Hazard v. Gushee
Decision Date | 26 June 1913 |
Citation | 87 A. 201,35 R.I. 438 |
Parties | HAZARD v. GUSHEE et al. |
Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Case certified from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties.
Suit by Samuel A. Hazard, administrator, against Thomas C. Gushee, executor, and others, for the construction of a will. Cause certified from superior court on agreed statement of facts under Gen. Laws 1909, c. 289, § 35, after decree pro confesso was entered against certain respondents not appearing. Questions answered as stated, and cause remanded for further proceedings.
Clarence A. Aldrich, of Providence, for complainant.
Benjamin W. Smith, Benjamin W. Grim, Tillinghast & Collins, Harold B. Tanner, and Gardner, Pirce & Thornley, all of Providence, for various respondents.
This is a bill in equity to determine the true construction of the will of Gustine L. Hurd, deceased, and for instructions to the complainant as administrator with the said will annexed. The cause being ready for hearing for final decree, it was duly certified to the Supreme Court by decree of the superior court entered the 12th day of March, A. D. 1913. By stipulation dated March 18, 1913, and filed in court, the complainant and the several respondents who have appeared are agreed that for the purposes of the case the facts set out in the bill of complaint may be taken as true; decree pro confesso has been duly entered against the other respondents who have not appeared. These facts, so far as they affect the questions raised by the bill and answers, are set forth substantially as follows in the bill of complaint:
Gustine L. Hurd deceased at said Providence on the 1st day of October, A. D. 1910, leaving a last will and testament, of which the following is a true copy:
This will was duly probated in Providence November 22, 1910. The testator, Gustine L. Hurd, was never married. Lewis Vickery, mentioned in clause 1 of the first part of the will, died before the testator, leaving issue living at the death of testator, as follows: Daniel L. Vickery, a son, Mary E. Myers, a daughter, Jennie E. Vickery, a daughter, George C. Vickery, a son, all living when the bill was filed. Daniel L. Vickery (clause 2, of first part) was living when the bill was filed. Jennie E. Vickery (clause 3 of first part) was living when bill was filed. Rachel Vickery (clause 4 of first part) died before testator. She had three children, Ellen, Elizabeth, and Rodney Vickery, all of whom died before testator. Ellen Vickery married Samuel Strickland and had five children, Flora, Cora, Belle, Norman, and Clarence. Flora married Eugene Hoyt, and was living when the bill was filed. Cora married and died before the death of testator, leaving a daughter Maude M. Robinson, living when bill was filed. Belle married Bertram Nichols, and died before death of testator, leaving a daughter Ella G. Nichols living when bill was filed. Norman and Clarence Strickland were living when bill was filed. Elizabeth M. Vickery married John Strickland, and died before testator, leaving one son, Chester Strickland, who was living when bill was filed. Rodney Vickery died before testator, leaving two sons, Frank Vickery and Eugene Vickery, who were living when the bill was filed. The above-named living persons are all of the issue of said Rachel Vickery, living at the death of the testator. Ellen Vickery (clause 5th of first part) died before the testator, and is the same Ellen Vickery above named, daughter of Rachel Vickery, and her issue are as above set forth. Shubael W. Hurd (clause 6 of first part) died before testator, leaving a son, Fred O. Hurd, and a daughter, Alice M. Brown, both living when bill was filed. Henry Hurd (clause 7 of first part) died before testator, leaving two sons, viz., Frank E. Hurd, Edson A. Hurd; also the children of his deceased daughter Nellie M. Hurd, viz., Frank, Alton, Leo, and Clarence Hodgman and Edna E. Lund; all living at death of testator.
It thus appears that of the seven persons mentioned in the seven clauses of the first part of the will Daniel L. Vickery and Jennie E. Vickery survived the testator, and were living when the bill was filed, and the other five persons predeceased the testator leaving lineal descendants who were living when the testator died and when the bill was filed. It further appears that all of the persons mentioned in the seven clauses of the second part of the will died without issue prior to the death of the testator, excepting Annie B. Lovejoy mentioned in the fifth clause of said second part, who died February 12, 1912, and Jennie G. Irwin mentioned in the sixth clause of said second part, who died January 8, 1911, and that Howard L. Wheeler and Adeline M. Wheeler are the executors of the will of Annie B. Lovejoy, and that Thomas C. Gushee is the executor of the will of Jennie G. Irwin. It further appears that no mortgages on Western farms standing in the name of the testator or his mother were found after testator's death after diligent search by the administrator, and that he has not been able to trace the proceeds of any such mortgages as a part of the testator's estate.
The complainant asks for the construction of the will and the instructions of this court in the particulars set forth in the following questions, viz.:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Provident Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. Nash
...of the testator. That is the general rule recognized in our cases. Coggeshall v. Home for Children, 18 R.I. 696, 31 A. 694; Hazard v. Gushee, 35 R.I. 438, 87 A. 201; Rhode Island Hospital Trust Co. v. Rhode Homeopathic Hospital, R.I., 87 A. 177. Our statute also provides in section 6, c. 25......
-
Union Trust Co. v. Richardson, 1673.
...and not to defeat it; therefore, the statute will control unless it is inconsistent with the will to have it control. See Hazard v. Gushee, 35 R.I. 438, 87 A. 201. The determinative question in this cause is whether the testator shows an intention by his will that the legacy to Louis D. Ric......
-
O'Neil v. Cogswell
... ... Gilman did ... not own the property at the time of her death, the legacy ... failed. Tomlinson v. Bury, 145 Mass. 346 ... Hazarded. Tomlinson v. Bury, 145 Mass. 346 ... Hazard v ... Gushee ... ...
-
Keefe v. Cogswell
...property at the time of her death, the legacy failed. Tomlinson v. Bury, 145 Mass. 346, 14 N. E. 137,1 Am. St. Rep. 464;Hazard v. Gushee, 35 R. I. 438, 448, 87 Atl. 201. Decree dismissing the bill ...