
    (77 Misc. Rep. 88.)
    In re UNION TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK.
    (Surrogate’s Court, New York County.
    May, 1912.)
    Trusts (§ 282*)—Trust Estate—Termination—Payment to Executor of Beneficiary.
    Where a beneficiary of a fund, forming part of residuary estate bequeathed by his brother to their mother, who died intestate as to the same, is entitled to it as her sole next of kin, the fund on the consent of the substituted trustee of the mother’s estate may be paid directly to the executor of the beneficiary.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trusts, Cent. Dig. § 402; Dec. Dig. § 282.*]
    •For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes-
    In the matter of the Settlement of the Account of the Union Trust Company of New York, trustee under the will of Catherine Crane Halsted. Decree rendered.
    Miller, King, Lane & Trafford, of New York City, for petitioner. Cardozo & Nathan, of New York City, for James M. Halsted, executor.
    George W. Carr, of New York City, for executor, etc., of Charles Stockton Halsted.
    Charles C. Lockwood, of New York City, for James Maver Halsted, James Ewing, as administrator of Catherine Halsted Ewing, and James Ewing, as general guardian of James Halsted Ewing.
    Parker V. Lawrence, of New York City, special guardian of Charles Stockton Halsted, Jr.
   FOWLER, S.

Catherine Crane Halsted died June 29, 1890, leaving a will and testament which was duly admitted to probate on July-22, 1890. The Union Trust Company was appointed the substituted: trustee on January 6, 1909, by an order of the Supreme Court, and admits that by reason of the death of Charles Stockton Halsted and pursuant to the provisions of the will of Catherine Crane Halsted the trust fund held by it as trustee is now distributable. No objection, either in this accounting or the other, is filed as to any of the items of the accounts, and it appears that each account contains a correct statement of the receipts and expenditures.

The Union Trust Company is entitled to have the trust fund of $25,000,_ which now belongs to the executor of Charles Stockton Halsted, paid first to it as substituted trustee under the will of Catherine Crane Halsted, and by it paid over to the estate of Charles Stockton Halsted, so as to obtain its commission on the fund. But the executor in his brief states that the counsel for the trust company in open court announced his willingness to have the fund paid directly to the estate of Charles Stockton Halsted. If this be so, I see no reason why the decree in the estate of William A. Halsted should not provide for the payment of the fund directly to the estate of Charles Stockton Halsted. But I believe that the cbnsent in writing of the Union Trust Company should be filed.

Tim above-named' decedent also leaves an individual estate, but no objection is filed to the account as to this. The only objection is as to the $25,000 trust fund.

Decreed accordingly.  