Case Name: GLATNER v. GLATNER
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1912-02-23
Citations: 133 N.Y.S. 872
Docket Number: 
Parties: GLATNER v. GLATNER.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 133
Pages: 872–876

Head Matter:
GLATNER v. GLATNER.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
February 23, 1912.)
1. Wills (§ 823 )—Charge on Devise—Liability of Devisee.
Where a testator devised property to Ms wife subject unequivocally to her giving a home to Ms daughter, the acceptance of the devise created a personal liability on the part of the devisee to furnish or secure such a home, irrespective of the amount of income procured from the estate.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Wills, Cent. Dig. § 2116; Dec. Dig. § 823.*]
2. Appeal and Error (§ 184*)—Grounds—Theory of Cause Below.
Though an action to subject a devise to a charge for the providing of a home for the daughter of the testator was brought in equity, where the defendant did not persist in her denial of plaintiff’s allegation that she had no adequate remedy at law by motion to dismiss or an application for trial by jury, and the cause was tried as though it were properly brought, the question cannot be raised on appeal.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 1179-1183; Dec. Dig. § 184.*]
Ingraham, P. J., and Laughlin, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
Action by Rachel Glatner against Caroline Glatner. From a-judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and LAUGHLIN, CLARKE, SCOTT, and MILLER, JJ.
George P. Breckenridge, for appellant.
Charles Putzel (Eliphalet W. Tyler, on the brief), for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexés

Opinion:
SCOTT, J.
In my opinion the defendant by accepting the devise of the real estate became absolutely bound, while said real estate remained in her possession, to give a home to plaintiff, so long as said plaintiff desires to remain at home, and this, irrespective of the question what income was derived from the real estate. The provisions of the will respecting the plaintiff and the son Harry are very different. Respecting plaintiff, the obligation imposed is absolute and unqualified. The devise to defendant is made "subject to my said wife giving a home to my said daughter Rachel, so long as my said daughter desires to remain at home." As to the son Harry, the similar objection is qualified in two ways. To him the defendant is to provide a home "as best she may," and only "if he needs it." No such qualification is attached to the condition in favor of plaintiff. I therefore think that all the evidence as to the income realized from the property was immaterial. As I regard it, the acceptance of the devise created a personal liability on the part of defendant either to furnish plaintiff a home, or, failing that, to pay the reasonable cost to plaintiff of providing a house for herself by way of damages for the breach of the condition.
In this aspect of the case the plaintiff's remedy was an action at law, or perhaps successive actions, for damages, and I should concur with the Presiding Justice that this action in equity could not be maintained, if defendant had persisted in her objections to such an action. She did not, however, persist. It is true that by her answer she denied plaintiffs allegation that she had no adequate remedy at law, but no point was made of this on the trial, no motion made to dismiss the complaint, and no application made for a trial by jury. On the contrary, both parties tried the case as if it was properly brought, and even upon this appeal the defendant makes no question as to the form of the action or as to equity's cognizance thereof. Under these circumstances, the parties must be held to have consented to try the case as one in equity, and I see no reason why we should reverse the judgment because it should have been brought on tb<* law side of the court.
The judgment should therefore be affirmed, with costs.
CLARKE and MILLER, JJ., concur.