Gifford v. Thompson

Decision Date04 September 1874
Citation115 Mass. 478
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
PartiesGeorge H. Gifford v. John H. Thompson & others

Bristol. Bill in equity by George H. Gifford, trustee under the will of Pardon Gifford, against the residuary legatees under said will, to obtain the direction of the court as to the disposition to be made of a sum of money received from the New Bedford and Taunton Railroad Company, in lieu of certain shares of the stock of said corporation, in which part of the trust fund had been invested.

The case was reserved by Morton, J., for the consideration of the full court upon the bill and answers, from which it appeared to be as follows:

The last will and testament of Pardon Gifford contained the following clause: "Eighth. All the rest and residue of my estate is to be placed in the hands of a trustee or trustees, and the income arising therefrom to be paid to my two grandsons, viz.: John H. Thompson and Pardon G. Thompson equally between them, annually, during their natural lives and if one of them should die before the other, the survivor to take all of said income during his natural life, provided the one that dies first leaves no children, and at the death of the last one of my said grandsons, namely, John H Thompson and Pardon G. Thompson, the aforesaid rest and residue of my said estate to be equally divided among my great-grandchildren that are living at the time of the death of the last of my said two grandsons. If there should be none of my great-grandchildren at that time, then it is to be equally divided between the widows of my said grandsons, if any living, and the children of my brothers, namely, Isaac Gifford, George W. Gifford, Paul Gifford, and also Ruth Weeden and Abby Robinson, children of my brother Benjamin Gifford, and the children of my wife's sister Barbara Gifford, and their heirs."

A part of the "rest and residue of said estate" was invested in the stock of the New Bedford and Taunton Railroad Corporation. That corporation acting under the authority conferred upon it by the St. of 1873, c. 20, [*] sold all its franchises and property, and being about to wind up its affairs and dissolve, its directors passed the following vote: "Voted, that a dividend of $ 150 per share is hereby declared, payable to stockholders of this day on the surrender of the certificates, when the treasurer shall have received $ 750,000 on account of the sale of the road including therein the drafts of our stockholders on our treasurer for and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • R.I. Hosp. Trust Co. v. Bradley
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • 17 Abril 1918
    ...trust will not permit it to be taken entirely away from the remaindermen. The tenant for life should have only the income." In Gifford v. Thompson, 115 Mass. 478, the opinion is by Gray, C. J., who was a member of the court when Minot v. Paine was decided, and who afterwards wrote the opini......
  • Anderson v. Bean
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 16 Septiembre 1930
    ...are capital and not income. Talbot v. Milliken, 221 Mass. 367, 368, 108 N. E. 1060. The case on this branch is governed by Gifford v. Thompson, 115 Mass. 478, and Brownell v. Anthony, 189 Mass. 442, 445, 75 N. E. 746. The binding force of these decisions in recognized in Gray v. Hemenway (M......
  • Gray v. Hemenway
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 30 Septiembre 1929
    ...nor a step in winding up the corporate affairs, either of the Railroad Company or of the Securities Company, and cases such as Gifford v. Thompson, 115 Mass. 478, and Brownell v. Anthony, 189, Mass. 442, 75 N. E. 746, holding dividends in liquidation to the capital, do not apply. See Old Co......
  • Creed v. McAller (In re Connelly's Estate
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 27 Abril 1931
    ...Cotting, 231 Mass. 42, 120 N. E. 177;Lannin v. Buckley, 256 Mass. 78, 84, 152 N. E. 71. The case at bar is distinguishable from Gifford v. Thompson, 115 Mass. 478;Brownell v. Anthony, 189 Mass. 442, 75 N. E. 746;Anderson v. Bean (Mass.) 172 N. E. 647; and from Heard v. Eldredge, 109 Mass. 2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT