Garland v. Garland

• Decision Date: 22 December 1881
• Citation: 73 Me. 97
• Parties: JAMES E. GARLAND and others v. ORLANDO GARLAND.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

73 Me. 97

JAMES E. GARLAND and others v. ORLANDO GARLAND.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

December 22, 1881

BILL IN EQUITY to obtain a construction of the will of James Garland.Heard on bill, answer and proofs.

The opinion states the case.

A W. Paine, for the plaintiffs.

P. G White, for the defendant, contended that the provision of the will relating to the defendant, clearly expressed the intention of the testator, that all the defendant was to pay was the interest on $541, or what would be equivalent to that, and nothing more, and that intent must control in the construction of the will.1 Redf.Wills, 440, 454;Cotton v. Smithwick,66 Me. 360;Mann v. Mann,1 Johns. Ch. R. 281;2 Whar. Ev. § 992;Abbott's TrialEv 130, 131;Goodhue v. Clark,37 N.H. 525: Morton v. Perry,1 Met. 446;Howard v. Am. Peace So.49 Me. 288.

BARROWS J.

In March, 1866, James Garland bought and took a deed of a piece of real estate containing about eighty acres, paying therefor $550, apparently with the design to secure a place for his brother Orlando (who had been impoverished by a fire) to live on.He seems to have permitted Orlando to take possession of it and make improvements on it.In 1869he made his will which, shortly afterwards, in July of that year, was duly proved and allowed in the probate court.The clause in it, which we are asked to construe, runs as follows: " And it is my desire that if Orlando Garland shall pay the interest annually, on what is due from him, to wit, on $541, that he be not disturbed in his possession of the place where he now resides."During James' life Orlando paid the taxes assessed upon this place.He has continued to occupy it from the first and it has been assessed to him as the person in possession, according to R. S., c. 6, § 9.

For some years after James' death he paid the interest called for in the above item, and the taxes.Latterly he has declined to pay the interest unless he might be permitted to deduct the amount required to pay the taxes.Hence this process, brought by the heirs of James Garland, to have the rights, interests and duties of the parties under the foregoing clause in his will, ascertained and declared.

James Garland seems to have supposed that Orlando would eventually become the purchaser of the property, and that he had, with that view, up to the time of the making of the will paid the interest and a trifling amount of the principal of James' outlay for the place.But the respondent denies the existence of any contract for the purchase, and as there was none in writing signed by the parties, it is clear that there could be none which would be binding on them or their successors, in law or equity.It is not necessary to decide any of the questions of fact about which the parties differ and offer conflicting testimony; for without resort to any of these matters, which, however determined, would not affect the construction of the clause in question, the rights and duties of the parties respectively may be readily ascertained.

We think that James Garland gave by his will to his brother Orlando a life-estate in this piece of property, upon condition...