Drewen v. Bank of Manhattan Co.
New Jersey Supreme Court
155 A.2d 529 (1959)
- Written by Mary Pfotenhauer, JD
Facts
Doris Ryer Nixon and Stanhope Wood Nixon entered into an agreement as part of their divorce. Under the agreement, Mr. Nixon agreed never to reduce the quantity or quality of their two children’s interests in his estate, as set forth in the will that he executed at the same time as the agreement. Under that will, each child would receive a portion of his estate in fee. After Mrs. Nixon’s death, Mr. Nixon executed a new will, which changed the gifts to his children to life estates. The new will also contained an in terrorem clause, under which a beneficiary could not object to any bequest without voiding the bequest. Lewis Nixon was the sole surviving child at the time of Mr. Nixon’s death. Lewis did not object to his bequest under the new will. John Drewen (plaintiff), the administrator of Mrs. Nixon’s estate, brought an action against the Bank of Manhattan Co. (the bank) (defendant), the executor and trustee under Mr. Nixon’s will, seeking to enforce the agreement between Mr. and Mrs. Nixon and reform Mr. Nixon’s new will accordingly. The chancery division dismissed the action, finding that Mrs. Nixon’s estate lacked standing because it would not benefit from bringing the action. The appellate division affirmed, and Drewen appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Proctor, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
