Opinion · Nylaw New York

MATTER OF KING, 256 App. Div. 844 (1939)

In the Matter of Judicial Settlement of the Final Account of Proceedingsof ADAM C. KING, ALBERT J. SELIGSBERG & Cent. HANOVER BANK TRUSTCOMPANY, as Ex’[r, x]s, etc., of WILLIAM RICE HOCHSTER, Deceased,Respondents.TITLE GUARANTEE Tr. Co. & JEANETTE HAHLO, as Trs., etc., ofWILLIAM RICE HOCHSTER, Deceased, & JEANNETTE HAHLO, Individually,Respondents; GERALDINE E. BLUME & WILLIAM R. BLUME, Appellants.

Type: Opinion
Court: Nylaw New York
Jurisdiction: Nylaw
Date: 1939-01-30
Topic: general

MATTER OF KING, 256 App. Div. 844 (1939) In the Matter of the Judicial Settlement of the Final Account of Proceedingsof ADAM C. KING, ALBERT J. SELIGSBERG and CENTRAL HANOVER BANK TRUSTCOMPANY, as Executors, etc., of WILLIAM RICE HOCHSTER, Deceased,Respondents.TITLE GUARANTEE TRUST COMPANY and JEANETTE HAHLO, as Trustees, etc., ofWILLIAM RICE HOCHSTER, Deceased, and JEANNETTE HAHLO, Individually,Respondents; GERALDINE E. BLUME and WILLIAM R.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed MATTER OF KING, 256 App. Div. 844 (1939). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

MATTER OF KING,256 App. Div. 844(1939)

In the Matter of the Judicial Settlement of the Final Account of Proceedings

of ADAM C. KING, ALBERT J. SELIGSBERG and CENTRAL HANOVER BANK TRUST

COMPANY, as Executors, etc., of WILLIAM RICE HOCHSTER, Deceased,

Respondents.

TITLE GUARANTEE TRUST COMPANY and JEANETTE HAHLO, as Trustees, etc., of

WILLIAM RICE HOCHSTER, Deceased, and JEANNETTE HAHLO, Individually,

Respondents; GERALDINE E. BLUME and WILLIAM R. BLUME, Appellants.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.

January 30, 1939.

Page 845

In an accounting proceeding in the Surrogate's Court, Westchester county, the appellants, general legatees, object to the executors' account as filed. The estate did not yield enough to satisfy the widow's elective share and to pay all the bequests made in the will. The executors, after paying the widow's share, paid the sum remaining toward satisfaction of a specific legacy. The appellants, general legatees, object and contend that because of the inadequacy of the estate to meet the bequests made in the will, the specific legacy should abatepro ratawith the general legacies. The surrogate found that the testator's primary intention was to provide an income for the specific legatee, overruled appellants' objection, and allowed the account as filed. Decree, in so far as appeal is taken, unanimously affirmed, with costs to all respondents filing briefs, payable out of the estate. No opinion.

Present — Lazansky, P.J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ. [166 Misc. 621.]