Case Name: SIMEON SMITH, as Executor of the Last Will and Testament of MARGERY BURCH, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM D. BURCH, Defendant
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1882-12
Citations: 35 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 331
Docket Number: 
Parties: SIMEON SMITH, as Executor of the Last Will and Testament of MARGERY BURCH, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM D. BURCH, Defendant.
Judges: Present — Learned, P. J., Bookes and Westbrook, JJ.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 35
Pages: 331–335

Head Matter:
SIMEON SMITH, as Executor of the Last Will and Testament of MARGERY BURCH, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM D. BURCH, Defendant.
Will — Construction of words “ ready money" in.
Between January 14 and December 8, 1880, the defendant, pursuant to authority conferred upon him by his wife in 1879, collected the sum of $490.25, being the amount of a legacy which she had become entitled to receive in 1878. From some time prior to January 1, 1880, and up to the time of her death in September, 1881, the wife was incompetent to transact her ordinary business, and unfit to exercise any control over her property, by reason of unsoundness of mind. All the money received by the husband was, with other moneys belonging to him, expended in defraying household expenses and procuring nurses and medical attendance for his wife. In 1877, the wife made a will which contained, among others, the following provision: “I further give and bequeath to my beloved husband all the ready money I may have, either in bank or elsewhere, at my decease, before any of the foregoing legacies or bequests shall be paid.”
In an action by the executor of the wife to recover the 'amount so collected and expended by the husband:
Held, that it was not “ready money” in “bank or elsewhere,” within the meaning of those words as used in the will, and that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment. (Westbrook^ J., dissenting.)
Controversy submitted upon an agreed statement of facts, in pursuance of section 1279 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The plaintiff, as the executor of the defendant’s wife, sought to recover certain moneys collected by the defendant, as the agent of his wife, for a legacy to which she had become entitled. The defendant claimed to be entitled to the amount so collected as “ ready money ” within the meaning of that term, as used in the following clause of the testatrix’s will: “I further give and bequeath to my beloved husband all the ready money I may have, either in bank or elsewhere, at my decease, before any of the foregoing legacies or bequests shall be paid.”
Further facts are stated in the opinion of Westbrook, J.
Smith Brothers, for the plaintiff.
George B. JDmis, for the defendant.

Opinion:
Learned, P. J.:
The only question is, what is the meaning of the words, " all the ready money I may have either in bank or elsewhere- at my decease ? " The words plainly include all bank deposits. (Parker v. Marchant, 1 Y. & C. Ch., 290.) They also include all cash, that is, specie and currency which the testatrix had at her death. Such money, either in the bank or in the possession of the testatrix, in the form of specie and currency, is the money which she had " ready " for use. And such, as I think, is the meaning of the words, " ready money," viz., the money kept on hand in bank or in the possession of the testatrix, and intended principally for her daily expenses and use.
Even the words, " money of which I may die -possessed," without the epithet " ready, " have been held to be limited to cash in the house, to money at bankers and to ready money at call! (Byrom v. Brandreth, Law R., 16 Eq., 475; see, also, Collins v. Collins, Law R., 12 Eq., 455.)
The matter in question arose in this way: The testatrix became entitled to a legacy in 1878. In 1879 she authorized her husband to collect it, which he'did prior to December 8, 1880. Before the time when he in fact collected any of the legacy the testatrix had become mentally incapable of transacting any business. The husband used this money, and other money of his own, in his household expenses and in medical attendance, etc., for the testatrix. None of the money remained on hand at her death. She made her will in 1877 and died in 1881.
Thus the legacy was not ready money, or money at all, when she made her will. If it remained uninvested by her husband, or was. used by him in his household, and other expenses after it had been received, this was not by her consent, as she was incapable of acting. Had she been capable of acting, and had she then allowed the money to lie in her husband's possession, using it from time to time as " ready money," there would have been more force in the argument that her actions had showed that this ought to pass by the bequest. But no argument can be drawn from the use made by the husband of which she was not cognizant. "We have then simply the case of a legacy collected by an agent and never paid over. I do not think that that is " ready money." It is bnt a debt for money collected in a fiduciary capacity.
And X think the plaintiff should have judgment.