Holt v. Holt

• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: MacRAE, J.
• Citation: Holt v. Holt, 114 N.C. 241, 18 S.E. 967 (N.C. 1894)
• Decision Date: 20 February 1894
• Parties: HOLT et al. v. HOLT et al.

18 S.E. 967

114 N.C. 241

HOLT et al. v. HOLT et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

February 20, 1894

Appeal from superior court, Alamance county; Bryan, Judge.

Action by W. L. and E. C. Holt, executors of the will of Alexander Holt, deceased, against Thomas M. Holt and others, trustees and executors under the will of E. M. Holt, deceased, to construe a clause in the latter will. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Testator provided for his widow, and made equal distribution of his estate among all his children but A., a bachelor of mature years and intemperate habits, and bequeathed to trustees a certain sum, "to be by them held in trust for my son A and this I intend as A.'s full share of my estate; and they shall from time to time use so much interest, as it accrues, for his decent support, but not for his excessive indulgence. Any balance of interest is to be invested." The residuary clause named several sources from which the residue would arise, but did not specify this fund. Held that A. had not merely a life estate therein, but the entire beneficial interest, and could dispose of the fund by will.

Haywood & Haywood and Strong & Strong, for appellants.

J. W. & P. C. Graham and E. S. & Junius Parker, for appellees.

MacRAE J.

The object of this action is to obtain a construction of item 13 of the will of E. M. Holt, deceased, as to the disposition to be made by the trustees named therein (the defendants in this action) of the fund bequeathed to them in trust, it being left in doubt whether the bequest in said item was intended to be limited to the beneficiary during his life, or was simply restrained by a provision limiting his power of disposal thereof. The said beneficiary having, by his last will, treated the bequest to himself as an absolute one, and in his turn disposed of the same, it was necessary, for the protection of the trustees, that the question should be submitted to the court, and it is properly presented in this proceeding. "Item 13. I give and bequeath to the trustees hereinafter appointed the sum of thirty thousand dollars, to be by them held in trust for my son Alexander Holt; and this I intend as Alexander's full share of my estate." So far there can be no question of construction. The above language plainly gives an absolute equitable estate in the whole fund to the cestui que trust. But there is added to the foregoing this further clause "And they shall from time to time use so much of the interest, as it accrues, for his decent support, but not for his excessive indulgence. Any balance of interest is to be invested in good securities." The question arises, upon the last-quoted portion of the said item, whether it does not so qualify and limit the bequest as to give to the said Alexander only a right during his life to such part of the interest accruing upon the principal as might be set apart to him by the trustees "for his decent support." The elementary principle regarding the construction of wills, for which it is no longer necessary to cite authorities or to give reasons, is that the intent of the testator is to govern, and that this intent is to be ascertained from a consideration of the whole will, in the light of the surrounding circumstances. As, by law, a will like that we have before us must be in writing, it cannot permit parol evidence to be adduced either to contradict, add to, or explain the contents of such will. 1 Jarm. Wills, § 349; Kinsey v. Rhem, 2 Ired. 192. "But though it is the will itself, and not the intention as elsewhere collected, which constitutes the real and only subject to be expounded, yet in performing this office a court of construction is not bound to shut its eyes to the state of facts under which the will was made; on the contrary, an investigation of such facts often materially aids in elucidating the scheme of disposition which occupied the mind of the testator." 1 Jarm. Wills, § 363. It will be observed that there are no admissions in the pleadings bearing upon the question, nor is there any testimony offered to aid us in our investigation. In this case we are strictly confined to the will,--not the item itself to be construed but to the whole will,--and to the circumstances of the case, to be gathered from a careful reading of the will. As no two cases are precisely alike, we can derive but little aid from the application of recognized principles under other and different circumstances. The will was evidently drawn with great care, by a skilled hand, and under intelligent direction. We find no difficulty in reaching the conclusion that the great object of the testator, a man of large wealth...