From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hummel v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 17, 1963
18 A.D.2d 883 (N.Y. App. Div. 1963)

Summary

In Brown, we held that will-appointed trustees had vested rights and that a statute which summarily removed them and appointed other trustees was invalid.

Summary of this case from Catherwood Trust

Opinion

January 17, 1963

Appeal from the Monroe Special Term.

Present — Williams, P.J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed, with $25 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with $10 costs. Memorandum: In the exercise of proper discretion, the motion should have been denied by Special Term.


Summaries of

Hummel v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 17, 1963
18 A.D.2d 883 (N.Y. App. Div. 1963)

In Brown, we held that will-appointed trustees had vested rights and that a statute which summarily removed them and appointed other trustees was invalid.

Summary of this case from Catherwood Trust

In Brown v. Hummel, 6 Pa. 86, testator devised his estate to trustees to establish an orphan home for the education of poor orphans.

Summary of this case from Girard Will Case
Case details for

Hummel v. Brown

Case Details

Full title:ROSE HUMMEL et al., Appellants, v. GEORGE BROWN, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jan 17, 1963

Citations

18 A.D.2d 883 (N.Y. App. Div. 1963)

Citing Cases

Girard Will Case

The court affirmed the Board's refusal of the applications for admission and dismissed the petitions for a…

United States v. Sing Tuck or King Do & Thirty-One

As applied to judicial proceedings the term "due process of law" means a course of proceeding according to…