
    Union Trust Company of Rochester, Respondent, v. William W. Boardman, as Administrator of the Estate of Helen H. Olmstead, Deceased, et al., Respondents, and Dana W. Kreidler et al., Appellants, Impleaded with Others.
    
      Trust —judicial construction of trust agreement — after-born children — power of court to direct reformation of trust agreement after death of donor.
    
    
      Union Trust Co. v. Boardman, 215 App. Div. 73, affirmed.
    (Argued November 22, 1927;
    decided December 6, 1927.)
    Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered March 24, 1926, modifying and affirming as modified a judgment entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action brought by a trustee for approval of its accounts and to obtain a judicial construction of portions of a trust agreement. The questions were: “1. Should after-born children share in a distribution of the remainder? 2. Whether reformation of the trust agreement might be directed, after the donor’s death on the theory that his intended plan of distribution was defeated by an alleged mistake in computation? ”
    
      Fred A. Robbins and Clyde E. Shults for Dana W. Kreidler et al., appellants.
    
      Leonard B. Bacon for Marie E. Healy, appellant.
    
      Andrew R. Sutherland for plaintiff-respondent.
    
      Thomas R. Wheeler, Robert Pratt, H, V. Pratt, Fritz Fernow and Thomas F. Fanning for defendants-respondents.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs payable out of the trust fund; no opinion.

Concur: Pound, Crane, Andrews, Lehman, Kellogg and O’Brien, JJ. Dissent: Cardozo, Ch. J., on appeal by defendants Kreidler.  