§
Clyde v. Comm'r

8 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Wilson

    289 U.S. 20 (1933)   Cited 117 times
    In Anderson v. Wilson, 1933, 289 U.S. 20, 53 S.Ct. 417, 77 L.Ed. 1004 it was held that a trust is an entity separate from its beneficiaries, and that, accordingly a loss resulting to the trust could not be deducted by the beneficiary in his personal tax return.

  2. Matter of Buechner

    226 N.Y. 440 (N.Y. 1919)   Cited 229 times
    In Matter of Buechner (226 N.Y. 440, 443) CARDOZO, J., writing for the court, said: "Words are never to be rejected as meaningless or repugnant if by any reasonable construction they may be made consistent and significant.

  3. Matter of Crane

    58 N.E. 47 (N.Y. 1900)   Cited 146 times
    In Matter of Crane (164 N.Y. 71, 76) the court, in construing a will and referring to a provision thereof, say: "Two well-known rules of construction are applicable to this provision: First. Where the only words of gift are found in the direction to divide or pay at a future time the gift is future, not immediate; contingent and not vested. (Citing authorities.)

  4. Connelly v. O'Brien

    60 N.E. 20 (N.Y. 1901)   Cited 138 times
    In Connelly v. O'Brien (166 N.Y. 406) the doctrine was announced that the word "then", used in this kind of context in a testamentary provision, would be construed to have reference to the date of the testator's death, if possible.

  5. DOE, LESSEE OF POOR, v. CONSIDINE

    73 U.S. 458 (1867)   Cited 73 times
    In Doe v. Considine, 6 Wall. 458, 472, 473, 18 L.Ed. 869, the will created a life estate with a remainder to the child or children of the testator's son, John M. Barr; but should John die without leaving issue, then the remainder was to pass to the testator's sons-in-law.

  6. Stringer v. Young

    83 N.E. 690 (N.Y. 1908)   Cited 48 times

    Argued January 17, 1908 Decided February 18, 1908 William P. Maloney and Edmund F. Harding for appellant. William A. Keener for Charles H. Young et al., as trustees, respondents. Albert W. Ransom for Edith M. Barker, as executrix of George A. Barker, deceased, respondent. Tarrant Putnam and James W. Hawes for Mary E. Leavitt, respondent. GRAY, J. I think it is plain that the interests of the testator's nephews and niece in his residuary estate vested in them at the time of his death. By the express

  7. Bryer v. Finnen

    178 App. Div. 671 (N.Y. App. Div. 1917)   Cited 5 times

    June 8, 1917. Arthur L. Fullman, for the appellants. Sumner B. Stiles [ Prosper R. Ferrari with him on the brief], for the respondents. BLACKMAR, J.: To sustain this order it is necessary to hold that the will of the testator gave a vested remainder in the realty to the four nephews and nieces which they could alienate and devise during the lifetime of the widow, for a portion of the surplus is awarded to those who derive title partly through the will of the nephew Timothy and partly as "heirs and

  8. Hall v. La France Fire Engine Co.

    53 N.E. 513 (N.Y. 1899)   Cited 9 times

    Argued March 3, 1899 Decided April 18, 1899 E.H. Benn for appellant. George M. Diven for respondent. PARKER, Ch. J. This action is in ejectment and relates to lands that the defendant entered into possession of more than a quarter of a century ago under a deed to which this plaintiff and his wife were parties of the first part. Samuel Partridge and wife, who were the father and mother of Anna P. Hall, the plaintiff's wife, executed and delivered to her a certain deed of the premises in question by