Summary
In Matter of New York Life Insurance and Trust Co. (209 N.Y. 585) it was held that New York law should be applied to the construction and effect of a will exercising a power of appointment granted by a donor domiciled in New York concerning property having its situs here, though the donee was domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction when she made her will exercising the power.
Summary of this case from Chase National Bank v. Central Hanover BankOpinion
Argued October 21, 1913
Decided November 18, 1913
Allen S. Wrenn for appellant.
Benjamin N. Cardozo for respondents.
The learned and exhaustive opinion of Surrogate FOWLER makes it unnecessary for us to discuss at length the important and interesting question involved in this case. We regard his reasoning as sound, but prefer to put our decision squarely on the ground that the construction and effect of the will of Madame Franchetti, in so far as it involved an exercise of the power of appointment conferred by the will of her father, is governed by the law of this state, the domicile of the donor of the power, and the situs of the property. The learned surrogate was able to find as a fact that she intended her will in that respect to be construed according to the law of this state and so did not consider it necessary to determine whether as matter of law such an intent would be presumed. We adopt the rule applied in Massachusetts and concur in the reasoning of Chief Justice GRAY in support of it in Sewall v. Wilmer ( 132 Mass. 131).
The order should be affirmed, with costs.
CULLEN, Ch. J., GRAY, WERNER, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN and MILLER, JJ., concur.
Order affirmed.