New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-01-28
Superior Court. MONDAY. Jan. q.
TKANoF EhNHU IEIt'I'
Before Judges Duer, Mason and Campbell

TRANSFERRED TERM
Before Judges Duer, Mason and Campbell
Jas. Morgan VS. Aier. MaSterS0n et a.. Erecu
tors.-To set aside the will of Alexander Morgan,
deceased-The will provided that the Executors
should accumulate the rents and profits OF the es-
tate for three years, and if at the end OF that time
the CORPORATION would give site, and an equal
amount with the value OF the estate OF the deceased
were raised by that and others for the erectono OF
Monument TO the Memory of w ashington, SAID es
- - the paymeut Of its debts, &c was TO be
snpiied TO that purpose; but in the event OF an
con al amount not being raised at the end OF three
wears then the estate to be divided between the
New-Y ork Hospital and the institutions Tor the
Blind and the Deal and Dumb
Mr. Morgan, we believe, was native OF Scot
land, but long resident in this city. He was
stone cutter by occupation, and an unmarried man.
He left very considerable real estate. The plain
tiff we believe, is a nephew and one OF the next
of kin. He sues to set aside the will on the ground
that it is void by law, the estate having been tied
up, being what is called suspending the power OF
aenatioB,) for term Of years, instead OF the ar
rangement being one or two lives, the former be-
ing against the statute.
The Court in rendering its decision, said 1t had
struggled in vain to think there was no susPen
sion of the power of alienation. 1t thinks the
law, es it stands, defective and inconvenlent IL
fortunately happens that the estate reverts TO good
hands, the heirs being poor &c.
A remainder which is TO take effect only at the
end of a certain term, is not valid WIN set
aside and reference to ascertain who are next OF
kin &c.
By the rule, person cannot appropriate his
estate for a specific object at the end OF certain
term of ears, though he may do so 70 take effect
at the end of two lives, or one, as he may see hr
ThOs T. BlO0dg00dS executor VS. Herman
Brueh's executors, lSc-This was a claim to re-
covena note given by Thomas II. Smith * Son,
IN 1873 for $4,000 az 90 days Mr. Geo w.
ba sol %
Mir Smith. Mr. s. died previous to the nose be- 4
coming due.
This note has been sued, we believe, only within
three or four years. The defense was the statute
Of limitations To this it was contended not to
come within the statute of limitations, the will
of Mr. Smith commenced with a clause intimat.
ing that his debts should be paid and that said
clause form ed a trust under the will, &c. which
does not come within the statute of limitations.
The Court in giving its decision, stated thatthe
usual clause in will " after the payment OF my
lust debts" &c. is not such clause as to create
trust-and particularly would it not be in the will
of Mr. Smith, who evidently considered that there
would be more than enough personal property to
pay all the debts of the estate. 80 far as the will
is concerned therefore, there is nothing to bar OF
the statute Of limitations running against the
note.
On the other hand it was said that Mr. George
w. Brsen bad made sufficient acknowledgement
of the debt 10 render it valid. 1t was in 1872 In
answer to bill filed by Mr. Cowperthwate, Mr..
Bruen sat forth certain debts due by the estate OF
Thomas H. Smith & Son, among them this note,
being then, with interest, S2OOgO, for which the
Assets of the estate Of Thomas II. smith and OF
TIL g. & Son were liable. The proceedings
were against George w. Bruen and the estate Of
Thomas Fl. Smith He made out an aggregate
amount of debts due of $4,000, exclusive OF
judgments by the United States against the firm
for ssOO,OoO' 1t was admitted there was bat
one debt due to Bloodgood. MIR. Bruen In that
NOT only acknowledged his obligation, bat his will
lipgness TO pay The Court considers that suite
lent 10 retain the vitality of the note Ordered
that the amount be a good and subsisting claim
against the estate Of Thomas II. Smith, &c.
THE original amount Of the note was $4,000,
but, with interest, IS now about S2o,OOO. Mr.
George w. Bruen, as is known, is also deceased,
having died within the last year. His lady, who
survives him. was daughter Of Mr.. Smith she
has children. Thomas II. Smith & Son, 1t will be
remembered was one OF the largest East lndla
houses In the City, and owed the Government, at
the time of Mr. SIS death, very large sum ior
duties and on which judgment Were obtained
Although supposed 70 DC very "eaI'ly' auu n91'
ing an immense real and personal property IN pos
session. M. S. we have heard 1t Ia.lmated, Ia
fact died insolvent but through compromises ana
beneficial operations, much OF the lncomorance
has been cleared.
In the Iddngs aud Buen controversy LAT the
1
George w Bruen showed that the estate owed
him a very large sum, he being one OF tue e1eeu'
tors and we believe the only one that acbed, the
amount due 70 him, we believe being stated as
at 5000 600 or e7O0 900. The Court, az tnat tme'
made sB order that after the debts were pAid' me
residue of the estate should be paid over 70 hf.
Geo. w b. This claim, We believe, was as
sieped. or sold and 1t is SAID to have been bought
In for his advantage. The other heirs If Mr..
Smith being disposed and threatening - oOntest
this. compromise WIS made satisfactory 70 all
Although, as already stated, the estate TOald I
have sbeen AID was unable, from iEs then assets, /
10 meet the clAins against IL, yet the rlss IA (
large quantity Of at that time unImproved and an
productive property on the Stuyvesanr meadows I
AID the places in the city, has Melted some SOU
COO of which there are claims for about S1OO,oVV'
eaviDg some $500 900 to be divided between MIS-
BrueD, Mrs. F. Waddell, their brother and one
or two other heirs .f
The city Of Neic York, appellants, ads. n. o.
& SBgith, reSpondeAt~-Mr. 5. as conuacsol .os
building a sewer, sued in the. Court oelo" ~
cover $500, a balance due on said eont.ac.. oe'
Tense was set up that clause ezia'e0 IN we 0'A'