History
  • No items yet
midpage
Simpson v. Moore
30 Barb. 637
N.Y. Sup. Ct.
1859
Check Treatment
Ingraham, J.

In this case I am of the opinion that the testator intended all the income of the property which he or*641dered to be invested should be paid to the wife, but that the capital so invested should be preserved.

[New York Special Term, December 23, 1859.

Under the case of OlarJcson v. Clarkson, (18 Barb. 646,) the payments in question must be considered as dividends; but as they contained part of what was held as capital when the stock was purchased, so much thereof as was necessary to make up the original investment, over and above the par value of the stock taken by the trustee in exchange, should be retained, by him, and the residue belongs to the plaintiff.

If the parties do not agree on the amount to be retained by the trustee, a reference will be ordered by the court on settling the order.

The costs of the parties to be paid out of the fund; such costs as to the defendant Oipriant only to be paid, down to the time of the decease of his wife.

Ingraham, Justice.]

Case Details

Case Name: Simpson v. Moore
Court Name: New York Supreme Court
Date Published: Dec 23, 1859
Citation: 30 Barb. 637
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. Sup. Ct.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.