Hogan v. Taylor

Decision Date09 May 1940
Docket NumberNo. 1474.,1474.
Citation13 A.2d 262
PartiesHOGAN et al. v. TAYLOR et al.
CourtRhode Island Supreme Court

Certified from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties.

Suit by Mary C. Hogan and another, administrators with will and codicil annexed of the estate of John A. Phelan, against Bridget Taylor and others for construction of the will and codicil and for instruction as to certain questions. The cause was heard before the presiding justice of the superior court on the bill and answers; and evidence was presented. When it was ready for hearing for final decree, it was certified to the Supreme Court for final determination in accordance with General Laws 1938, c. 545, § 7.

Decree in accordance with opinion.

Stephen J. Casey, of Providence, for complainants.

Hogan & Hogan, of Providence, for known next of kin and heirs at law.

John J. Mee, of Woonsockct, for respondent Our Lady of Victory Hospital of Lackawanna.

Fred J. O'Donncll, of Providence, guardian ad litem.

MOSS, Justice.

This cause was begun by a bill in equity filed by the two administrators, with will and codicil annexed, of the estate of John A. Phelan, late of the city of Woonsocket, Rhode Island, deceased. The respondents are all the known heirs of the testator and all other possible unknown heirs of his, and also Our Lady of Victory Hospital of Lackawanna, which is a corporation of the state of New York and sole beneficiary under the aforesaid codicil, and which is hereinafter referred to as the respondent corporation. The prayer of the bill is that the will and codicil be construed and that the complainants as administrators be instructed as to certain questions, the answers to which depend upon the construction of these instruments and which we need not here state.

The respondent corporation and the known heirs of the testator, all of whom are of full age, filed answers admitting all the allegations of the bill and joining in its prayer for the construction of the will and for instructions to the complainants with regard thereto. Notice was given, by publication, to all possible unknown heirs of the testator, and a member of the bar of this state was appointed to represent their possible interests. He filed an answer substantially in the usual form for such a representative or guardian ad litem, neither admitting nor denying the allegations of the bill.

The cause was then heard before the presiding justice of the superior court on the bill and answers; and evidence was presented. When it was ready for hearing for final decree, it was certified to this court for final determination in accordance with general laws 1938, chapter 545, § 7. There is no contradiction in the evidence, and the material facts shown are as follows:

On September 8, 1926, the said John A. Phelan and his sister Bridget E. Phelan, neither of whom was ever married, executed separate wills. In his will he simply named her as executrix, directed her to pay all his debts, funeral expenses and expenses of his last illness, and gave her all the residue of his estate, real, personal and mixed. Her will had exactly similar provisions in his favor.

On the same day and evidently after the execution of these wills John A. Phelan executed, before subscribing witnesses, one of whom was this sister, an instrument in handwriting and reading as follows, evidently intended as a codicil, though not in any way described therein as such: "It is also my will that after my death that all monies that is left in banks and obtained from the sale of property both personal and real belonging to me be given to our Lady of Victory home for Masses for myself and the other deceased members of my family."

The sister died on June 5, 1935, and her above-described will was duly admitted to probate. John A. Phelan died July 1, 1935, and his above-described will and codicil were duly admitted to probate. The complainants were duly appointed administrators of her estate with her will annexed and were also duly appointed administrators of his estate with his will and codicil annexed. They duly qualified in both capacities.

Because of the prior death of the sister, the property of John A. Phelan at his death included the residue of her estate. Altogether it comprised several bank accounts, aggregating a considerable amount, some corporate securities and other personal property and several pieces of real estate located in this state and in Massachusetts.

The respondent corporation was, by evidence, duly identified as the beneficiary intended by the testator, John A. Phelan, hereinafter exclusively referred to as the testator, as his sole beneficiary under the codicil to his will. That respondent and the respondents who are all the known heirs of the testator have come to some agreement as to the disposition of the residue of the property real and personal belonging to him or to which he was entitled at the time of his death. They have, therefore, made before us, by their respective counsel, substantially the same contentions and' supported them by very similar arguments.

These contentions, if sustained by us, would result in the conclusion that the respondent corporation is entitled to the benefit of the entire net estate of the testator and that his heirs and next of kin are entitled to no benefit from the estate. In this situation, justice requires that the interests of possible unknown heirs and next of kin be thoroughly protected; and we are pleased to observe that such interests have been very well represented and protected before us by the attorney appointed to represent them. We have not been able to think of any contention or argument in their behalf which he has not well presented to us.

He has contended that the sole purpose of the testator in his codicil was to give to the respondent corporation money to be obtained by the testator from the sale of real and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • R.I. Hosp. Trust Co. v. Thomas, 1777.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
    • 1 Agosto 1947
    ...of a residuary bequest.’ To the same effect are Dunham v. Randall, supra; Edwards v. Martin, 54 R.I. 64, 67, 169 A. 751; Hogan v. Taylor, 64 R.I. 471, 13 A.2d 262. In our opinion a construction that would lead to partial intestacy in the instant cause, that is, with reference to Claude's sh......
  • Gaboriault v. Gaboriault, 1646.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
    • 24 Junio 1943
    ...633 and Id., 21 R.I. 418, 44 A. 221; In re Adams, 32 R.I. 41, 78 A. 524; McCrillis v. McCrillis, 49 R.I. 240, 142 A. 153; Hogan v. Taylor, 64 R.I. 471, 13 A.2d 262. In the instant will the direction to sell is, in our opinion, clear and imperative and in no sense discretionary or limited. T......
  • Rhode Island Hosp. Trust Co. v. Huntoon, 2979
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
    • 7 Junio 1962
    ...Pell v. Mercer, 14 R.I. 412, 427; Dunham v. Randall, 51 R.I. 55, 151 A. 193; Edwards v. Martin, 54 R.I. 64, 67, 169 A. 756; Hogan v. Taylor, 64 R.I. 471, 13 A.2d 262. Although generally gifts by implication have not been favored by courts, it is recognized that such gifts do arise in certai......
  • Morgan's Estate, Matter of, 4720
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 31 Agosto 1977
    ...It is aptly described in many jurisdictions as "well settled," Mitchell v. Bogue, 142 Fla. 787, 196 So. 306, 311-312; Hogan v. Taylor, 64 R.I. 471, 13 A.2d 262, 265; and no cogent reason has been suggested why this doctrine should not be given recognition and application in this jurisdictio......

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