First Huntington Nat. Bank v. Mount Holyoke College

• Decision Date: 29 May 1934
• Docket Number: 7925.
• Citation: 175 S.E. 338,115 W.Va. 113
• Parties: FIRST HUNTINGTON NAT. BANK v. MOUNT HOLYOKE COLLEGE et al.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

175 S.E. 338

115 W.Va. 113

FIRST HUNTINGTON NAT. BANK v. MOUNT HOLYOKE COLLEGE et al.

No. 7925.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

May 29, 1934

Submitted May 16, 1934.

Rehearing Denied July 27, 1934.

Syllabus by the Court.

When the language of a will is plain, courts "are not at liberty" to speculate on the intention of the testator. Neal v. Hamilton Co., 70 W.Va. 250, 255 73 S.E. 971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cabell County.

Proceedings by the First Huntington National Bank, trustee, against Mount Holyoke College and others. From the judgment rendered, the Central Trust Company, administrator, etc., appeals.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

Blue Dayton & Campbell, Arthur S. Dayton, and William F. Blue, all of Charleston, for appellant.

Fitzpatrick Brown & Davis and Walter L. Brown, all of Huntington, for appellee First Huntington Nat. Bank, trustee.

HATCHER Judge.

The will of Mrs. Mary C. Patterson, deceased, devised the residue of her estate to trustees upon trust to pay the net income therefrom to her son, Thomas C. Patterson, as long as he survived. The will then proceeds: "At his death I direct that the Trustee use as much of the income and principal as is required to pay any expenses chargeable to his estate, and after these debts are all paid, I direct that the remaining income and principal be divided among the following religious, charitable and educational organizations," etc. A short while after the death of his mother, the son died intestate, leaving an estate of some $50,000.

In this proceeding, the son's administrator would require the surviving trustee to pay the expenses of the son's estate. The administrator relies on the provision in the paragraph quoted from the mother's will directing the trustee at the death of the son, "to pay any expenses chargeable to his estate." The circuit court found against the administrator.

Counsel for appellees ingeniously array a number of reasons why the will could not have meant what the administrator contends for and why it should mean something else. Authorities are cited tending to support counsel. We must not heed the persuasion of counsel though "charming never so wisely." It is a cardinal rule that courts should not speculate on the intention of a testator when the words employed have a plain meaning. Harris v. Neal, 61 W.Va. 1, 5, 55 S.E. 740; Neal v. Hamilton Co., 70 W.Va. 250, 255, 73 S.E. 971. The...