Hathaway v. Hathaway
| Decision Date | 04 November 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 6994.,6994. |
| Citation | 156 A. 800 |
| Parties | HATHAWAY v. HATHAWAY. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Kent County; Antonio A. Capotosto, Judge.
Will contest by Herbert C. Hathaway against Mary Gray Hathaway, executrix. From an order of the superior court reversing a decree of the probate court admitting the will to probate, the executrix brings exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
Grim, Littlefield & Eden, of Providence, for appellant.
Arthur Cushing, of Providence, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a decree of the probate court of the town of Warwick admitting to probate the will of Edward H. Hathaway. After hearing in the superior court, before a justice sitting without a jury, decision was rendered declaring the will revoked by the marriage of the testator subsequent to the execution thereof. The cause is before us on appellee's exceptions.
At the hearing in the probate court a certain instrument in writing dated March 30, 1920, purporting to be the last will and testament of Edward H. Hathaway, late of Warwick, deceased, was admitted to probate. The appellee, Mary Gray Hathaway, widow of said Edward H. Hathaway, was appointed executrix. Thereafter Herbert C. Hathaway; son of the testator by a former marriage, claimed an appeal which was heard by the superior court. It appeared in evidence that the testator's first wife, Sarah E. Hathaway, died February 27, 1920; that the appellee and testator were married January 27, 1921, and that on March 30, 1920, previous to said marriage, he executed the will in question. Appellee at the time of the execution of this will was the legatee under the residuary clause thereof, and was by said probate court appointed executrix.
The appellant at the hearing before the superior court and in this court contended that said will was revoked by the marriage of the testator subsequent to the execution thereof, and based his argument upon the provisions of General Laws 1923, chapter 298, § 16, which is as follows: "Every will made by a man or woman shall be revoked by his or her marriage, except a will made in exercise of a power of appointment when the real or personal estate thereby appointed would not in default of such appointment pass to his or her heir, executor or administrator, or the person entitled as his or her next of kin under the statute of distribution." The superior court found that, the statute being clear and unambiguous, the will was revoked by testator's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Santos
...to absurd or wholly impracticable consequences, it is the sole evidence of the ultimate legislative intent."); Hathaway v. Hathaway, 52 R.I. 39, 40, 156 A. 800, 801 (1931) ("`It is an elementary proposition that courts only determine, by construction, the scope and intent of a law when the ......
-
State v. Gagnon, P1/ 2004-2127 (RI 4/5/2006)
...to absurd or wholly impracticable consequences, it is the sole evidence of the ultimate legislative intent."); Hathaway v. Hathaway, 52 R.I. 39, 40, 156 A. 800, 801 (1931) (" `It is an elementary proposition that courts only determine, by construction, the scope and intent of a law when the......