In Re Trust Under Will of Koffend
Cited by
- Toombs v. Daniels 361 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1985
- Roepke v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 302 N.W.2d 350 Minn. 1981
- In Matter of Campbell's Trusts 258 N.W.2d 856 Minn. 1977
- In Re Will of Dereu 197 N.W.2d 229 Minn. 1972
- McKay v. Carlson 197 N.W.2d 229 Minn. 1972
- In Re Estate of Perkins 182 N.W.2d 881 Minn. 1970
- First National Bank v. Merchants National Bank 182 N.W.2d 881 Minn. 1970
- In Re Trust Under Last Will of Gardner 266 Minn. 127 Minn. 1963
- In Re Trust Created by Warner 117 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 1962
- Bailey v. Bailey 62 N.W.2d 829 Minn. 1954
- Suske v. Straka 39 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 1949
- Crosby v. Atmore 28 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1947
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Goodwin v. McGaughey 122 N.W. 6
- In Re Estate of Bergman 233 N.W. 806
- In Re Estate of Mahoney 263 N.W. 465
- Held v. Keller 160 N.W. 487
- Schmitt v. Eagle Roller Mill Co. 272 N.W. 277
- Hayday v. Hammermill Paper Co. 237 N.W. 600
- In Re Trusts Under Will of Whitacre 293 N.W. 784
- Benson Lumber Co. v. Thornton 240 N.W. 651
- In Re Trust Under Will of Clarke 284 N.W. 876
- In Re Estate of Simon 245 N.W. 31
- In Re Trust Created Under Will of Fogg 259 N.W. 6
- Congdon v. Congdon 200 N.W. 76
- Malcolmson v. Goodhue County National Bank 274 N.W. 652
- Baumann v. Katzenmeyer 283 N.W. 242
- Watkins v. Bigelow 100 N.W. 1104
- First and American National Bank v. Higgins 293 N.W. 585
- Equitable Holding Co. v. Equitable Building & Loan Ass'n 279 N.W. 736
Opinion text
On petition for reargument, appellants urge that the rule requiring apportionment of dividends as between corpus and income, discussed in part 5 of the original opinion, should be limited to stock dividends and extraordinary cash dividends. The authorities cited by us involved cases of such dividends. It was our intention so to limit the rule without intimating whether the rule for apportioning dividends between corpus and income ever applies to ordinary dividends, and we now do so. A stipulation of the parties shows that the dividend in question was an ordinary cash dividend, which the parties now agree should go to the remaindermen. It therefore follows that respondents' recovery should be further reduced by the sum of $5,023.22 and *Page 229 that their recovery should be the sum of $33,922.04 together with interest thereon at three percent from March 8, 1940. Modified on petition for reargument as stated.