Buffington v. Work

• Citation: 200 A. 541
• Decision Date: 24 June 1938
• Docket Number: No. 1386.,1386.
• Parties: BUFFINGTON et al. v. WORK et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island

200 A. 541

BUFFINGTON et al.

v. WORK et al.

No. 1386.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

June 24, 1938.

Certified from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties.

Suit by Mary F. Buffington and others against Willis I. Work and others for the construction of a will. On certification by the Superior Court.

Decree in accordance with opinion.

Adolph Gorman, of Providence, for complainants. Philip A. Gory, of Providence, guardian ad litem.

CONDON, Justice.

>

This is a bill for the construction of the ninth paragraph of the will of Hannah S. Work, late of Providence, deceased, August 23, 1910, which will was duly probated in the probate court of that city on October 11, 1910. The cause has been certified to this court by the superior court after that court found that all requirements necessary to bringing the matter here, in accordance with the statute had been met. Gen.Laws 1923, c. 339, § 35.

The language which we are asked to construe is as follows: "All the rest and residue of my real estate, or personal property (including my household furniture and money in banks) of which I may die seized or possessed, wherever the same may be found, I give, devise and bequeath to my daughter Mary F. Work, and if she should die without issue, and any of said residue shall remain, it is my desire and request that the same shall revert to my sons (share and share alike) their heirs or assigns."

Hannah S. Work was one of three daughters of Samuel J. Sherman who died intestate at Warwick on April 18, 1872, seized of certain real estate situate in that city. These three daughters were his sole heirs. The other daughters were Mary F. Witherell, nee Sherman, and Julia E. Sherman. Each of them as such heir held an undivided one-third interest in their father's real estate which is described in the complainant's bill as follows: "That certain lot of land with all the improvements thereon situated in the Town of Warwick, State of Rhode Island in that part called Pawtuxet, and bounded as follows, viz: Easterly on Fair Street, formerly called Bowen Street, One Hundred and fifteen feet; Southerly on North Fair Street, One Hundred and fifty five feet; Westerly on land formerly owned by Samuel J. Sherman, One Hundred and fifteen feet; Northerly on land now or formerly owned by Edmund Malett, One Hundred and fifty five feet to said Fair Street. Said lot contains Seventeen thousand eight hundred and twenty four square feet be the same more or less, and is the same lot of land that was conveyed by Robert H. Niles by deed to Samuel J. Sherman, November 24, 1853 and which was recorded in the Town Clerk's Office for the Town of Warwick, R. I., December 16, 1853 in book of land evidence No. 29 on page No. 505 to which reference may be had."

On August 24, 1908, Julia E. Sherman conveyed her interest in this real estate to Mary F. Work, who is the chief beneficiary under the ninth paragraph of the will before us. Said Mary F. Work is now Mary F. Buffington, one of the complainants here, and we shall refer to her hereinafter simply as Mary F. Work. After the probate of her mother's will, she was thus entitled to convey an undivided two-thirds interest in the above-described real estate, if the language of that will is construed to give her either a fee simple interest in her mother's undivided third or a life estate coupled with a power to convey.

On December 30, 1916, she joined with the heirs of Mary F. Witherell, who had deceased intestate, in a warranty deed conveying this real estate to John S. Grant and Freda G. Grant, his wife, one of the complainants named in the bill.

The complainants contend that Hannah S. Work intended by the ninth paragraph of her will to give a fee simple to Mary F. Work or at least a power to convey such real estate in her lifetime. The guardian ad litem, who filed a brief for parties unascertained or not in being who might be directly or indirectly interested in Hannah S. Work's estate, admits that if those whom he represents are entitled to any interest, they must show that Mary F. Work did not receive a fee or a power to convey. He submits that he can...