Grant v. Stimpson

• Decision Date: 10 April 1907
• Citation: Grant v. Stimpson, 79 Conn. 617, 66 A. 166 (Conn. 1907)
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: GRANT v. STIMPSON et al.

66 A. 166

79 Conn. 617

GRANT

v. STIMPSON et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

April 10, 1907.

Case reserved from Superior Court, Tolland County; Joel H. Reed, Judge.

Action by Andrew M. Grant, administrator of Jared Wentworth, deceased, against Mary E. Stimpson and others for the construction of the will of the deceased. Reserved by the superior court on the facts stated in the complaint for the advice of the Supreme Court of Errors. Form of judgment directed.

Samuel B. Harvey, for plaintiff. William A. King, for executor of Sophia C. Wentworth. George E. Hinman, for administrator of estate of Frank J. Wentworth. Charles F. Thayer, for Mary E. Stimpson. Huber Clark, in pro. per.

THAYER, J. The testator executed the will in question in 1885 and died in 1887, leaving surviving him his wife, Sophia C. Wentworth, to whom he was married in 1865, and two grandchildren, Frank J. Wentworth and Mary E. Stimpson, his sole heirs at law. His estate was inventoried at $19,481, and consisted of a homestead valued at $600, which was all the real estate of which he died seised, 100 shares of the capital stock of the Pittsburg, Ft. Wayne & Chicago Railroad Company, appraised at $15,000, a deposit in the Willimantic Savings Institute of nearly $1,500, bonds valued at $1,100, household furniture and effects and other articles of personal property.

By the first item of his will he gave to his wife absolutely the deposit in the savings institute; by the ninth item he gave to her absolutely the household furniture and effects in the homestead; and by the tenth item he gave her the use for life of the remainder and residue of his estate left after the payment of all the other legacies. All the other legacies were of shares of said railroad stock to different persons, a designated number to each. The residue included the homestead and more than $6,000 in personal property. The widow accepted her legacies and enjoyed them until her death in 1906.

The fourth, fifth, and tenth items of the will, to which the questions before us particularly refer, were as follows:

"Item 4. I give and bequeath to the Willimantic Savings Institute of Willimantic, in the state of Connecticut, in trust however, ten (10) shares of the Pittsburg, Fort Wayne and Chicago Railroad, the income thereof to be paid to Frank Jared Wentworth (my grandson) during his life, and at his decease the same shall be distributed to his legal heirs, except his legal heirs shall prove to be his sister, Mary Evelyn Stimpson, then said trusteeship shall continue and only the income of said stock shall be paid to the said Mary Evelyn Stimpson.

"Item 5. I give and bequeath to the said Willimantic Savings Institute, in trust however, ten (10) shares of the Capital Stock of the Pittsburg, Fort Wayne and Chicago Railroad, the income thereof to be paid to my granddaughter, Mary Evelyn Stimpson, during her life, and at her decease the same to be distributed to her legal heirs."

"Item 10. I give to my wife, Sophia C. Wentworth, the use and income of the remainder and residue of my estate, including twenty-five (25) shares of the Capital Stock of the Pittsburg, Fort Wayne and Chicago Railroad, and all other personal and real estate of which I may die seised and possessed, and at her decease the estate which she has received and enjoyed the income from by this will is hereby given to the Willimantic Savings Institute, in trust however, the income of the same to be paid in equal shares to my grandson, Frank Jared Wentworth, and my granddaughter, Mary Evelyn Stimpson, and at the decease of either of said grandchildren the respective share of said deceased shall be distributed to the legal heirs of said deceased forever. Except in the event of my granddaughter becoming the legal heirs to my sd. grandson's estate by this will, then all of said estate shall remain in the hands of the sd. Willimantic Savings Institute and the entire income shall be paid to my said granddaughter, and the sd. estate at her decease shall be distributed to her legal heirs forever."

Our advice is asked upon the following questions: "(a) Whether any of the provisions of items 4, 5, and 10 of said will are void, and whether the estate named in said items is finally disposed of by the provisions of said items. (b) If the estate named in said items is not therein disposed of except as to the life uses therein created, then in such case whether the distributees are to be ascertained as of the time of the decease of the testator or at the termination of said life uses. (c) Whether the widow of said testator had at any time a vested interest in and to one-third of the personal estate named in items 4, 5, and 10 of said will, and whether her estate is entitled to the same. (d) Whether said Mary E. Stimpson is entitled to the life use of all the estate named in items 4 and 10 after the termination of the life uses to said Frank J. Wentworth and Sophia C. Wentworth."

It is clear that the testator in the items of his will above quoted used the words "legal heirs" in their primary sense; for in the fourth and tenth items he provides for the contingency of Mary E. Stimpson becoming the legal heir of her brother Frank. It has been determined in this state by a long and uniform line of decisions, of which Gerard v. Ives, 78 Conn. 485, 62...