Colt v. Colt
Decision Date | 05 May 1884 |
Citation | 4 S.Ct. 553,111 U.S. 566,28 L.Ed. 520 |
Parties | COLT and others v. COLT and others |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
B. F. Thurston and L. C. Ashley, for appellants.
Chas. E. Perkins and Alvan P. Hyde, for appellees.
This is a bill in equity to recover certain shares of the capital stock of Colt's Patent Fire-arms Manufacturing Company, a corporation of Connecticut at Hartford, in the hands of the executors of Samuel Colt, deceased, as a part of his residuary estate, under his will. The complainants are children of the late Christopher Colt, a brother of the testator, and Mrs. Theodora G. Colt, their mother, who is assignee of the interest of a deceased son. The defendants are executors of the last will of Samuel Colt, and trustees, and others, legatees claiming interests under the same. The testator, Samuel Colt, made his last will and testament, June 6, 1856, and thereafter two codicils, one on January 12, 1858, the other, February 2, 1859. He died at his domicile, Hartford, Connecticut, in 1862, and his will and codicils were duly admitted to probate and record. A large part of his estate was comprised in 9,996 shares of the capital stock of the Colt's Patent Arms Manufacturing Company. By his will he bequeathed 1,000 shares of this stock to his widow for life, with remainder to his after-born children, and to each of the latter also 500 shares; 100 shares to Samuel Caldwell Colt, a son of a brother, 'when he shall have arrived at the age of twenty-one years;' to the children of his brother Christopher 100 shares each, 'as they shall arrive at the age of twenty-one years,' respectively. He gave other legacies of stock to other named persons, and provided means for the foundation and establishment of a school or institution for the instruction and education of young men in practical mechanics and engineering. It contained also the following:
'I also give and bequeath to my executors and their successors in said office five hundred shares of the stock of said Colt's Patent Fire-arms Manufacturing Company, in trust for the issue of said James B. Colt, lawfully begotten, the profits and dividends thereof to be applied to the education of his said issue, so far as the same may be necessary for that purpose, until the youngest surviving of said issue shall have reached the age of twenty-one years, when said stock and all accumulations thereof, if any, shall go to said issue, in equal proportions, as an absolute estate.'
He gave also a legacy in stock to each of his executors.
The residuary clause is as follows:
The first codicil contains the following: 'I also revoke and cancel, for reasons growing out of his late unbrotherly conduct towards me, the legacy of five hundred shares of the stock of Colt's Patent Fire-arms Manufacturing Company, given in the aforesaid will to James B. Colt for life, remainder to his children; and, in lieu thereof, I give and bequeath said five hundred shares of stock to the trustees named in said will, for founding a school for practical mechanics and engineers, subject to the uses and trusts created in said will for that purpose.'
By the second codicil, all the provisions previously made for founding and carrying on the school for mechanics were canceled. It also contains the following:
Elizabeth H. Colt, the testator's widow, Richard D. Hubbard, and R. W. H. Jarvis were appointed and qualified as executors of the will.
After the death of the testator, his brother, James B. Colt, claimed that the cancellation by the first codicil of the specific legacy in the will to him for life, with remainder to his issue, of 500 shares of the stock, did not have the effect of canceling his interest under the residuary clause, on the ground that that clause should be construed as an independent disposition of the remaining stock, to the very persons, only, described as those to whom specific legacies of stock had been thereinbefore, that is, in the will, given, as if they had been again named; and not as a dependent legacy to those who, under the codicils as well as the will, became ultimately entitled as legatees to specific legacies of stock, although these legacies might be of the same stock which, in the will itself, had been originally given to others, and afterwards canceled. This claim, it will be observed, consisted of two parts: First, of a right in himself to share in the residuum; and, second, to exclude from it those to whom, by the codicils alone, and not by the will, specific legacies were given. This branch of the claim necessarily antagonized the right of the children of Christopher Colt to participate in the residuum by reason of the legacy given to them in the second codicil.
To assert his interest in the residuary estate, and to determine its amount, and the several interests of all entitled to share in it, James B. Colt, in July, 1864, filed his bill in equity in the superior court of Connecticut for Hartford county. To that bill parties defendant, among others, were made as follows: Mrs. Elizabeth Hart Colt, as claiming an interest under the will, and also as executrix, and as administratrix of Henrietta Colt, deceased, and as guardian of Caldwell Hart Colt, a minor; Richard D. Hubbard, as claiming an interest under the will, and as executor; Richard W. H. Jarvis, as claiming an interest under the will, and as executor; Isabella De Wolf Colt, Le Baron B. Colt, Ed ward D. Colt, and Samuel Pomeroy Colt,—all the last three being minors; Theodore De Wolf Colt, their guardian; and were duly served with process. A demurrer to this petition was filed on beha f of all the defendants, and was reserved for the advice of the supreme court of errors, whose decision thereon is reported as Colt v. Colt, 32 Conn. 422. From that report, the case seems to have been fully argued and thoroughly considered. The demurrer was overruled. The court decided that the bequest of a share of the residuary stock to James B. Colt had not been revoked; that the language of the revocation was plainly limited to the first 500 shares; and that the second legacy to him of a share in the residuary stock must be regarded as an independent legacy, the reference to him as a person to whom the previous legacy had been given being merely designatio personoe, not having the effect of attaching together the two bequests, as necessarily connected in the same ownership, and that the latter was, consequently, not affected by the revocation. The cause thereupon came on again in the superior court, the respondents having been ordered to answer over, and where, it is recited in its record, 'the parties again appear and are at issue upon a general denial of the allegations in the plaintiffs' bill,' and thereupon the court made a finding of facts. Among other findings, after referring to the will and codicils of the testator, it is stated that 'the parties in this cause are interested in the estate of the said Samuel, in man- ner and form and to the extent and proportion in said will and codicils expressed, set forth, and contained.' It is also stated that there are children of Christopher Colt, a brother of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tuckerman v. Currier
...1005, 35 L.Ed. 721; Scott v. West, 63 Wis. 529, 24 N.W. 161, 25 N.W. 18; 7 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law (1st Ed.) p. 238; Colt v. Colt, 111 U.S. 566, 4 S.Ct. 553, 28 L.Ed. 520; v. Mather et al., 103 Ill. 607; Estate of Matthew Delaney, 49 Cal. 76; Carson v. Carson, 6 Allen (88 Mass.) 397; Groton......
-
Vanderwater v. CITY NAT. BANK OF KANKAKEE, ILL.
...214 U.S. 71-80, 29 S.Ct. 580, 53 L.Ed. 914; Oakley v. Taylor, C.C., 64 F. 245; Smith v. Foley, C.C., 80 F. 949; Colt v. Colt, 111 U.S. 566, 581, 4 S.Ct. 553, 28 L.Ed. 520; Garzot v. Rio de Rubio, 209 U.S. 283-302, 28 S.Ct. 548, 52 L.Ed. 794; Sullivan v. Algrem, 8 Cir., 160 F. 366; Perkins v......
-
Kennedy v. Mockler
...v. Colt, 32 Conn. 422 (Sup.Ct.Err.1865); Id., 33 Conn. 270 (Sup.Ct.Err.1866); Id., 48 F. 385 (C.C.Conn.1881), affirmed 111 U.S. 566, 4 S.Ct. 553, 28 L.Ed. 520 (1884). Testator there bequeathed to his brother James Colt 'the use and improvement, during his life' of 500 shares of Colt's Paten......
-
la Bell v. Quasdorf
...and is not subject to collateral attack. Van Horn v. Hann, 39 N.J.Law, 207; In re Martin, 86 N.J.Eq. 265, 98 A. 510; Colt v. Colt, 111 U.S. 566, 4 S.Ct. 553, 28 L.Ed. 520; Linn v. Collins, 77 W.Va. 592, 87 S.E. 934, Ann.Cas.19186, 86; Reynolds v. Steel, 170 Ky. 153, 185 S.W. 820; Holloway v......