLYN TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee under the
Will of ELLEN C. McMANUS and JANE F. WHITAKER, Individually and as
Executrix, etc., of EDWARD WHITAKER, Respondents.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.
December 11, 1939.
Appeal from Surrogate's Court, Kings County.
Decree, in so far as appealed from, reversed on the law, with costs to each party filing a brief, payable out of the estate, and matter remitted to the Surrogate's Court, Kings county, with directions that a decree be entered adjudging that the clause in question constitutes, in effect, an express stipulation that accrued income should not be apportioned, and that the trustee account accordingly. (Matter of Juilliard,238 N.Y. 499,510;Matter of Dreicer,155 Misc. 817;Matter of Dexter, 134 id. 195.) The cases upon which respondent Whitaker relies —Matterof Chapal(269 N.Y. 464) andMatter of Otis(276 id. 101) — merely formulate rules for the guidance of trustees in the administration of property takenPage 902over in foreclosure, and have no application here. Lazansky, P.J., Hagarty, Carswell, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.