Opinion by Bradley, J.; Smith, P.J., and Haight, J., concur.

TRUST DEEDS.

N. Y. COURT OF APPEALS.

Nearpass et al., applts., v. Newman et al., respts.

Decided June 7, 1887.

One N. conveyed to a trustee certain land which he was to sell and invest the proceeds, applying the proceeds to the use of the grantor's wife and children. Subsequently, to more fully secure the income to his wife and children, he executed to the trustee a quitclaim deed. Held, That the first deed and agreement created a valid power in trust to convert the land into money and invest the proceeds in securities in which the wife was to have a life estate only; that the rever

sell and invest the proceeds and apply the income to the use of the wife of F. N. and her children. On April 17, 1865, F. N. for the purpose of more fully securing to his wife and her children the income of said trust fund executed to J. D. N. a quitclaim deed of the property.

Esek Cowen, for applts.

John D. Pray and Hubbard & Rushmore, for respts.

Held, That the effect of the deed and trust agreement of Dec., 1864. was to create a valid power in trust to convert the land into money and invest the proceeds in securities in which the wife was to have a life estate only, 12 N. Y., 395; that the reversionary interest in the land, not having been consionary interest in the land not being veyed, remained in the creator of

conveyed reverted to the grantor on the death of his wife, and that the quitclaim deed did not affect his reversionary interest in the land.

Reversing S. C., 21 W. Dig., 86.

This action was brought to compel a trustee to account and deliver up property belonging to the trust. It appears that on Dec. 7, 1864, F. N. entered into an agreement with his wife and one J. D. N. as trustee, whereby he conveyed to the latter and his successors and assigns certain premises, which he was to

the trust, and upon the death of his wife reverted to him under the statute, 3 R. S. (7th ed.) 2182, § 62; that the quitclaim deed subse quently executed by the creator of the trust did not affect his reversionary interest in the land.

Judgment of General Term, reversing judgment of Special Term for plaintiffs, reversed, and judgment of Special Term affirmed.

Opinion by Ruger, Ch. J. All

concur.

END OF VOLUME XXVI.

IN THE FIRST TWENTY-FIVE VOLUMES OF THE NEW YORK WEEKLY DIGEST WHICH HAVE BEEN REPORTED IN FULL.

N. B.-No reference is made to cases which have appeared in Memoranda in the Regular

42 Hun, 473.

.XXV., 273

American Insulator Co. v. The B. & M. Tel. Co..... 13 Daly, 200.

.XXII., 188

Anderson v. Goldschmidt

.103 N. Y, 617.

.XXV., 183

Central Trust Co. v. The N. Y. C. & H. R. RR. Co.. 42 Hun, 602.