Chrisman v. Cornell Univ.

• Decision Date: 27 October 1948
• Docket Number: 139/325.
• Citation: 62 A.2d 157
• Parties: CHRISMAN et al. v. CORNELL UNIVERSITY et al.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court

62 A.2d 157

CHRISMAN et al.

v.CORNELL UNIVERSITY et al.

139/325.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division.

Oct. 27, 1948.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The function of a court is to construe a will so as to give effect to the intention of the testator, but the court cannot make a new will for him.

2. The testamentary directions for the division and distribution of the residuary estate contained in the will in question are clear and unambiguous. They are not susceptible of misinterpretation. Held, the testator did not direct distribution among all his grandchildren, but restricted it to such grandchildren as should be ‘living at the time of my death.’

3. A court cannot add beneficiaries, it cannot correct oversights or errors of a testator, nor make distribution which the testator might have directed but for such oversight. Beneficiaries may themselves voluntarily make such adjustments as a testator might have made, but a court may not direct or compel such action.

Proceeding by Francis Leon Chrisman, Jr., and others, as trustees under the will of Francis Leon Chrisman, deceased, against Cornell University and others for advice respecting division of testator's residuary estate.

Judgment advising the trustees that division of the residuary estate is limited to testator's grandchildren living at time of his death.

See also 132 N.J.Eq. 178, 27 A.2d 627.

Gilhooly & Yauch and Edward J. Gilhooly, all of Newark, for plaintiffs.

Alfred C. Clapp, of Newark, for defendants Charles Dana Chrisman and Dorothy June Chrisman Miller

James E. Fagan, of Newark, for defendant Boyer Chrisman.

FREUND, Judge

The plaintiffs, trustees under the last will and testament of Francis Leon Chrisman, filed a petition for advice respecting the division of the residuary estate of the decedent, and the defendants join in the prayer.

The pertinent clause of the will provides:

‘6-(d) I direct my said trustees, after setting aside the fund provided in the preceeding clause of this will, to invest the remainder of my residuary estate and to keep the same invested in good and lawful securities, and pay over the net income arising therefrom to my wife, Carrie L. Chrisman, so long as she shall live, with the provision that in the event of her serious illness or other dire necessity my trustees may use such portion of the principal as they may deem necessary for her support and comfort.

‘I further direct that my trustees shall pay from the said trust fund all the expenses of my wife's last illness and funeral.

‘Upon the death of my wife, Carrie L. Chrisman, I direct that my residuary estate shall continue to be held in trust by my trustees, to be divided among and paid over to such grandchildren of mine as shall be living at the time of my death, and shall live to attain the age of twenty-five years, each grandchild to receive the income from his or her share after attaining the age of twenty-one years, and the principal when he or she attains the age of twenty-five years.

‘In the event of the death of any of my grandchildren surviving me before attaining the age of twenty-five years, the share of such deceased grandchild shall be divided among the surviving grandchildren.

‘If there are no grandchildren surviving me then I give, devise and bequeath my residuary estate, after the death of my wife to the Trustees of Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, absolutely.’

The testator died on August 12, 1934 and his wife on November 25, 1940. At his death there were three grandchildren living. Subsequent to his death, a fourth grandchild was born, so that there were four grandchildren living at the time of the death of testator's widow. The question upon which advice is sought is whether the residuary estate should be divided among the three who were living at the death of the testator or among the four grandchildren living at the death of Mrs. Chrisman, when the division of the residuary estate was directed to take place.

Evidently the will is that of an intelligent man of substantial means and drawn by counsel. Subsequent to its execution it was examined, reviewed and altered by two codicils. It contains carefully considered trust provisions for the benefit of his widow, grandchildren and contingent beneficiaries. It contains bequests to charitable, religious and educational institutions for worthy and highly commendable purposes. It bears...