英和和英

動詞

postdecease (三人称単数 現在形 postdeceases, 現在分詞 postdeceasing, 過去形および過去分詞形 postdeceased)

1. (transitive) To die later than.
   • 1884, A Digest of the Hindu Law of Inheritance, Partition, and Adoption; Embodying the Replies of the Śâstris in the Courts of the Bombay Presidency, with Introductions and Notes by Raymond West and Johann Georg Bühler, volume II, book III, “Adoption”, section VII, “Consequences of Adoption”, subsection I, “Governed by the Ordinary Law”, 1., “Perfect Adoption”, b., “Specific Effects”, 2., “Consequences as Creating Relations in the Family of Adoption”, b. subsection “Relations Between the Adopted Son and Remoter Connexions by Blood”, 5., “Of the Adoptive Father” (bk. III, s. VII, sub-s. I; 1. b. 2. 5.), third edition, Bombay: […] Education Society’s Press, […], page 1194:

     It will be noticed too that in a case between separated brothers and their sons, the latter do not represent their predeceased father in succession to his post-deceased brother, or take so long as another brother survives.

   • 1920, The Northwestern Reporter, St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co., page 932, columns 1–2:

     His heirs are the defendant Mary Gottbreht, a daughter, the defendants Frank Higgens and Francis Higgens, the husband and daughter, respectively, of a postdeceased daughter, and the plaintiffs Anna Stoll and Loretta Erhart, the daughters of a prior deceased son.

   • 1943, Reports of Selected Cases Decided in the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court and Other Courts of the State of New York Other Than the Court of Appeals and the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court: Miscellaneous Reports, page 282:

     An application by the fiduciaries of the testatrix’ estate for an extension of time to permit the filing of a renunciation on behalf of a beneficiary who postdeceased the testatrix and for approval of same is denied without prejudice to a renewed application on notice to those persons whose interest may be created or increased by the proposed renunciation (EPTL 2-1.11), i.e., the personal representative of the estate of the renouncing party and if there is no fiduciary, the renouncing party’s distributees, since they may be prejudiced by approval of the application.

   • 1978, Reports of cases Determined in the Courts of Appeal of the State of California, pages 888 and 891:

     This petition alleged simply that Schuppler and Wolf were “heirs at law of Williams Edwards;” in actuality, Schuppler is the sole heir of Wolf, who postdeceased Edwards. […] The claim of Viktoria Fleischmann, sole heir of original would-be intervener Hans Fleischmann (who postdeceased Edwards) was also properly accepted on this ground as to Hans’ one-fourteenth share.

   • 2000, Estate Planning:

     Non-Uniform Probate Code state law may vary with respect to the ability to disclaim on behalf of an incompetent or postdeceased beneficiary.

   • 2009, Reports of Cases Decided in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, State of New York, page 626:

     The decedent Nicholas R. Doman (hereinafter Nicholas) and his postdeceased second wife Judith N. Doman (hereinafter Judith) entered into a postnuptial agreement (hereinafter the agreement) dated November 23, 1998.

   • 2010, Reports of Selected Cases Decided in Courts of the State of New York Other Than the Court of Appeals and the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, page 1049:

     Subsequently, Ann postdeceased Carl on October 31, 2008.