Case Name: Elizabeth J. Weber, Resp't, v. John N. Lester et al., App'lts
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-04-11
Citations: 31 N.Y. St. Rep. 268
Docket Number: 
Parties: Elizabeth J. Weber, Resp’t, v. John N. Lester et al., App’lts.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 31
Pages: 268–272

Head Matter:
Elizabeth J. Weber, Resp’t, v. John N. Lester et al., App’lts.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department,
Filed April 11, 1890.)
W ills—Devise—Comstrtjction.
A testatrix by her will gave to defendant Lester for life twenty acres of land in a certain location, to be set off to him as nearly as possible in the form of a square, “ or such- other twenty acres of any lands of which I may die seized as may be agreed upon by and between ” him and the executors, with remainder to his children, if any; if not, to be divided with the residue. The twenty acres named, and specifically described, was sold on foreclosure two years prior to testatrix death, and the executors declined to agree as to the substitution of other land in its stead. Held, that it was not the intention of testatrix that this devisee should surely, in the event that has occurred, become entitled to any other twenty acres; there was no absolute devise of any other, or positive or mandatory directions to substitute any other twenty acres for those first named, but simply a power to agree on such a substitution; that whether the parties shall so agree was optional with them, and the court has no power to compel them to do so, and hence that neither Lester nor his children have any title or interest in the lands of testatrix.
(Corlett, J., dissents)
Motion for a new trial under § 1001 of the Code on a case and exceptions on appeal from .interlocutory judgment.
Action to construe the will of Christiana Farthing, deceased, and for partition of real estate devised thereby.
The opinion at special term was as follows:
Daniels, J.—By that part of the will of Christiana Farthing that has now been made the subject of controversy, she devised to her nephew, the defendant, John N. Lester, “ for and during his natural life, but no longer, twenty (20) acres of land, situate, lying and being in said town of West Seneca, at the southwest corner of Abbott road and Wells road, so called, to be divided and set off to him as soon after my death as the same can well be done, in as nearly the form of a square as may be, or such other twenty (20) acres of any land of which I may die seized, as may be agreed upon between my said nephew and the executors of this my last will and testament; and I hereby will and direct that said executors shall execute and make, at the expense of my estate, and deliver to said John N. Lester, a proper and sufficient instrument in writing, under their hands and seals, and by them duly acknowledged so as to entitle the same to be recorded, in and by which they shall designate and describe, by metes and bounds, the twenty (20) acres of land so set off and allowed to John FT. Lester.” The testatrix further directed that the twenty acres in this manner mentioned should become and be disposed of as part of her residuary estate, in case her nephew, John N. Lester, should die before or after her own decease, without lawful issue; but in case he died leaving lawful issue, then the twenty (20) acres were devised in remainder to such issue. He has survived the testatrix, and also has lawful issue, who are defendants in this action.
Butafter the making of her will she made and executed a mortgage upon the land, which included the twenty acres at the southwest corner of the Abbott and Wells roads, and default having been made in the payment of the debt secured by the mortgage, it was foreclosed, and the land described in it was sold under the judgment in the foreclosure action to a person other than the testatrix. This sale was made in 1879, near two years before her own decease. It is entirely clear that this incumbrance, foreclosure and sale deprived the devisee, John N. Lester, and his issue, of the twenty acres referred to at the southwest corner of Abbott and Wells roads. As to that there can be no possible question, and no absolute right was devised to him or them to any other twenty acres of land owned by her.. Neither did she devise to him or them any other twenty acres in case her title to the land at the corner of these streets should be for any cause extinguished. But what she did direct was, that he should have any other twenty acres of land than those in this manner mentioned which he and her executors might agree upon, of which she might die seized.
She gave no positive or mandatory directions to substitute any other twenty acres for those first mentioned by her. Neither did she direct her executors to set off any other twenty acres in case her title to those at the corner of these roads should, for any cause, fail. If she had done either, then the direction could be carried into effect by the decree of a court of equity. That would have created an imperative power in trust, and such powers the statute has empowered this court to maintain and enforce. But all that the testatrix has done by way of substituting another for the twenty acres by her described has been to empower the executors and her nephew to agree to make that substitution.
She has provided the power without directing its execution. Whether it shall be executed or not has been left to the mere volition of these parties. It is the power to agree only, and the court has no authority to adjudge that they shall agree, as long as the testatrix has not directed that they must, or in any other manner created the obligation that they shall agree. Whether they should agree has been left optional. That is the extent of the power'created, and the court has received no authority whatever to extend it. But its duty consists wholly in maintaining and carrying into effect the intention as it has been disclosed. For a power whose execution or non-execution has been expressly made to depend upon the will of the grantee has been excepted from the compulsory interference of the court. 3 R. S., 7th ed., 2191, § 96. It is the other classes of powers that are mandatory and the court has been empowered to enforce.
This conclusion is more in harmony with the probable intention of the testatrix than any other that can be placed, either upon her language or conduct, for she must have been aware of the sale in the foreclosure suit of the twenty acres at the corner of the two roads, under the mortgage placed by herself upon it. And if she had intended that her nephew should certainly have twenty acres of her other land in place of these, she would probably have indicated the existence of that 'intention by some subsequent and equivalent testamentary act. That she did not do, and the omission confirms the conclusion that it was not her intention that this devisee should surely, in the event that occurred, still become entitled to any other twenty acres. The executors ¡having declined to make this agreement, the court has not been invested with authority compulsorily obliging them to enter into it. This is in harmony with the manner in which the testatrix has expressed and defined the power which might be exercised, and conforms to the statute as well as decided authorities. Vandemark v. Vandemark, 26 Barb., 416; McNaughton v. McNaughton, 34 N. Y., 201; Hull v. Hull, 24 id., 647.
Judgment will, therefore, be directed to the effect that neither John ¡N. Lester, or his children, have any title or interest in the land to be affected by this action. The form and findings will be settled on notice to the attorneys for the defendants.
Fullerton, Becker & Hazel, for app’lts; George Wadsworth and F. G. Robbins, for resp’t and Lawson, infants.

Opinion:
Motion for a new trial denied, with costs, and final judgment ordered in accordance with interlocutory judgment on opinion of Daniels, J., delivered at special term.
Dwight, P. J., and Macomber, J., concur.