Case ID: ny_245/html/0560-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James L. Bruff et al., as Administrators of the Estate of Charles A. Bruff, Deceased, Appellants, v. Rochester Trust and Safe Deposit Company, Respondent.
    (Argued April 7, 1927;
    decided May 3, 1927.)
    
      Trust — income — husband and wife — trust for benefit of husband and wife and suroivoi--claim that income -paid to wife vested in husband as survivor upon her death — agreement that money should remain property of wife.
    
    
      Bruff v. Rochester Trust & Safe Deposit Co., 218 App. Div. 67, affirmed.
    Appeal from a judgment, entered December 7, 1926, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term without a jury and directing a dismissal of the complaint. This action was brought by the plaintiffs, as administrators of the estate of Charles A. Bruff, deceased, to recover of the defendant a sum of money deposited in the Fidelity Trust Company of Rochester in her own name by Ardelia Bruff, who was the wife of said Charles A. Bruff and predeceased him. The fund in dispute consisted of moneys paid to Ardelia Bruff by said Fidelity Trust Company as income under a certain trust agreement made for the benefit of said Ardelia Bruff and her husband, Charles A. Bruff, during their lives and the survivor of them, by Sarah L. Willis. The husband’s administrators claim that the accumulated income belonged to husband and wife jointly and vested in him as survivor upon her death. The Appellate Division made a new finding of fact to the effect that it was agreed between husband and wife that the income from the trust fund as paid to Ardelia Bruff should be and remain her property.
    
      Arthur E. Sutherland for appellants.
    
      George H. Harris and Horace G. Pierce for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Andrews, Lehman, Kellogg and O’Brien, JJ.