Will of Carroll
Court of Appeals of New York
274 N.Y. 288, 8 N.E.2d 864 (1937)
- Written by Mary Pfotenhauer, JD
Facts
William Carroll’s will directed his assets to be placed into a trust for his wife’s benefit, and that upon her death the assets were to be placed in a trust for the benefit of his daughter, Elsa, for her lifetime. The will gave Elsa the power, by will, to dispose of the trust property to her children or any surviving relatives. In her will, Elsa left $250,000 to her cousin, Paul Curtis. The attorney who drafted Elsa’s will later drafted a letter from Curtis to Elsa, acknowledging the bequest and, in consideration of the bequest, promising to pay Elsa’s husband $100,000 from that bequest. Elsa’s husband was not a permissible appointee under the power of appointment granted by Carroll’s will. Curtis testified that he and Elsa came to this agreement about her husband before Elsa executed her will. The drafting attorney (plaintiff), who was the executor of Elsa’s will, petitioned the court to determine the effect of the provision for Elsa’s husband on Elsa’s bequest to Curtis. The lower court found that Curtis’s promise to Elsa constituted a fraud on the power of appointment, and voided Elsa’s bequest to Curtis. The Appellate Division found that Elsa intended to give $150,000 to Curtis and $100,000 to her husband, and voided only the $100,000 gift to the husband as an unlawful appointment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hubbs, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 778,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.
