The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1893-06-18
B4BY GROUSE AHEiD SO Ear.
Tho Supreme Court VIII Not Take Ter
&Inim Ont OF Tic Smrrn shtc'- Mnnds.
Hooh.s m. Cure Sick Hcadache

| Tho Supreme Court VIII Not Take Ter
| Claim out OF the surro Sntc'- Hands.
! SYRACUSE, June 1.-THE attempt OF the
| family heirs OF the lnto u. Edgar Grouse to
| force Mrs. Segbert Kustcrlitz and her child.
| Dorothya Edsnrlta. OF Now York. to show their
hand outside OF the Surrogate's Court has
failed. ..
Justice Nann. before whom wns argued tho
demurrer in the suit. having in view the con-
struc'ion of the will blythe surrogate. has rem
dered decision in favor OF Mrs. Kosterlitz
and the child, the latter OF whom is alleged
to be tho next Of kin" mentioned III the mil
lionnire's will Justice Nann says;
Tho plaintiffs claim that mn equitable
| right exists in their favor, because the eNccu-
| tors hold the personal estate In trust for the
benefit OF the next o, Kin. and that they. rs
the next OF kin. arc the benetlciares OF the
They argue that as court 1 Of crafty is tho
they have a right to ASK that the instrument
creating the trust be construct aud that
proper Instructions be given to the trustees;
itself that requires obstruction. it has not
heen pointed out The lansua@s Of the ties.
ia tor. as used in the paragraph in question. IL
clear and his moaning obvious. In that para
graph he Gays:
AI the rest. residue. and remainder Of my estate.
nnmsi e ry "yTr ana
lion that ia pr"y,led r The laws of tho state OF New
lpfh III rhse' oi ln'oNa'et
This language cannot be and Is not claimed
to De the subject OF doubt Courts Of law
construe willis constantly and freely in order
to administer Justice. hut never by the way OF
giving advice to parties. Courts Of equity con-
strue Wills for the same purpose. and some
times also by way Of giving ndvce or instruc
ton. but never except as an incident to the
CHIEF purpose OF the action.
II these views are correct the plaintiffs
have nistak en- their remedy by coming into a
court OF equity instead Of wYlting until their
ing to the Surrogate's Court Tor relief"
The decision Is regarded as decided advan-
tagc to Baby Dorothca over the kinspcople OF
Mr. Grouse, who waited to force revelation ut
the outset.
Hiram r. Steele Of Steele 4 Dickson Of this
city, counsel for Mrs. Siegnert Kosterlitz and
her daughter Dorothea i.dGhreta Grouse vii.
son: the alleged heir of David Edgar Grouse
brought against his clients by George N.
Grouse and about wenty other cousins OF the
late millionaire to have the court cons.rue tho
left. to quote from the will; Ito my next Of
xmas II had died int.ftate The will vas pro.
clause in it provided that no distribution OF the
estHte should be made e. until year after the
had heard that Mrs. Kostcrtz on behalf Of her
daughter and certan other people. had claimed
the property. on tho grounds that they were
They stated that the deceased had left neither
wife, parents. grandparents. brother nor sister.
and asked the Court to declare who was the
Steele 4 Dick son. on behalf Of their clients.
demurred to the complain int. snrin TINT the
plaintiffs had not asked for relief. and that II
they had the court could not have given them
any relief.
The decision simply leaves tho whole matter
where 1t stood before the action was brought.
Mr. Steele said TINT at the proper time he
on behalf Of his clients. ~ VIZ '''" ' , '''A''