Bisson v. Gosselin
Decision Date | 06 June 1939 |
Citation | 6 A.2d 766 |
Parties | BISSON et al. v. GOSSELIN et al. |
Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Transferred from Superior Court, Strafford County; Connor, Judge.
Proceeding by Olivine Bisson and another, executrices, against Ludger Gosselin and another for construction of a residuary clause of a will. Case transferred without ruling.
Case discharged.
Petition, for construction of the residuary clause of a will leaving the residuary estate of the testatrix "to my nieces and nephew namely, Anna Bisson, Olivine Bisson, * * * to have and to hold in equal shares as tenants in common, to them and their heirs forever".
Twenty-one nephews and a number of nieces survived the testatrix. Most of the nephews lived in Canada, one resided in Massachusetts, and three in places neighboring her domicile of Rochester. Of these three Arthur Bisson was one, and another clause of the will bequeathed $500 to him. No other nephews were named as special legatees. The two nieces Anna and Olivine were not named and were given nothing except by the residuary clause. One clause gave $200 to "each of my following nephews and relatives", then naming three women but no nephews.
The will was drawn and executed at the attorneys' office of Gregoire & George. By the agreed statement of facts, The will in question was thus prepared.
In further agreement, the "associations and relations" of the testatrix .
The residuary estate approximates $3,000.
Cooper & Hall, of Rochester, for plaintiffs.
Hughes & Burns and Charles F. Hartnett, all of Dover, for various nephews other than Arthur Bisson.
The essential issue of construction is whether the will effectually disposes of the part of the residue not left to the nieces Anna and Olivine, and if so, whether all the nephews take it or whether it is left to Arthur Bisson as the only nephew anywhere named in the will.
A construction of the residuary clause by which the word "nephew" is read as though it were in the plural instead of the singular, is considered not to accord with the expressed purpose of the testatrix....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Merrow v. Merrow
...The purpose is to protect a trustee in the discharge of his duties and to facilitate the execution of his functions. Bisson v. Gosselin, 90 N.H. 273, 275, 6 A.2d 766. The plaintiff is a trustee under this will and we assume will be appointed trustee in accordance with the prayer in his peti......
-
Allaire Estate, In re
...While the administrator in the present case has no right to seek any particular construction of the deed in issue (Bisson v. Gosselin, 90 N.H. 273, 275, 6 A.2d 766) he does have the privilege of making useful suggestions to the court. Blanchard v. Boston & M. Railroad, 86 N.H. 263, 266, 107......
-
Grondin's Estate, In re
...100 A.2d 157. Counsel for the executor recognized that he had no right to seek any particular construction of the will, Bisson v. Gosselin, 90 N.H. 273, 275, 6 A.2d 766, and accordingly his brief cites cases in other jurisdictions on both sides of the question. Therefore there is no reason ......
-
Kalakaua Relief Line, LLC v. 1830 Kapiolani, LLC
...bring a proper action for interpleader “if one of [the claimants] has a valid legal demand against him at all events”); Bisson v. Gosselin, 6 A.2d 766, 767 (N.H.1939) ( “The only personal interest [a] plaintiff has [in an interpleader action for defendants to settle a controversy between th......