Cox v. Wills
| Decision Date | 13 December 1892 |
| Citation | 49 n.j.e. 673,25 A. 938 |
| Parties | COX et al. v. WILLS et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from court of chancery.
Bill by Mary A. H. Cox and others, executors of the estate of Lydia H. Leeds, deceased, against Hannah Wills and others, for a construction of the will of John Leeds, deceased. From the decree entered, (22 Atl. Rep. 794,) complainants appeal. Reversed.
Charles E. Hendric.kson, for appellants.
Mark R. Sooy, for appellees.
The true construction of the will of John Leeds, deceased, was properly determined by the decree in this cause, holding that the widow took a trust title in the residue of his estate, and that it did not make an absolute disposal thereof to her; but the decree should be modified and changed as to the accounting in the settlement of her estate, and the distribution of the fund in her hands at her death. This is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the testator that she might use for her comfortable support so much as was reasonable and sufficient for her living expenses. The testator's personal property at the time of the settlement of his estate, December 1, 1868, amounted to the sum of $4,052.63, after paying to his wife a specific legacy of $500, and excluding the household goods bequeathed to her. He also owned the house that they occupied, which continued in her possession until her death. She survived him 21 years. It appears that her separate property, including the legacy of $500, amounted to about $1,300. They were childless. She was the special object of his bounty, and the only beneficiary named in his will. After her husband's death she received and invested all his monese, mingling it with her own, and used the interest from the investments for her support. At her death the inventory of her estate, thus mingled, amounted to $8,626.12, arid on final settlement there remained $7,445.10, besides household furniture, which she divided among legatees by her will. The contest is between these legatees, represented by the complainants, who are the executors of her will, and the defendants, who are the next of kin of the husband, John Leeds, deceased. There is no question as to the homestead d welling house, which was purchased by John Leeds after his will was made, and goes to the husband's next of kin, at the wife's death, as part of the residue of his estate; nor is there any dispute as to her manner of living, which was careful and economical. It was within the amount of a reasonable and comfortable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bruce
...Mut. Ins. Co., 104 U.S. 54, 26 L.Ed. 693; Hatchbull v. Hallett, L. R. 13 Ch. Div. 696; Frelinghausen v. Nugent, 36 F. 229; Cox v. Wills, 49 N.J. Eq. 574, 25 A. 938; Standard Oil Co. v. Hawkins, 74 F. 395, at p. 20 C. C. A. 468, 33 L. R. A. 739; Massey v. Fisher, 62 F. 958.) Although the tru......
-
Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co. v. Helme
... ... In order to have a situation to which the abovementioned well-settled rule of construction is applicable, the testator's meaning must be doubtful without regard to the legality or illegality of one of the two possible meanings. Testators must execute their wills according to law, and must not endeavor to make unlawful testamentary dispositions of their estates, or else their testamentary efforts will be abortive. The law undertakes to take care of the disposition of a man's property after his death so far as he does not make a lawful testamentary ... ...
-
Litcher v. Trust Co. of N.J.
...estate,' 3 Page on Wills (1941), sec. 1171, p. 475. See McKnight's Executors v. Walsh, 24 N.J.Eq. 498 (E. & A.1873); Cox v. Wills, 49 N.J.Eq. 573, 25 A. 938 (E. & A.1892). There being no directions in a will for accumulation of income to increase the Corpus of a specific fund, the income ac......
-
Bankers Trust Co. v. New York Women's League for Animals
...questioned), 49 N.J.Eq. 570, 25 A. 510; Cox v. Wills, 49 N.J.Eq. 130, 22 A. 794; S.C. (reversed only as to method of accounting), 49 N.J.Eq. 573, 25 A. 938. It necessarily follows that the requests of testatrix in the will and codicil here in question must be given the same force as though ......