In re Petition of Heath
Decision Date | 05 January 1880 |
Citation | 12 R.I. 479 |
Parties | PETITION OF JAMES C. HEATH et al. for an Opinion of the Court. |
Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Devise as follows:
Followed by a codicil as follows:
On a case stated to obtain a construction of these testamentary dispositions, Francis M. Heath being dead, and his child, Norma F. Heath, being a party to the proceedings:
Held, that James C. Heath and Annie C. Heath were each entitled for life to one undivided fourth part of the farm, as tenants in common and without any right of survivorship.
Held, further, the great-grandchild being alive, that the contingency on which the codicil was to take effect has failed, and that the great-grandchild was entitled under the will to a fee simple in one undivided fourth part of the farm.
Held, further, that Norma F. Heath, daughter of Francis M., was entitled to a fee simple in one undivided fourth part of the farm.
Darius Baker, for the petitioners.
This is a case stated for the opinion of the court under Pub. Laws R.I. cap. 563, § 16, of April 20, 1876. The case shows that James Chase, deceased, left a will dated May 29, 1860, and a codicil thereto, dated November 5, 1864, which were admitted to probate. The will contained the following provision, to wit:
The codicil contained the following provision, to wit:
The name of said great-grandchild is Ralph Gifford, who joins in the statement of his guardian. The said Francis M. Heath recently died, leaving a child, Norma F. Heath, who has been summoned in, as also have been the two children of James C. Heath.
Three questions are submitted to the court for decision, to wit:
1. Do James C. Heath and Annie C. Laraway, formerly Annie C. Heath, hold the farm mentioned as joint tenants for life, or did they take as tenants in common?
2. What interest and estate has Ralph Gifford in said farm?
3. What interest and estate has Norma F. Heath in said farm?
1. The rule...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Prince v. Nugent
...held that in enacting that statute the legislature had prescribed a rule of construction that was binding upon the court. In Heath, Petitioner, 12 R.I. 479, the same statute was being considered by this court. In that case we held that the provisions of the statute which applied the same ru......
-
Hayes v. Siple
...court has held that this statute prescribes a rule of construction. Van Ausdall v. Van Ausdall, 48 R.I. 106, 110, 135 A. 850; In re Heath, Petitioner, 12 R.I. 479. A deed to two or more grantees, according to this statute, is deemed to create a tenancy in common, unless a contrary intention......
-
Van Ausdall v. Van Ausdall
...execution of this deed was General Laws 1909, c. 252, § 1. It is true that, this statute has been held to be a rule of construction (Re Heath, 12 R. I. 479), and that the language of the deed before us, conveying the property to grantees "as joint tenants and not as tenants in common," indi......
-
Van Ausdall v. Van Ausdall
...of this deed was General Laws, 1909, Chapter 252, Sec. 1. It is true that this statute has been held to be a rule of construction, Re Heath, 12 R. I. 479, and that the language of the deed before us conveying the property to grantees "as joint tenants and not as tenants in common" indicates......