Appeal of Bryan

Decision Date12 August 1904
Citation58 A. 748,77 Conn. 240
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesAppeal of BRYAN et al.

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Edwin B. Gager, Judge.

In the matter of the estate of Philo S. Bennett, deceased. From a judgment of the superior court affirming the decree of the court of probate refusing to approve a certain writing as a part of the will of said deceased, William J. Bryan, individually and as trustee under the will, appeals. Affirmed.

Charles A. Towne, Henry G. Newton, and Harrison Hewitt, for appellant.

Henry Stoddard and William H. Williams, for appellees.

TORRANCE, C. J. The court of probate for the district of New Haven approved and admitted to probate a certain writing as the last will of Philo S. Bennett, deceased. That will contained, as its twelfth clause, the following: "I give and bequeath unto my wife, Grace Imogene Bennett, the sum of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) in trust, however, for the purposes set forth in a sealed letter which will be found with this will." At the time this will was offered for probate, there were also offered for probate, as a part of it, under the twelfth clause of the will, two writings hereinafter referred to as Exhibits B and C The court of probate refused to approve or admit to probate as parts of said will each and both of these exhibits, and from that part of its decree an appeal was taken to the superior court by William J. Bryan, individually and as trustee under the will, as he claims it to be. The will admitted to probate is, in the record, called "Exhibit A," while Exhibits B and C are letters which, as the appellant claims, constitute a part of the will.

The will was executed in New York, and is dated the 22d day of May, 1900.

Exhibit B is a letter from the testator to his wife, of which the following is a copy: "New York, 5/22/1900.

"My dear Wife: In my will just executed I have bequeathed to you seventy-five thousand dollars (75,000) and the Bridgeport houses, and have in addition to this made you the residuary legatee of a sum which will amount to twenty-five thousand more. This will give you a larger income than you can spend while you live, and will enable you to make bountiful provision for those you desire to remember in your will. In my will you will find the following provisions:

"I give and bequeath unto my wife, Grace Imogene Bennett, the sum of fifty thousand dollars (50,000) in trust, however, for the purposes set forth in a sealed letter which will be found with this will.

"It is my desire that fifty thousand dollars conveyed to you in trust by this provision shall be by you paid to William Jennings Bryan, of Lincoln, Nebr., or to his heirs if 1 survive him. I am earnestly devoted to the political principles which Mr. Bryan advocates, and believe the welfare of the nation depends upon the triumph of those principles. As I am not as able as he to defend those principles with tongue and pen, and as his political prevents the application of his time and talents to money making, I consider it a duty, as I find it a pleasure, to make this provision for his financial aid, so that he may be more free to devote himself to his chosen field of labor. If for any reason he is unwilling to receive this sum for himself, it is my will that he shall distribute the said sum of fifty thousand dollars according to his judgment among educational and charitable institutions. I have sent a duplicate of this letter to Mr. Bryan, and it is my desire that no one excepting you and Mr. Bryan himself shall know of this letter and bequest. For this reason I place this letter in a sealed envelope, and direct that it shall be opened only by you, and read by you alone. With love and kisses, P. S. Bennett."

Exhibit C was a typewritten duplicate of Exhibit B, except that the words, "with love and kisses, P. S. Bennett," at the end of Exhibit B, were not contained in Exhibit C, nor was Exhibit C signed by the testator. Respecting these exhibits, the appellant, in the superior court, offered evidence tending to prove the following facts: That about a week or 10 days before the date of the will, at the city of Lincoln, Neb., the testator and Mr. Bryan and his wife prepared a blank draft form of the will which was subsequently filled out and executed, and that Exhibit C was then also prepared as a blank draft form from which Exhibit B was to be, and was subsequently, drawn; that Exhibit B was in the handwriting of the testator, and was by him placed in a sealed envelope bearing the following indorsement in his band-writing: 'Mrs. P. S. Bennett. To be read only by Mrs. Bennett and by her alone, after my death. P. S. Bennett. [Seal.]; that the testator, on the day after the date of the will, placed said will and said envelope containing Exhibit B in his box in a vault in the Wool Exchange building, in New York City, where they remained as he put them until after his death, the will being "separate from said letter and said envelope"; and that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • First Portland Nat. Bank v. Kaler-Vaill Memorial Home
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)
    • May 6, 1959
    ...to be incorporated by reference must be complete and in existence at the time and clearly described in the will. Bryan's Appeal, 77 Conn. 240, 58 A. 748, 68 L.R.A. 353; Newton v. Seaman's Friend Soc., 130 Mass. 91; Bemis v. Fletcher, 251 Mass. 178, 146 N.E. 277, 37 A.L.R. 1471; [In re] Esta......
  • White v. Reading
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 7, 1922
    ...v. Maddock, 11 Moore's P. C. C. 427; Fesler v. Simpson, 58 Ind. 83; Fickle v. Snepp, 97 Ind. 289, and other citations in notes to Bryan's Appeal, 68 L.R.A. 373.] additional facts that the testator put the grantees into possession of the several tracts described in the deeds and that the wil......
  • Peyton v. Wehrhane
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • May 5, 1939
    ...to write in the future would not make them effective as testamentary provisions, either under our law or that of New York; Bryan's Appeal, 77 Conn. 240, 58 A. 748, 68 L.R.A. 353, 107 Am. St.Rep. 34, 1 Ann.Cas. 393; Bryan v. Bigelow, 77 Conn. 604, 612, 60 A. 266, 107 Am.St.Rep. 64; Hatheway ......
  • Peyton v. Wehrhane
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • May 5, 1939
    ... 6 A.2d 313 125 Conn. 420 PEYTON v. WEHRHANE et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut. May 5, 1939 . . Appeal. from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Arthur F. Ells, Judge. . . Declaratory. judgment action by Bernard Peyton against Anne duPont ... to write in the future would not make them effective as. testamentary provisions, either under our law or that of New. York; Bryan's Appeal, 77 Conn. 240, 58 A. 748,68 L.R.A. 353, 107 Am.St.Rep. 34,1 Ann.Cas. 393; Bryan v. Bigelow, 77 Conn. 604, 612, 60 A. 266,107 Am.St.Rep. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The Cross of Gold: a Testamentary Campaign Contribution Frustrated by Connecticut Law
    • United States
    • Connecticut Bar Association Connecticut Bar Journal No. 71, 1996
    • Invalid date
    ...if the evidence offered proves that it was in existence and known to the testator at the time it was executed. We held in Bryan Appeal4 77 Conn. 240, 246 that there was no clear, explicit reference in the will itself to any specific document, as to incorporate the sealed letter into the wil......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT