Case ID: ny_205/html/0545-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Louis M. Starr et al., as Executors of Theodore B. Starr, Deceased, Respondents, v. Harriet E. Selleck, Appellant, and Louis M. Starr et al., Individually and as Executors of Theodore G. White, Deceased, et al., Respondents.
    
      Starr v. Selleok, 145 App. Div. 869, affirmed.
    (Argued March 18, 1912;
    decided April 2, 1912.)
    Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered July 7, 1911, affirming an interlocutory judgment of Special Term in an action for an accounting and for the construction of certain provisions of a will.
    The following questions were certified:
    “I. Do the provisions contained in the paragraphs marked c Thirdly ’ and ‘ Third5 of the will of Theodore O. White, deceased, create a valid and effectual trust ?
    “II. Is the defendant-appellant Harriet E. Selleck - estopped or precluded from asserting in this action the invalidity of the trust attempted to he created by the paragraphs marked ‘ Thirdly ’ and ‘ Third’ of the said will of Theodore Gr. White, deceased, by reason of the instrument executed by her and annexed to the complaint herein as Exhibit ‘ B ’ and by the other facts expressly found by the trial court and the facts not expressly found, but undisputed and tending to support the express findings ?
    “III. Are the said provisions contained in the paragraphs marked ‘ Thirdly ’ and ‘ Third ’ of said will of Theodore Gr. White, deceased, void as against public policy ?
    “IV. Did the defendant, Harriet E. Selleck, by taking the benefits given her by paragraph * Eirst ’ of Theodore Gr. White’s will elect to renounce the right to contest the validity of the paragraphs marked ‘ Thirdly ’ and ‘ Third ’ of the said will ? ”
    
      F. B. Minrath and Henry Siegrist for appellant.
    
      Eugene H. Hatch for respondents.
    
      Thomas Carmody, Attorney-General {Henry Selden Bacon of counsel), for Attorney-General, respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs. Eirst question certified answered in the affirmative; the other questions not answered. No opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Oh. J., Haight, Vann, Willard Bartlett, Hiscook, Cease and Collin, JJ.