Hamilton v. McQuillan

• Decision Date: 28 December 1889
• Parties: HAMILTON v. MCQUILLAN et al.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

19 A. 167

82 Me. 204

HAMILTON

v. MCQUILLAN et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Dec. 28, 1889.

(Official.)

Case submitted on agreed statement, Androscoggin county.

Action of debt by Warren Hamilton against George F. McQuillan and William H. Looney, as administrators d. b. n. c. t. a. of Joseph V. R. Coombs, deceased, to recover a legacy under his will, it being the proceeds of a life insurance policy. It was admitted that his estate, including both real and personal property, was solvent, and that no premiums had been paid on the policy during the three years next preceding the testator's death. The defendants claimed that by Rev. St. c. 75, § 10, the testator could not legally give and devise his interest in life insurance policies to the plaintiff.

N. & J. A. Morrill, for plaintiff. G. F. McQuillan and W. H. Looney, for defendants.

FOSTER, J. Action of debt for a legacy, against the defendants as administrators de bonis non with the will annexed. That the estate of the testator is solvent is admitted, as also the receipt of $308 by the executor from an insurance policy belonging to the estate of the testator, and a demand for payment of the same upon these defendants.

The only question for determination is whether it is competent for a solvent testator, having a wife, but no children, to dispose by will of insurance money, coming to his estate at his decease, to a person other than his wife, his intention so to do being clearly and definitely expressed in the will.

This precise question has never before been presented to or decided by this court.

The only cases where any reference to this question has been raised are those of Hathaway v. Sherman, 61 Me. 466, and Blouin v. Phaneuf, 81 Me. 176, 16 Atl. Rep. 540, but in neither of which was it decided.

The former was a case where the testator died insolvent, and the court there decided that the insolvent could make no testamentary disposition of the fund accruing from an insurance policy upon his life, where he left neither widow nor child, the insurance money in that event being assets for the payment of debts; and, in the event of his leaving a widow and children, that it was competent for him to bequeath the insurance money among them in such proportion as he might see fit, but he could not bestow it by will upon other persons.

The latter case was where the estate of the testator was solvent, but the court found no occasion to decide this precise question, inasmuch as in that case there was no such well-declared intention thus to dispose of it as the law requires; and in both it was held that the testators intention thus to dispose of it must be explicitly declared, and could not be inferred from general provisions in the will, the fulfillment of which might require the use of such money.

In the present case, however, no difficulty is encountered in reference to the intention of the testator as to the disposition he intended to make of the money accruing from insurance upon his life, for, after a bequest to his wife of one-half his personal estate, "with the exception of what may be collected from policies of life insurance," by the fifth item of his will he makes a specific bequest of the same in this language: "Fifth. I give and devise all my interest in any and all life insurance policies to Warren Hamilton, of Sabattus, in the state of Maine."

That it was the intention of the testator to change the direction which the law would otherwise give to this species of property in accordance with section 10, c. 75, Rev. St., there can be no doubt.

Will the law uphold such a testamentary disposition of this money thus accruing, or must the statute to which we have referred be considered as limiting the power of the testator over it on account of his leaving a widow or issue?

We have no doubt upon this question as now presented. It was competent for the testator to make such disposition of the fund as he chose, inasmuch as his estate was solvent, notwithstanding he left a widow.

There is a general power given by statute to persons of sound mind, 21 years of age, to dispose of their real and personal estate by will, when not necessary for the payment of debts. Rev. St. c. 74, §§ 1, 7.

The limitation of such testamentary disposition to the widow or issue, as provided in section 10, c. 75, Rev. St., in respect to funds accruing from insurance on the life of the testator, applies only in cases where the estate is insolvent. When the estate is solvent, and the testator leaves a widow or issue, or both, he has the same power of disposition by will over such funds as he has over any other personal property belonging to his estate. But the intention of the testator to bequeath the same to others, including his widow or issue, must be explicitly declared by the terms of the will; otherwise it will not pass by the will, but will...