Case Name: Arthur E. Dornin, an Infant, by Caroline L. Ullmann, His Guardian ad Litem, Appellant, v. William C. Dornin, Jr., Individually, and as Substituted Trustee under the Will of Mary J. Dornin, Deceased, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1917-11-27
Citations: 222 N.Y. 531
Docket Number: 
Parties: Arthur E. Dornin, an Infant, by Caroline L. Ullmann, His Guardian ad Litem, Appellant, v. William C. Dornin, Jr., Individually, and as Substituted Trustee under the Will of Mary J. Dornin, Deceased, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 222
Pages: 531–531

Head Matter:
Arthur E. Dornin, an Infant, by Caroline L. Ullmann, His Guardian ad Litem, Appellant, v. William C. Dornin, Jr., Individually, and as Substituted Trustee under the Will of Mary J. Dornin, Deceased, Respondent.
Dornin v. Dornin, 176 App. Div. 908, affirmed.
(Argued November 13, 1917;
decided November 27, 1917.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered March 1, 1917, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon an order of Special Term, sustaining a demurrer to and directing a dismissal of the complaint in an action for the construction of the will of Mary J. Dornin, deceased. The will provided: “ I give, devise and bequeath unto my. executors hereinafter named or the survivor of them all my estate, both real and personal, of every sort and nature of which I may die seized or possessed, in trust, nevertheless, to receive the rents, income and profits thereof and apply the same to the use of my husband William C. Dornin, and my child or children of mine who may survive me, in equal portions, share and share alike, so long as my husband shall five, and upon his death to transfer and pay over the same to the child or children of our marriage who may then be living and' to their heirs and assigns forever.” It was the contention of the pláintiff that the direction in the will upon the death of the husband to “ transfer and pay over the same to the child or children of our marriage who may then be living, and to their heirs and assigns forever, ” included grandchildren. It is defendant’s contention that it necessarily excluded grandchildren,
George B. Covington and Herbert A. Heyn for appellant.
Paul Armitage for respondent.

Opinion:
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Chase, Cuddeback, Carbozo, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ.