Hobbs v. Chesley
| Decision Date | 31 January 1925 |
| Citation | 251 Mass. 155,146 N.E. 261 |
| Parties | HOBBS v. CHESLEY et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Probate Court, Suffolk County; A. W. Dolan, Judge.
Petition by Fred A. Hobbs, executor, against William P. Chesley and others, for construction of the will of Mary E. Chesley, deceased. From decree of distribution, defendant named appeals. Affirmed.
C. E. Haywood, of Boston, for appellant.
F. O. Downes, of Boston, for respondent.
This is a petition for the construction of the will of Mary E. Chesley, who died December 6, 1922, brought by the executor of her will against William P. Chesley, Charles W. Chesley, and Edgar A. Gibson. The will, dated February 1, 1917, was duly approved and allowed, and the petitioner, Fred A. Hobbs, appointed executor on February 1, 1923. The testatrix, after making several bequests, provided in the fourth clause of her will as follows:
At the time the will was executed, both named beneficiaries were living, and were the nearest of kin of the testatrix; but Fred W. Chesley died without issue before her death. At her death her heirs at law and next of kin were her nephew, William P. Chesley, and a grandnephew, Edgar A. Gibson. A citation on the petition was served as ordered by the Probate Court. The respondent, William P. Chesley, filed an answer, and the petition was taken for confessed as to Charles W. Chesley, Edgar A. Gibson, and all other parties interested who have not appeared. A substantial sum of money is left to be distributed under the residuary clause hereinbefore quoted. After hearing the probate court entered a final decree that:
‘The residue of the estate be distributed three-fourths to William P. Chesley and one-fourth to Edgar A. Gibson; that is to say, that the one-half of the residue which Fred W. Chesley would have been entitled to receive had he survived the testatrix, is to be distributed as intestate property.’
William P. Chesley appealed from this decree.
[1][2][3] The only question argued on this appeal is whether by the residuary clause the whole residue passes to William P. Chesley as the sole surviving member of a class, or whether he takes one half of the residue and the other half is to be distributed as intestate property. The general rule is, that where there is a gift by will of a fund or residue to several legatees who are named, to be divided among...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Byrd v. Wallis
...Leslie, 124 Me. 93, 126 A. 340; Strout v. Chesley, 125 Me. 171, 132 A. 211; Horton v. Earle, 162 Mass. 448, 38 N.E. 1135; Hobbs v. Chesley, 251 Mass. 155, 146 N.E. 261; Sleeper v. Larrabee, 266 Mass. 320, 165 N.E. Romjue v. Randolph, 166 Mo.App. 87, 148 S.W. 185; Stetson v. Kinch, 92 N.J.Eq......
-
Fitts v. Powell
...who are named, to be divided among them in equal shares, the gift is to them as individuals and not as a class.’ Hobbs v. Chesley, 251 Mass. 155, 157, 146 N.E. 261;Frost v. Courtis, 167 Mass. 251, 45 N.E. 687.Worcester Trust Co. v. Turner, 210 Mass. 115, 96 N.E. 132;Flye v. Jones, 283 Mass.......
-
Buffington v. Mason
...Dresel v. King, 198 Mass. 546, 548, 85 N.E. 77; Worcester Trust Co. v. Turner, 210 Mass. 115, 121-122, 96 N.E. 132; Hobbs v. Chesley, 251 Mass. 155, 146 N.E. 261; Old Colony Trust Co. v. Johnson, 314 Mass. 703, 712, 51 N.E.2d 456; Old Colony Trust Co. v. Stetson, supra. Gladys Mason Ball Sh......
-
Boynton v. Boynton
...of a portion of the residue, an intestacy resulted and her share is to be distributed to the testator's heirs at law. Hobbs v. Chesley, 251 Mass. 155, 157, 146 N. E. 261, and cases cited. See Lyman v. Sohier (Mass.) 164 N. E. 460. And this is true of the gift of income as well as the gift o......