Gross v. Hartford-Connecticut Trust Co.

• Decision Date: 01 March 1924
• Citation: 100 Conn. 332,123 A. 907
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: GROSS ET AL. v. HARTFORD-CONNECTICUT TRUST CO. ET AL.

123 A. 907

100 Conn. 332

GROSS ET AL. v. HARTFORD-CONNECTICUT TRUST CO. ET AL.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 1, 1924

Case Reserved from Superior Court, Hartford County; James H. Webb Judge.

Suit by Charles E. Gross and others, trustees, against the Hartford-Connecticut Trust Company, executor, and others, for construction of will of William A. Healy, deceased. Case reserved on agreed statement of facts. Will construed.

The suit is to determine the construction of article 4 of the will of William A. Healy of Hartford, deceased, brought to and reserved by the superior court in Hartford county Maltbie, J., upon an agreed statement of facts, for the advice of this court.

John T Robinson, of Hartford, for Hartford-Connecticut Trust Co.

Augustine Lonergan, of Hartford, and Edward H. Kelly, of Unionville for Healy and others.

Henry J. Calnen and Raymond G. Calnen, both of Hartford, for Newton.

Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and BEACH, CURTIS, KEELER, and MALTBIE, JJ.

WHEELER, C.J.

The will of William A. Healy bears date March 21, 1885, and on the following September 29th, the testator died. The fourth article of the will bequeathed $200,000 to three named individuals in special trust for the following uses and purposes, to hold and invest the same and pay over to my daughter, Susie, the net income thereof quarterly during her life. Upon her decease, in case she shall leave child or children surviving, the trustees shall divide the trust estate into as many parts as there may be children of my daughter living and deliver one part to each child upon arriving at the age of 21, and to hold the part of any child who shall not have arrived at the age of 21 and apply the net income for his maintenance, education, and traveling expenses until they shall arrive at the age of 21 and then pay over to him his equal part, together with any accumulations thereof. And in case any child of Susie shall die before her decease, leaving a child or children, he or they shall receive upon her death the part which his or their parent would have received had such parent outlived her and arrived at the age of 21. Then follows the portion of the article in controversy:

" In case my daughter shall not leave any child or grandchild surviving her, then and in that case, upon my daughter's death I give said fund and direct said trustees to pay over the same to my heirs at law."

Article 5 provides:

" I give, devise and bequeath all the rest, residue and remainder of my estate, both real and personal, and wherever situated, to my beloved daughter, Susie V. Healy, to be to her and her heirs and assigns forever. And as my expectation is that this residiuum of my estate, will at least equal the amount of all the foregoing legacies, a large portion of which, in case of the death of my daughter, my intended son-in-law, Mr. John S. Camp (for whom I have a very high esteem) will receive, I have, for this reason, omitted to give him any other legacy in this will."

Mr. Healy left surviving a daughter Susie V. Healy, who married on April 8, 1885, John S. Camp, named in article 5 of the will. Susie H. and John S. Camp had no children, and were divorced May 28, 1919. Susie H. Camp deceased February 7, 1923, without issue, and the defendant, Hartford-Connecticut Trust Company, is the executor of her will. Mr. Healy left surviving him a sister of the whole blood, Eliza H. Moredock, who died on April 4, 1902, intestate, and defendant William H. Newton is the administrator of her estate, and the son of Mrs. Susan Newton, a daughter of Mrs. Moredock of the whole blood, who died March 28, 1920.

Mr. Healy also left surviving him two brothers of the half blood, Christopher J. Healy and Reuben Healy, and a nephew Stillman F. Wilson, the son of a deceased sister. Christopher Healy has since deceased leaving surviving him a daughter, Mary S. Healy, who with Reuben Healy and Stillman F. Wilson are defendants and of the half blood.

Susie H. Camp having died without issue the question reserved for our determination is: To whom shall the trust fund in the hands of the plaintiff trustees be paid? This is to be answered by our construction of that part of article 4 reading, " and in that case upon my daughter's death" leaving no issue " I give said fund and direct said trustees to pay over the same to my heirs at law." Our construction must begin with the ascertainment of the intention of the testator and end by carrying the intention so found into effect. When a testator names as beneficiaries under his will his heirs at law, unless a contrary intention appears in the will, his heirs at law will be assumed to be used in their comprehensive and popular sense, as being those who are his heirs at the time of his death, and all who would inherit real or personal estate. " In fact, the word ‘ heirs' has been so often used and construed as including all who would inherit either real or personal estate, that there is no longer any good reason for insisting upon its technical significance, except where the intention to use it in that sense is apparent." Morse v. Ward, 92 Conn. 408, 411, 103 A. 119, 120; Tingier v. Chamberlin, 71 Conn. 466, 469, 42 A. 718; Dickerman v. Alling, 83 Conn. 342, 345, 76 A. 362.

The only heir at law of the testator at the time of his death was his daughter, Susie, who was the life tenant of this trust fund. By his gift of this fund to his " heirs at law" did the testator intend that his daughter, the life tenant of the fund, should take, or did he intend his heirs at law to take exclusive of the life tenant? We think the testator's intention can be ascertained from the will itself without recourse to presumption or extraneous facts.

The scheme of the will indicates that the testator desired to protect his only child, his daughter, and her descendants against the contingencies of the future. He gave the...