Collins v. Wardell
Decision Date | 02 March 1903 |
Citation | 65 N.J.E. 366,54 A. 417 |
Parties | COLLINS et al. v. WARDELL et al. |
Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from Court of Chancery.
Bill by Gilbert Collins and others against Mary B. Wardell and others. From a decree of the Chancellor (52 Atl. 708), defendants appeal. Reversed.
The bill in this case was filed by the executors and trustees of the will of Mary P. Wintringham, deceased, to obtain a construction of the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth clauses of that will. These clauses are as follows:
William Phyfe, the brother of the testatrix to whom an annuity of $4,000 was bequeathed by the fifteenth clause of the will, predeceased the testatrix. Thomas Wintringham, one of the persons mentioned in the fifteenth clause of the will, among whom the capital fund was to be distributed, also predeceased the testatrix. All the other persons named in the fifteenth and seventeenth clauses of the will are still living, some of those mentioned in the seventeenth clause being infants. The executors have now in hand a clear residue of personalty amounting to $188,120.84. The bill asks the Chancellor to construe the will, and direct and advise the complainants how much to set apart as a trust fund provided by the fifteenth paragraph thereof, and how much to reserve from immediate distribution thereunder as security for the annuity to the said Duncan Phyfe, and how, when, and to whom to distribute such trust fund. The decree orders that the will be construed to the effect that, notwithstanding the death of William Phyfe and Thomas Wintringham before the death of the testatrix, a fund sufficient to produce an income of $6,000 a year must be set apart under the fifteenth paragraph of said will, and that upon the death of Duncan Phyfe, named in said paragraph, and not until then, the capital of five-sixths of said fund will be payable to the legatees in remainder named in said paragraphs, who survived the testatrix, and that the one-sixth of the said fund, which, but for his death before the death of said testatrix, would have been payable to Thomas Wintringham, and all of the income of said fund until the death of the said Duncan Phyfe, except the annuity of said Duncan Phyfe, must be disposed of under the seventeenth paragraph of said will. The decree further orders that the fund set apart shall be not less than $150,000, and that said complainants have leave to apply to the Chancellor, on the foot of the decree, for an order of reference to a master to ascertain and report how much larger, if any, such sum shall be, and which securities now in the hands of the executors shall constitute said fund, and what valuation shall be set thereon for that purpose. Mary B. Wardell, Maria L. Wintringham, and Joseph P. Wintringham appeal from so much of the decree as orders that not until the death of Duncan Phyfe, named in the fifteenth paragraph of the will...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Van Hoose v. Moore
...Paul at Tom's death. Numerous cases are cited from other jurisdictions which support this contention. These include: Collins v. Wardell, 65 N.J.Eq. 366, 54 A. 417 (1903). Clapper v. Clapper, 246 Iowa 899, 70 N.W.2d 145 (1955). Dills v. Deavors (Kentucky Ct.App.1953) 266 S.W.2d 788. However,......
-
Elberg v. Elberg
...as the time when the legatees should come into possession of their legacies. Owen v. Williams, 114 Ind. 179, 15 N.E. 678; Collins v. Wardell, 65 N.J.Eq. 366, 54 A. 417; Petition of Swinburne, 16 R.I. 208, 14 A. 850; 2 C.J. Our conclusion, therefore, is that the predominating thought of the ......
-
Bodeman v. Cary
...also, Dodd v. McGee, 354 Mo. 644, 190 S.W.2d 231. Woolston v. Beck, 34 N.J.Eq. 74, Stoutenburgh v. Moore, 37 N.J.Eq. 63, Collins v. Wardell, 65 N.J.Eq. 366, 54 A. 417, and In re French's Estate, 292 Pa. 37, 140 A. 549, relied upon by plaintiffs, are distinguishable upon the facts, because p......
-
Fid. Union Trust Co. v. Birch
...[1896] 1 Ch. 351; Liberty Title & Trust Co. v. Stevens, 115 N.J.Eq. 506, 171 A. 531; Id., 117 N.J. Eq. 404, 176 A. 167; Collins v. Wardell, 65 N.J.Eq. 366, 54 A. 417. The legatees cannot block the distribution. In re Hall [1903] 2 Ch. 226; Vanderpool v. Vanderpool, 3 N.J.Eq. 120. The sum of......