In re Wilson's Estate
| Decision Date | 12 July 1920 |
| Docket Number | 15855. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | In re WILSON'S ESTATE. |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; A. W. Frater, Judge.
In the matter of the estate of George R. Wilson, deceased. From a portion of a decree ordering a bequest to be paid to the city of Seattle, the residuary legatee appeals. Affirmed.
Poe & Falknor, of Seattle, for appellant.
Walter F. Meier and Geo. A. Meagher, both of Seattle, for respondent.
January 27, 1914, Geo. R. Wilson executed his will, one clause of which provided:
'I give and bequeath five thousand dollars to each of the following named charitable institutions: Washington Children's Home Society, Orthopedic Hospital Tuberculosis Sanitarium, all located in Seattle or King County, Wash. * * *'
On May 26, 1916, the will was admitted to probate, and from the decree of distribution made October 24, 1919, the residuary legatee has appealed, on the ground that the bequest of $5,000 to the 'Tuberculosis Sanitarium' is void for uncertainty, in that no such charitable institution as the 'Tuberculosis Sanitarium' existed or exists in Seattle of King county. The decree ordered this bequest paid to the city of Seattle, as the owner of a hospital devoted to the care and cure of persons afflicted with tuberculosis.
Unquestionably courts in the administration of their probate powers look with kindliness upon legacies and devises made to the use of charity, and, rather than allow benevolent intentions to prove abortive, go to the full length of their ability to fulfill them. By section 45, c. 156, Laws 1917, we are admonished to have due regard to the direction of the will and to accomplish the true intent and meaning of the testator. In re Stewart's Estate, 26 Wash. 32 66 P. 148, 67 P. 723; Peth v. Spear, 63 Wash. 291, 115 P. 164. The intention of a testator is generally to be gathered from the instrument itself, but where there is an ambiguity, such as the misnomer here, extrinsic evidence is admitted to show the real intent of the testator. Where there is an ambiguity and there is no extrinsic evidence, or the extrinsic evidence does not directly show intent, the bequest fails for indefiniteness and uncertainty. Bowman v. Domestic & Foreign Missionary Society, etc., 42 Misc. 574, 87 N.Y.S. 621.
The city claims that the evidence establishes that it was the testator's intention to bequeath to it the $5,000 for its hospital. It appears that there is no institution in Seattle or King county officially known as the 'Tuberculosis Sanitarium,' but that in July, 1912, the Anti-Tuberculosis League of King county, a corporation, then the owner of a tuberculosis hospital, conveyed the institution to the city, which thereafter has operated it, supporting it by general taxation and rendering free service to those receiving its care and attention. In the winter of 1913-14 the Anti-Tuberculosis League was engaged in an extensive campaign of publicity for the purpose of securing donations to be used for the establishment of a building at the city's hospital devoted to the treatment of children. Mr. Wilson lived north of the city of Seattle, and the hospital was also north of the city limits, though some miles from his residence....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shufeldt v. Shufeldt
... ... Henry ... Shufeldt, a resident of Wisconsin, on November 28, 1900, made ... a will disposing of a considerable estate and containing many ... provisions, all with the exception of the one involved in ... this litigation looking to the benefit of only his ... ...
-
In re Clark's Estate
...594, before Shaw, C. J., sitting in equity. A municipality by tax-raised funds may operate a charitable institution. In re Wilson's Estate (1920) 111 Wash. 491, 191 P. 615. A hospital given to a town is a public charity which the town has a right to accept and administer. Adams et al. v. Pl......
-
Baarslag v. Hawkins, 2321--I
...charitable intent is apparent, a will should be construed to favor the creation of a charitable trust. See, e.g., In re Estate of Wilson, 111 Wash. 491, 191 P. 615 (1920); Yeager v. Johns, Supra; Love v. Sullivan, Supra. In this case, however, we are unable to ascertain the testator's inten......
-
White v. United States
...purpose, that is, whether or not it is maintained for gain, profit, or advantage." 14 C.J.S. Charities § 2, p. 422. In In re Wilson's Estate, 111 Wash. 491, 191 P. 615, a testator bequeathed "five thousand dollars to each of the following named charitable institutions * * Tuberculosis Sanit......
-
Table of Cases
...731 P.2d 541 (1987): 13.3(3)(a) Wilkins v. Lasater, 46 Wn.App. 766, 733 P.2d 221 (1987): 4.2(2), 5.2(7), 13.7(2) Wilson's Estate, In re, 111 Wash. 491, 191 P. 615 (1920): 4.7(5)(a), 4.7(5)(d), 13.4(11)(g) Wilson's Estate v. Livingston, 8 Wn.App. 519, 507 P.2d 902, review denied, 82 Wn.2d 10......
-
§13.4 Challenges and Disputes That Do Not Constitute Will Contests
...will."); see also RCW 11.96A.125 (arguably overruling cases such as Woodward). Even prior to RCW 11.96A.125, in In re Wilson's Estate, 111 Wash. 491, 191 P. 615 (1920), the court identified a "misnomer" as an ambiguity and took extrinsic evidence to show the testator's intent. Rejecting the......
-
Table of Cases
...172 P. 745 (1918): 355 Wilson v. Whinery, 37 Wn. App. 24, 678 P.2d 354, review denied, 101 Wn.2d 1019 (1984): 281 Wilson's Estate, In re, 111 Wash. 491, 191 P. 615 (1920): 236 Wiltermood, In re Estate of, 78 Wn.2d 238, 472 P.2d 536 (1970): 15 Wiltzius' Estate, In re, 42 Wn.2d 149, 253 P.2d ......
-
Chapter A. General Rules of Construction and Interpretation
...should the question arise in the future. See also In re France's Estate, 64 Wn.2d 703, 393 P.2d 940 (1964); In re Wilson's Estate, 111 Wash. 491, 191 P. 615 (1920); Reformed Presbyterian Church of N. Am. v. McMillan, 31 Wash. 643, 72 P. 502...