Chase v. Ladd
| Decision Date | 08 January 1892 |
| Citation | 155 Mass. 417,29 N.E. 637 |
| Parties | CHASE LADD v. LADD. LADD v. CHASE et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
W.H. Moody and E.B. George, for legatees.
Harry J. Cole, for Ladd, executor.
Jones Jones & Pingree, for Chase, administrator.
E.B Fuller, Reed & Baker, and Moody & Bartlett, for defendants.
The bill of Gardner P. Ladd, executor, against Thomas M. Chase and others, cannot be maintained as a bill of interpleader by reason of the interest which the complainant has in the subject-matter of the suit. Daniell, Ch.Pr. (3d Amer.Ed.) 1660, 1668. We think, however, it may be regarded as a bill for instructions, in which case the interest of the complainant in the subject-matter would not be fatal. Batchelder, Petitioner, 147 Mass. 470, 18 N.E. 225; Stevens v. Warren, 101 Mass. 564. This presents the further question whether a bill for instructions can be brought in the superior court, and we think it can. The jurisdiction of this court in the matter of bills for instructions has been referred to the general equitable jurisdiction in the matter of trusts conferred upon it by statute. Treadwell v. Cordis, 5 Gray, 341, 348; Batchelder, Petitioner, supra; Pub.St. c. 151, § 2. cl. 2, By St.1883, c. 223, § 1, the superior court was given "original and concurrent jurisdiction with the supreme judicial court in all matters in which relief or discovery in equity is sought." By section 2 of the same act it is provided that "all sections of chapter one hundred and fifty-one of the Public Statutes, except section one, *** shall apply, except as herein otherwise provided, to suits in equity in the superior court." Original and concurrent jurisdiction with the supreme judicial court would thus seem to have been given to the superior court of all the various matters enumerated in section 2, c. 151, of the Public Statutes. Among them is the matter of trusts, out of which, as we have already seen, the jurisdiction of this court over bills for instructions has come. In Baldwin v. Wilbraham, 140 Mass. 459, 4 N.E. 829, the court assumed that the equity powers named in Pub.St. c. 151, § 2, were given to the superior court, but held in effect that the statute did not operate to vest the superior court with certain special powers and duties with which the supreme judicial court was charged, and which were not within the general jurisdiction of a court of equity.
We come next to the real questions at issue between the parties. They are--First, the nature of the interest which the widow took in her husband's estate; secondly, whether the conveyance relating to the farm was an execution of the power under the will, or a sale of her own interest merely; and, thirdly, whether, deducting the $300 which it is agreed belong to Joseph S. Noyes, the rest of the funds in her possession at the time of her death belong to the administrator de bonis non of her husband, or partly to him and partly to the executor of her will.
In regard to the first question, we think the widow took such an interest in the estate for her life as gave her the right to use it so far as necessary for her reasonable support and maintenance, even to the extent of using it all, but for no other purpose, and also gave her the power to sell and convey the real estate, and use the proceeds of that in the same manner, but in no other; and this we understand to have been the substance of the decision in Chase v. Ladd, 153 Mass. 126, 26 N.E. 429. See, also, Stuart v. Walker, 72 Me. 145; Hall v. Otis, 71 Me. 326. It would follow from this that, so far as the funds in her possession at her death were the proceeds of her husband's estate, they would belong to the administrator de bonis non of his estate.
The only remaining question is whether the deed of the farm was given and operates as an execution of the power under the will. The master has found as a fact that the deed was a sale and conveyance by Mrs. Chase in execution of the power given to her in the will, and the facts stated by him would seem...
To continue reading
Request your trial