New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-04-25
CONSERVING An OLD WILL.
THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDES AN
IMPORTANT QUESTION
AN AMBIGUOUS CLAUSE IN THE LAST TESTAMENT
OF WILLIAM RHINELANDER. WHO DIED
IN Is25-A CLOUD on REALTY
TITLES REMOVED

TITLES REMOVED.
The Court OF Appeals recently rendered an inpor-
tant decision. affirming a judgment OF the supreme
Court In the case OF Franz Chwaial against George
SchreIner In which was decided the question as 10
whether or not the heirs to the property let In trus,
by William Rh.ne.ander had a legal right to trans
fer their title 10 the property.
The property lef, In trust by William RAinelander
for his children Is estimated TO be worth several
millions OF dollars The testator died on september
9, 1926 One OF the clauses Of his VIII reads as iol-
lows
1t is my will that the real estate situated In the
city and county of New,iork. whereof ! may die
part thereof sold during the natural lives o. my
children and the natural life OF the longest ne o,
them. and until the youngeet person among sucn OF
the issue of my said children or any OF them as shall
be living at the death OF such longest liver or sh1ll
age Of twentyone years.
William RhineIander left seven children. OF whom
William c., who died June 20. 1875 was the last
surviving Soon after the death of William &.
Rhineander action In partition was begun in
the Supreme Court by one OF the grandchildren OF
William Rhineander, in which ali the living grand
children and great-grandchild were made parties
At the time OF the death OF William c., nineteen
grandchildren of William Rhnelander were living
In 1880 the Judgment In the partition case was rem
dered and the property was divided. Afterward
Mary A. Swan. q grandcbild. conveyed some prop
erty tho south side OF Ninetieth-st. between
First and Second aves which was allotted to her In
the partition action George Schrener. This piece
OF property schreiner sold to Chwatal In 1892 for
$24 co. the latter paying 1900 to the former when
the contract was drawn up Later Cnwatal asked
have Offices In The Tribune Building. TO have the
title 70 the property insured. and they In turn re-
ferred the matter TO the Lawyers Title Insurance
Company which refused to insure the tide. owing
the complicated clause in William Rhinelsnders
Will.
On November T. 1892. Chwatal brought action in
the Supreme Court TO recover the 1900 paid on
contract. His attorneys were Lachman. Morgen-
han x, oil w ed
by ex-Judge Rowland OF the firm Of Anderson.
Rowland & Murray. The case heard before
Judge Ingraham, who decided In favor Of the de-
PENDANT and 1t went later TO the Court OF Appeals
trust would not terminate until the youngest great
great grandchild, Emily A. Hurry, should become
OF age on March g. 1900 while on behalf of the de-
PENDANT Il maintained that the trust terminated
on the death OF William c. Rhinelander. the grand
children and the only child Of the deceased grand
child all being at that time more than twenty-one
Years old The Judges Of the Court OF Appeals con-
Cured in the opinion that the whole controversy
turned upon the meaning OF the word issue as found
in the quoted clause OF the Will OF William Rhine,
lander The plaintiff asserted that the word
issue In the will meant descendants. while the de-
rendanf insisted that II meant children The Judges
were OF the opinion that the word issue was am
heuous and cited several cases TO prove IT, on
Mach 10 the Court OF Appeals. all the Judges con-
curing rendered decision IN favor OF Schreiner'
THE decision concludes follows:
Where the interest OF the testator Is ieft uncer-
tain and doubtful. that construction snouIa ne
policy r.r NJ tho nronertv in
onestion II is said that had Chwatal won nls
many suit: would by nirehase titles to large
part OF The estate left In trust by william hhihe-
fande for his children.