The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1850-09-06
Supreme Court.
SPECIAL TERM.
Before Hon. Judge Edwards.

BEFORE Hon. Judge EDWARDS.
SEPT. 5.-1MPoRTANr Will CAsE-Mary III. Bolton
and others, Louisa Lynch and Dominick Lynch
implicated wh Frederiek De Peystr and others.
This case has been litigsted for years, and the
public are already familiar with the particulars 1t
Is respecting the win Of the late Dominick Lynch,
dated in June 1925, which, IL Is commended provides
that after bsquesthing his household furniture to his
WIFE, Jane Lynch his executors should invest the
Of and that out of the income thereof $4,000
should be paid each year to his wife, and that the
sidue OF the income arising out OF said 100000 should
be renvssted and form an accumulating fund during
the life Of the said wife, and at her death the 100000
should be divided into eight parts and that each Of
the children Of the teststor should receive
ale before the wife, the child children Of such de-
ceased teaor should receive the share OF the deceased
pare mt; but such deceased left child, then his
share was to be divided among the survivors Of the
Mr. God contends, behalf Of the plaintiffs, that
the decree set forth in the answer cannot affect them
they not parties to it, and that the admission
in the bill of plant of the clause in the testator
will by which the plaintiffs in this suit made de-
vsess, fraud upon the court without which such
decree could not have been made. That the
uors had power only to invest $50 900 In bonds and
mortgages, II the wife willing to accept certain
parts Of real estate to make such arrangements and
to divide the residue but the 10000 and the
lieu thereof during her life at her death TO be d.
vided among the children then living or the children
cannot be divided before because until that event the
devrees not sscertaned and until then they had
no 6xed interest, but bare possibility. The plain
widow, were entitled one-eghth OF the said lands
and the deaths of Alexander and Jane sntie the plain
tifs TO onc-sixth Of eighth OF their respective
shares, which In addition to eighth the death
OF Henry IL equal TO onesxth Of the whole Aud IL Is
further commended that they entitled to the land
instead Of the money, because the widow williu
TO accept and did accept IT, and that IL tor the
general interest Of the estate that the real property
should be set apart for her annuity instead Of the
money the defendants by their having prevented
the investment thereof.
Mr. ID. Cutting urged the following points on be-
half Of his clients, Louiss Lynch and Dominick l..
LavrenceThat the division of the estate, carried into
eject by the decree OF the Court of Chancery,
valid arrangement aud settlement That the teststor
intended that his estate Except the $50 600 charged
with the annuity In favor OF his widow should be
divided without unnecessary delay. frhe provision
directing the investment Of $50 900 for the sole
b. neht Of his widow AS the rahpg OF so large
his widow II che chose dispense with the fulhlment
OF the will In this rsspectto accept OF life estate In
lieu OF itsnd authorized all the rest of his estate
be then divided. He also authorized any other
rangen.nt or disposition Of the property. provided i
with the consent of all parties Interested Coun
sci Their fore contends that the parties interested
were those capable, Mt the time Of his DEATH of
senting IL IA Irrational TO suppose that he had In
view grandchildren yet UNBORN, living at the death
Of his widow II l. further commended that the part
sent OF the parties in interest binding upon all Of
them. The children 81 Henry Lynch have no interest
In title to the portion OF the estate conveyed to
Jane Lynch and freeeiic De Peyst.r In trust II is
inequiable after Henry Lynch has received aud ac
oepted his full portion u the whole estate divided In
the most formal and solemn manner aud sanctioned
by the decree Of the court In suit instituted by him
for the purpose for his children to claim the shares
allotted TO the Defendants The plaintiff o. have In
tcrtst In the property conveyed That " was not ne
therefore. Mir Cutting contends that this complaint
oug hit TO be diem Used.