Havens v. Havens, No. 1394.

CourtRhode Island Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtMOSS, Justice.
Citation200 A. 956
PartiesHAVENS v. HAVENS et al.
Decision Date21 July 1938
Docket NumberNo. 1394.
200 A. 956

HAVENS
v.
HAVENS et al.

No. 1394.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

July 21, 1938.


200 A. 956

Certified from Superior Court, Kent County.

Suit in equity by Loucitty Havens against William D. Havens and others to determine whether the failure of Charles C. Havens, deceased, to provide in his will for any of his children was intentional and not occasioned by accident or mistake. Case certified to the Supreme Court for determination under Gen.Laws 1923, c. 339, § 35.

Decree in accordance with opinion.

Elmer S. Chace, of Providence, for complainant. Louis D. Richardson, of Providence, guardian ad litem.

MOSS, Justice.

&gt

This case was begun by a bill in equity filed in the superior court by the widow, and sole beneficiary under the will, of Charles C. Havens, late of Warwick in this state, who died October 22, 1905, for a determination of the question whether his omission to provide in that will for any of his children was intentional and not occasioned by accident or mistake.

No child or other issue of the testator was mentioned in the will. He was survived by a daughter by a former wife and two sons by the complainant, one of whom is still living. The other died after the testator and was survived only by a daughter, who is still living. This granddaughter of the testator, her husband, the living son of the testator and the wife of this son were made parties respondent and filed an answer, in which they admitted the truth of the allegations of the bill and joined in its prayer.

The above-mentioned daughter of the testator was also named as a party respondent in the bill; but as information as to her continued existence and any possible issue of hers did not prove to be obtainable, notice to her and such possible issue of hers was given by publication under order by the superior court; but no appearance in the suit was entered by her or any issue of hers. Accordingly a person was appointed by the superior court to represent her or any such issue of hers and filed an answer submitting her or their interests to the care and protection of the court.

The case was thereafter heard in the superior court and it was proved, by the testimony of the surviving son of the testator and of one of the witnesses to the will, that the facts as to the issue of the testator were as above set forth and that he stated to them respectively several times, at and about the time of the execution of the will, that he wanted to leave all his property to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • Industrial Nat. Bank of R. I. v. Isele, Nos. 57
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
    • March 10, 1967
    ...different principle in such a case. Finally in Lindsley v. Lindsley, 60 R.I. 85, 87, 197 A. 98, and in Havens v. Havens, 61 R.I. 356, 358, 200 A. 956, in what must be termed caveats, we expressly disavowed any intention either to consider or to decide whether findings of fact should accompa......
  • Vance v. Rood, No. 20
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • February 1, 1967
    ...the trial justice should have made findings of fact thereon prior to certification is not before this court. Havens v. Havens, 61 R.I. 356, 200 A. 956; Lindsley v. Lindsley, Nowhere in the record is there any evidence that the testator expressly stated an intention to withhold from responde......
2 cases
  • Industrial Nat. Bank of R. I. v. Isele, Nos. 57
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
    • March 10, 1967
    ...different principle in such a case. Finally in Lindsley v. Lindsley, 60 R.I. 85, 87, 197 A. 98, and in Havens v. Havens, 61 R.I. 356, 358, 200 A. 956, in what must be termed caveats, we expressly disavowed any intention either to consider or to decide whether findings of fact should accompa......
  • Vance v. Rood, No. 20
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • February 1, 1967
    ...the trial justice should have made findings of fact thereon prior to certification is not before this court. Havens v. Havens, 61 R.I. 356, 200 A. 956; Lindsley v. Lindsley, Nowhere in the record is there any evidence that the testator expressly stated an intention to withhold from responde......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT