Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Parker

• Decision Date: 31 December 1907
• Citation: 197 Mass. 70,83 N.E. 307
• Parties: BOSTON SAFE DEPOSIT & TRUST CO. v. PARKER et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

197 Mass. 70

83 N.E. 307

BOSTON SAFE DEPOSIT & TRUST CO. v. PARKER et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

December 31, 1907

COUNSEL

Wm D. Whitmore, Jr., for Emeline N. Hastings and others.

Wm. B Durant, for Mary F. Parker and the estate of Franscena A Whitney.

Edgar S. Hill and Peter S. Maher, for Hudson B. Hastings and others.

OPINION

MORTON J.

This is a petition by the trustee under the will of one Thomas Hastings for instructions concerning the construction of a clause in said will. The clause, omitting immaterial portions, is as follows: 'Item 7. I give, bequeathe and devise to said Thomas Dana and Lorenzo Marrett * * * the second fourth part of said remainder and residue of my estate, but in trust, nevertheless, to pay over the net income and profits thereof to my daughter Franscena A Hastings * * * for and during the term of her natural life. * * * At the decease of said Franscena A. to distribute and divide said fourth part among the children of said Franscena or the descendants of any deceased children * * * living at her death. But if the said Franscena shall die leaving no children nor descendants living at the time of her death then to divide and distribute said estate among my heirs at law.' The question is whether the heirs at law are to be ascertained as of the death of the testator or of the life tenant. The appellants contend that the latter is the true construction. The single justice ruled in favor of the other construction and ordered a decree to be entered accordingly. We think that the ruling and decree were right.

Ordinarily the words 'heirs at law' refer to those who were or will be such at the death of the testator or ancestor and not to some later period. This is the natural import of the words. But where it is evident that the heirs are to be ascertained as of a later period, due effect will be given to the intention thus expressed, if it can be done consistently with the rules of law. There are many cases in which it has been held that a later period was meant. The question in each case is, primarily, one of intention. And the rules that have been laid down, and the cases that have been decided are useful only in so far as they aid the court in ascertaining and, if possible, in giving effect to, the intention in the particular case before it. In the present case we think that the words have their ordinary meaning, and that the case is...