102 N.Y.S. 424 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1907
The learned surrogate was of the opinion that the testator intended ■ to give Jennie King, now .Jennie King Hicks, the life use of $1,000 instead of- $2,000,- and that, in the event of her having a child who "should arrive .at the age of. ten years, such $4,00.0 should be hers absolutely, and that the purpose of the testator evidenced by the 7th clause of the codicil was to add $2,000 to the $2,000 bequeathed by the 9th clause of the will, upon the same terms mentioned in" that clause. In this we think he was clearly right. In the 7.th " clause of the codicil, after describing somewhat, inaccurately what his gift to Jennie King in the 9th clause of liis will was,‘the testa-' tor says: “I give and bequeath to her the use of Two Thousand Dollars more, making Four Thousand Dollars,” which clearly shows that he intended- by the codicil simply to change the word two, to four in the 9th clause. It is true that .he says in the codicil that “At her death the principal to go as given and directed in my said will.” The appellants urge that by this he intended that the $2,000 should at her death fall into the residue and go to the American Baptist Home Mission■ Society under the 16th. clause ■ of the-will. We cannot agree, to this,, and think . instead that he-intended it should “ go as given and directed ” in the 9th clause,
Even though the contention of the appellants with respect to the construction of this will is equally as ■ probable as the construction we choose to give it, nevertheless we are required to construe it as we do under the well-settled rule that where a will is capable of two interpretations the one should be adopted which prefers those of the blood of the testator to strangers. ( Wood v. Mitcham, 92 N. Y. 375, 379, and cases there cited.)
Neither of the contingencies mentioned in the 9th clause of the will having happened and Mrs. Hicks having a child who has arrived at the age of ten years, she became entitled to the.bequest of $4,000 absolutely, and the executor, therefore, properly paid it to her.
The item of $750 allowed for counsel fees and legal services paid by the executor to his attorney was proper. The portion of the charge for collecting a considerable sum from the coexecutor was not alone to save the accounting executor from loss, but was for the benefit of the estate as well. Nor is there any evidence in the case disputing that given as to the value of all the services covered by this item. .
The allowance of $250 to the attorney for services on the accounting was for services about which the surrogate must have had personal knowledge not only as to the time spent but as to the value of
The decree should be affirmed,, with costs.
Decree unanimously affirmed, with costs; Parker, P'. 'J., not sitting..