Case ID: ny_226/html/0708-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Horace A. Demarest, Respondent, v. Andrew J. Rice et al., Appellants.
    
      Demarest v. Rice, 177 App. Div. 883, affirmed.
    (Argued May 22, 1919;
    decided June 6, 1919.)
    Appeal from a judgment' of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 13, 1917, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict. .The action was in ejectment. Plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the premises in question, as sole heir-at-law of his deceased father. The plaintiff was bom December 26, 1890. His father died on August 22, 1894, leaving a last will and testament, dated August 29, 1889, by which his entire estate was given to his widow, Lillie Demarest. This will was subsequently admitted to probate. The widow remarried on April 19, 1897. The basis of the plaintiff’s claim was that, as the will contained no provision in his favor, it was void as to him and that the decedent’s entire estate descended to him by force of the statute, subject alone to the widow’s right of dower and her rights in whatever personalty the decedent had left. The defendants Rice acquired the premises in question under a deed containing full covenants and a warranty of title, made by the plaintiff’s mother in October, 1910. The plaintiff, who became of age on December 26, 1911, executed on that day a quitclaim deed of the premises to the defendants Rice, the purchasers from plaintiff’s mother. Plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show that the deed was procured from him by deceit and without consideration.
    
      Philip S. Dean for appellants.
    
      Louis 0. Van Daren and Herrick McClenihen for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Collin, Cuddeback, Cardozo, Pound, Crane and Andrews, JJ.