Bradbury v. Jackson

• Decision Date: 20 April 1903
• Citation: 54 A. 1068,97 Me. 449
• Parties: BRADBURY v. JACKSON et al.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

54 A. 1068

97 Me. 449

BRADBURY

v. JACKSON et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

April 20, 1903.

(Official.)

Report from Supreme Judicial Court, Kennebec County.

This was a bill in equity brought by Charles Bradbury, the only surviving son of James W. Bradbury, late of Augusta, for the construction of his father's will, and especially under items ninth, tenth, and eleventh. The case came before the law court upon report. Decree rendered.

The questions raised under these items of the will were: (1) Whether under the provisions of the will the plaintiff takes an absolute estate at law or in equity in one undivided half of the residue, both principal and income, subject only to a trust as to the income during his lifetime; or whether he takes a life estate only in the income; or, if neither, what estate he takes in the principal and income. (2) in the event of the death of the plaintiff without will and without issue by his present wife, to whom should the trustees deliver the principal in final disposition under the terms of the will?

Argued before WISWELL, G. J., and STROUT, SAVAGE, POWERS, PEABODY, and SPEAR, JJ.

O. D. Baker, for plaintiff.

L. C. Cornish, N. L. Bassett, and J. O. Bradbury, for defendants.

POWERS, J. This bill is brought to obtain a construction of a part of the will of James W. Bradbury. The testator left an estate of about $217,000, all in personal property. By the first eight items of his will he gave about $37,000 in various public or private bequests, including a legacy of $8,000 to his son Charles. The balance of his estate he disposed of by the ninth, tenth, and eleventh items of his will, which are as follows:

"Ninth. The residue of my property that remains after the payment of the bequests, gifts, debts and expenses provided for in the eight preceding sections, is to be divided into two equal parts by my executors, as soon as the last bequest is paid, and by them transferred and delivered to the trustees hereinafter named, one-half to the trustees for Eliza Louisa Bradbury, and one-half for the trustees of Charles Bradbury. They shall see that the certificates of the stock they deliver shall show for whom the trustees are holding the property, as well as the name of the trustees.

"Tenth. I name Henry C. Jackson, my nephew, and Louisa H. Bradbury, as trustees for Louisa H. Bradbury, and give to them to hold in trust for Eliza Louisa Bradbury the half of the property transferred to them by my executors. It is mostly in stocks, with a few bonds, and will give little trouble, so that Mr. Jackson can find time to look after the business. The trustees shall have all necessary powers in regard to the preservation of the property, and the investment of the interest until their ward is to have it. When the said Eliza Louisa shall reach the age of twenty-one, she is from that time to have annually the net income of her property, to be paid to her by her trustees in quarterly payments, unless she shall prefer to leave it with the trustees to invest for her.

"On the arrival of my dear granddaughter to that age, I wish to make her a birthday present, and for that purpose I direct the trustees to transfer to her and deliver the certificate of fifty-two or fifty-three shares of the stock of the Dexter and Newport Railroad, which they will have in trust for her.

"As she will have from her father's estate as much property as she, with her inexperience, can be likely to manage, I deem it for her interest and hereby direct that the trustees continue their trust of the principal until she shall reach the age of twenty-seven, when they shall transfer to her one-half, and when she reaches the age of thirty-three, the whole of the property, after deducting all proper charges.

"I make her, the said Eliza Louisa, my residuary legatee; including lapsed bequests and the reversionary or other interests in the property in trust for my son Charles. All of her share of the property shall vest in her when she reaches the age of twenty-seven, although a part shall remain in trust. Should she marry and decease before that age, leaving issue, she shall have the right, after she is twenty-one, to dispose of one-fourth of all her property, and her mother shall have one-fourth. The residue shall be divided into shares, and paid by the trustees to the following persons in the proportions according to the shares, and to the issue of any who may die, viz.: To my son Charles four shares, and for his wife, Eva, one share: To James Otis Bradbury, four shares, and one for his wife, and one for each of his two children; his mother, brother, and sister, and the husband of his sister are each to have a share: To Cotton M. Bradbury, one share for himself, one for his daughter Jennie, and one for his two minor children: To Mrs. Margaret H. Gregorie, Miss Esther H. Gregorie, Mrs. Alice G. Hayward, Mrs. Julia M. Claghorn, Mrs. Margaret H. Carter, Miss May Martin, one share for each.

"Eleventh. I name James Otis Bradbury, Oscar Holway, and Henry C. Jackson of Boston, as trustees for my son Charles Bradbury, and I give to them, in trust for him, the half of my property, to be transferred to them by my executors.

"As the property is mostly in stocks paying dividends, and a few bonds that will not soon mature, I direct that the trustees shall keep an annual income account and balance the same annually, and pay the net income thereof (deducting all charges and expenses) to the said Charles during his life. The account will [thus?] be closed at the end of every year, and should be settled in the probate court every third year.

"I wish that he should be paid in quarterly payments, and if convenient, monthly. He is my son, and I should prefer to give him the property directly free from the trust, were I not satisfied that it is best for him that I should do as I propose. I am led to fear, from the unfortunate disposition of the property he has had control of, that what I leave for him would also be lost, if left for his unrestricted control, and old age might find him in need. Should he lose his present wife and marry again, and have issue by such wife, such issue, if alive, shall have the property left for him, as aforesaid.

"Should such wife survive him without issue, he has the right to the disposition of one-half of the block of brick stores in Augusta, and can make provision for her.

"Should he be very unfortunate and there should be any pressing necessity, said trustees, upon so finding and certifying, may advance to him from time to time, not exceeding five thousand dollars in all.

"Upon the decease of my sons, James W. and Thomas W. S., I gave their half of the block of brick stores on Water Street (that fell to me as their heir) to my surviving sons, Henry and Charles, placing the latter in trust for him with the right to dispose of it by will.

"As he has often complained in regard to the disposition of his mother's property, I wish to say here, that after the payment of specific bequests, her property was divided equally between Henry and Charles, and no more of Charles' half was put in trust than she was bound by her promise to her brother, Henry R. Smith, to so place it in order to receive anything from him."

The plaintiff claims that under item 11 he took at once an absolute equitable fee in the corpus of the estate therein devised in trust, restricted to the enjoyment during his lifetime of the income only, subject to the limitation over to his issue, if any, and, if no issue, then that the trust would terminate at his death, and both the legal and equitable fee would vest in his heirs, subject to any intermediate disposition of it by him.

Great research and learning have been displayed and a vast array of authorities cited by counsel in support of the successive steps by which it is sought to establish the above proposition it would be unprofitable to here undertake to distinguish or analyze the cases cited. Precedents and rules of testamentary instruction may afford valuable aid when the testator's intention is in doubt, but when that intention is clearly expressed in the will, and violates no rule of public policy, it must be given effect. It overrides precedents and technical rules of construction. This "pole star," as it is sometimes termed, of testamentary construction, "leads into various courses, since every will must be steered by its own luminary. Yet uniform justice is better than strict consistency." Schouler's Ex'rs & Adm'rs, § 474. "it may well be doubted," said Mr. Justice Miller in Clarke v. Boorman's Ex'rs, 18 Wall. 493, 21 L. Ed. 904, "if any other source of enlightenment in the construction of a will is of much assistance than the application of natural reason to the language of the instrument, under the light which may be thrown upon the intent of the testator by the extrinsic circumstances surrounding its execution, and connecting the parties and...