Horton v. Horton

Citation129 A. 499
Decision Date12 June 1925
Docket NumberNo. 671.,671.
PartiesHORTON v. HORTON.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Case Certified from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties.

Bill by Milleysent B. Horton against William G. Horton, for the construction of the will of Lorenzo T. Horton. On certification by a justice of the superior court to the Supreme Court for determination under Gen. Laws 1923, § 4968. Decree in accordance with opinion.

Gardner, Moss & Haslam, of Providence, for complainant.

W. Louis Frost, of Providence, for respondent.

RATHBUN, J. This is a bill in equity brought in the superior court for the construction of the will of Lorenzo T. Horton. The case was certified to this court pursuant to the provisions of section 4968, G. L. 1923, and was heard on the respondent's motipn based on the following grounds to remand the cause to the superior court: (1) Because said court failed to make a finding as to all issues of fact; (2) because the bill is one "to remove a cloud to title and not a bill for the construction of a will." The cause was at the same time heard on the question as to the construction of said will. On March 27, 1922, when the will was executed, there was pending in the superior court for the counties of Providence and Bristol a bill in equity brought by Lorenzo T. Horton, the testator, against his son William, the respondent, to compel the son to reconvey to the father certain real estate. Before said bill was heard on the merits, the father deceased. The testator by his will devised and bequeathed all of his property to his wife, the complainant, and made no mention of his son William. After said will was probated the complainant as executrix thereof attempted to prosecute said bill, but was met by the contention that William, by reason of not being mentioned in his father's will, inherited by virtue of section 22, c. 298 (section 4312), and section 1, c. 367 (section 5546), Gen. Laws 1923, as sole heir at law, all of his father's real estate, if any he had, and that the complainant by reason thereof took nothing under the will and had no interest in the subject-matter of the bill of complaint brought by her husband. The complainant then brought this bill for the construction of said will. The bill and answer raise the question whether the omission of the testator to make by his will any provision for his son William was intentional and not occasioned by accident or mistake.

Should the cause be remanded to the superior court in accordance with the respondent's motion? The respondent complains because the justice below failed to make a finding on the issues: (1) Whether the testator died seized and possessed in his own right of any real estate of inheritance; (2) whether he died leaving any personal estate remaining to be administered. When the complainant attempted to prosecute the bill in equity brought by her husband to compel this respondent to reconvey certain real estate, she was met with the contention that it did not appear that the testator's omission to provide for William was intentional, and that therefore he as sole heir at law inherited by virtue of said sections 22 and 1 any interest which his father may have had at the time of his decease in the real estate in question, and now the respondent objects to proceeding further in this case because it does not appear that the testator at the time of his decease owned the real estate in question or any other estate which could pass under his will. Consequently the respondent argues that the bill presents only a mooted question. The respondent's contention appears to be that the complainant is not entitled to proceed further in either case until the other has been concluded favorably to her. If the testator's failure to provide for William was intentional, any right which the testator had at the time of his decease in the property in question passed under his will to the complainant, and she is entitled, provided the case is properly before us, to have the will construed, regardless of the fact that she may never come into enjoyment of said property.

The court below did fail to make a finding as to certain issues. Said court refused to find (1) whether the testator died seized and possessed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • R.I. Hosp. Trust Co. v. Hail
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • July 2, 1925
    ...intention is admissible (In re O'Connor, 21 R. I. 465, 44 A. 591, 79 Am. St. Rep. 814; Jenks v. Jenks, 27 R. I. 40, 60 A. 676; Horton v. Horton [R. I.] 129 A. 499), and it appears from the evidence that the testator, when he made the will, had no intention to disinherit any child which migh......
  • Town Of Bristol v. Nolan, 1740.
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • May 8, 1947
    ...or prayers for other relief and treated the cause as certified under § 7; and we shall treat this proceeding accordingly. Horton v. Horton, 46 R.I. 492, 129 A. 499; Ortman v. Streeter, 67 R.I. 325, 23 A.2d 189. Five questions appear in the certification as made upon the motion of the compla......
  • Industrial Nat. Bank of R. I. v. Isele
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • March 10, 1967
    ...of Jeffrey's parenthood would be premature. The transcript makes it obvious that he felt bound by a statement of ours in Horton v. Horton, 46 R.I. 492, 129 A. 499, later approved in Kershaw v. Kershaw, 84 R.I. 429, 125 A.2d 126, which he construed as precluding him from conducting an eviden......
  • Attleboro Steam & Electric Co. v. Pub. Utilities Comm'n
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • June 18, 1925
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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