Case Name: In the Matter of the Construction of the Will of Berta von Isenburg, Deceased. City Bank Farmers Trust Company, as Trustee under the Will of Berta von Isenburg, Deceased, et al., Appellants-Respondents; City Bank Farmers Trust Company, as Trustee under an Assignment Made by Robin B. Cocksedge and Another, Intervener, Appellant; John Lane, as Special Guardian for Murray de Klee and Another, Infants, Respondent-Appellant; Phyllis D. Faille, Intervener, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1952-06-11
Citations: 280 A.D. 766
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Construction of the Will of Berta von Isenburg, Deceased. City Bank Farmers Trust Company, as Trustee under the Will of Berta von Isenburg, Deceased, et al., Appellants-Respondents; City Bank Farmers Trust Company, as Trustee under an Assignment Made by Robin B. Cocksedge and Another, Intervener, Appellant; John Lane, as Special Guardian for Murray de Klee and Another, Infants, Respondent-Appellant; Phyllis D. Faille, Intervener, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 280
Pages: 766–766

Head Matter:
(June 11,1952.)
(Republish.)
In the Matter of the Construction of the Will of Berta von Isenburg, Deceased. City Bank Farmers Trust Company, as Trustee under the Will of Berta von Isenburg, Deceased, et al., Appellants-Respondents; City Bank Farmers Trust Company, as Trustee under an Assignment Made by Robin B. Cocksedge and Another, Intervener, Appellant; John Lane, as Special Guardian for Murray de Klee and Another, Infants, Respondent-Appellant; Phyllis D. Faille, Intervener, Respondent.

Opinion:
Decree unanimously affirmed, with costs to all parties appearing separately and filing briefs herein payable out of the estate. We think that under the circumstances presented in this case, with correspondence between decedent and the attorneys for the trustee stipulated into evidence, that decedent's letter of January 2, 1939, completing the chain of correspondence and transmitting the will was admissible. We do not rest our decision on this letter, but it does serve explicitly to confirm an intention with respect to the disposition of her property which was implicit in decedent's will and actions. Present— Peek, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ. [See 279 App. Div. 1070; post, p. 920.]