Hall v. Preble

• Decision Date: 08 March 1878
• Parties: IVORY F. HALL et als. v. MARCELLUS B. PREBLE.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

68 Me. 100

IVORY F. HALL et als. v. MARCELLUS B. PREBLE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

March 8, 1878

ON REPORT.

WRIT OF ENTRY.

A M. Pulsifer, W. W. Bolster & J. R. Hosley, for the plaintiffs.

N Morrill, for the defendant.

LIBBEY J.

Both parties claim the premises under the will of Daniel E. Hall deceased. The demandants, as his surviving brothers and sisters at the death of Annie E. Hall, his widow, and the tenant, by deed from said Annie E. Hall, devisee under said will.

The main contention between the parties is, as to the true construction of the third clause in the will of Daniel E. Hall. It reads as follows: " I give and bequeath all the residue and remainder of my estate, both real and personal, including all moneys that may be received upon my policy of insurance upon my life, unto my beloved wife, Annie E. Hall, during her life. It is my intention and desire that said Annie E. Hall shall hold and use to her benefit, all the property, both real and personal, owned by me at the time of my decease, during her life, the same as if absolutely hers, and at her death whatever may be left, I wish equally divided among the survivors of my brothers and sisters. To avoid all contentions and disputes, it is my request and directions that said Annie E. Hall shall immediately upon my decease, by will, devise and direct that such portion of said estate as shall be left at her decease, be divided between the survivors of my brothers and sisters according to my intention as expressed in this will. I wish it distinctly understood that I place no restriction upon my said wife in regard to her use of my said estate, desiring and intending that she shall use and expend every dollar of the same, if necessary, for her care, comfort and support."

It is claimed by the demandants that Annie E. Hall took a life estate only under this clause in the will, and had no power to convey the fee; and further that she did not undertake to convey the fee by her deed to the tenant, but her life estate only. On the part of the tenant it is claimed, that she took the fee, or if not the fee, a life estate, with full power to convey the fee as she might see fit, and that by her deed to the tenant she did convey the fee.

" The first and great rule, in the expositions of wills, to which all other rules must bend, is that the intention of the testator, expressed in his will, shall prevail, provided it be consistent with the rules of law." Shaw v. Hussey, 41 Me. 495. To ascertain the intention of the testator, every clause and word of the will are to be taken into consideration, because one clause is often modified or explained by another. Every implication as well as every direct provision is to be regarded.

The general rule is well settled that " a devise to one without words of inheritance, but containing the power to dispose of the property without qualification, is treated as equivalent to a devise with words of inheritance." Shaw v. Hussey, supra. Ramsdell v. Ramsdell, 21 Me. 288. Hale v. Marsh, 100 Mass. 468, and cases cited. To this general rule the courts have established an exception. In Ramsdell v. Ramsdell, this court,...