Industrial Nat. Bank of R. I. v. Clark

• Decision Date: 04 November 1964
• Docket Number: No. 3160,3160
• Citation: 204 A.2d 310,98 R.I. 434
• Parties: INDUSTRIAL NATIONAL BANK OF RHODE ISLAND, Trustee, v. Daniel Maurice CLARK, Executor, et al. Eq.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Page 310

204 A.2d 310

98 R.I. 434

INDUSTRIAL NATIONAL BANK OF RHODE ISLAND, Trustee, v. Daniel Maurice CLARK, Executor, et al.

Eq. No. 3160.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Nov. 4, 1964.

Hinckley, Allen, Salisbury & Parsons, Noel M. Field, Jr., Providence, for complainant.

Tillinghast, Collins & Tanner, Harold E. Staples, Providence, Levy, Carroll, Jacobs & Kelly, Arthur J. Levy, Lawrence S. Gates, Edwards & Angell, William H. Edwards, Paul J. Choquette, Jr., Providence, Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle, Winslow M. Lovejoy, Jr., New York City, Swan, Keeney & Jenckes, Ernest A. Jenckes, Andrew H. Davis, Jr., Providence, for respondents.

ROBERTS, Justice.

This bill in equity for the construction of a will and for instructions as to the distribution to be made of the corpus of a trust therein established was certified to this court pursuant to the provisions of G.L.1956, § 9-24-28. The complaint is the trustee of the fund set up in the will of William M. Greene, hereinafter referred to as the testator, and the respondents are those who claim an interest in the corpus of this trust and the legal representatives of certain other such claimants. The testator died on May 30, 1930 survived by a daughter and two sons, namely, Helen Greene Musgrave, who is now living, Orland S. Greene, who died December 14, 1961, and Milbury M. Greene, who died February 15, 1937.

The testator in the eighth clause of his will divided the resideue of his estate into three equal parts, giving one such part to his daughter Helen and one to his son Orland in fee simple. The remaining third of the residue he gave to complainant in trust 'to pay the income for life to my son Milbury M. Greene in quarterly installments. Upon his death to pay the income in quarterly installments to his wife, Gertrude Meehan Greene during her natural life. If my son, Milbury M. Greene, should die leaving any children, I hereby give, devise and bequeath said one third of my property in fee simple to his children. If my son, Milbury M. Greene, should die leaving no children, issue of his body, then I give, devise and bequeath the said one third of my property in fee simply to my two children Orland S. Greene and Helen Greene Musgrave share and share alike.'

The record discloses that when Milbury M. Greene, hereinafter referred to as Milbury, died in 1937, he was survived by his wife, Gertrude Meehan Greene, and by one child, a daughter Jeannette, who subsequently married Dr. Daniel Maurice Clark. She died on December 6, 1962, and Dr. Clark, her surviving husband, is the executor of her estate. One son, Daniel Milbury Clark, was born of this marriage and is now living. The record discloses also that the widow of Milbury M. Greene, Gertrude M. Greene, died on March 10, 1963. In brief, it thus appears that Jeannette predeceased her mother, who was the beneficiary of a life estate in the income of the property intrust that vested in her upon the death of her husband Milbury.

The complainant concedes that Jeannette was the only child of Milbury alive at the time of his death but alleges that it is in doubt concerning her entitlement to the corpus of the trust, she not having survived the life tenancy in the income of the trust property that vested in her mother, Gertrude Meehan Greene, hereinafter referred to as Gertrude, at the time of Milbury's death. The complainant seeks to determine whether Jeannette is entitled as of right to the corpus of the estate if she did not survive the life estate in the income of the trust of her mother. The precise form of the inquiry is: 'Did Jeannette Greene Clark, as the surviving child of Milbury M. Greene, at his decease, take a vested remainder in the trust estate upon the decease of Milbury M. Greene * * *?' Two further inquiries as to the right to the corpus of the trust if it did not vest in Jeannette at the death of Milbury were propounded by complainant but, because of the view we take on the first question, we need not consider the remaining questions.

The language of the will here being considered is not so ambiguous as to obscure the testator's intention concerning the time at which the children of his son Milbury living at his death, if any, were to take the corpus of the trust in fee. In construing the will, it is the duty of this court to give effect to the intent of the testator as disclosed therein if it be in conformity with law. Sawyer v. Poteat, 90 R.I. 51, 153 A.2d 541. Where the language of a will expressly states the testator's intention, resort to the rules of testamentary construction is without warrant. It is only when the language under...