Johnson v. Haldane
| Citation | 124 A. 63 |
| Decision Date | 17 March 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 53/401.,53/401. |
| Parties | JOHNSON v. HALDANE et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
Suit by Charles Haldane Johnson, substituted administrator c. t. a., against Elizabeth P. Haldane and others, for instructions as to distribution. Decree ordered.
Arthur H. Bissell, of Montclair, for complainant.
Harold Bouton, of Montclair, for defendant Johnson.
Edwin B. & Philip Goodell, of Montclair, for defendant Huckel.
BACKES, V. C. George W. Haldane, by his last will and testament, gave the interest of his estate to his wife for life, during widowhood, and then after certain pecuniary bequests disposed of the remainder as follows:
When the will was made, and at his death, the testator's kin were:
Children: William H. Haldane and Henrietta Johnson, widow of Charles H. Johnson.
Grandchildren: Children of Mrs. Johnson: Charles H. Johnson, Elizabeth, Florence, and Edith Johnson.
Great-grandchildren: Children of grandson Charles H. Johnson: Charles Haldane Johnson, Kenneth, Allen, and Elizabeth Johnson.
After the testator died, Elizabeth Johnson, grandchild, now Mrs. Huckel, had two sons: Alfred W. and Martin J. Huckel.
The time for distribution has arrived and the substituted administrator asks to be instructed whether the principal is to be paid over as directed by the seventh clause of the will to the testator's great-grandchildren, the children of his grandson Charles H. Johnson, or whether the balance of the estate is to be divided among all the great-grandchildren, which would include the Huckels.
There is no uncertainty as to the testator's intention expressed in the seventh clause of the will, that his great-grandchildren of his grandson Charles H. Johnson and the children of his son William H. Haldane were to share the remainder of his estate. Nor is there any apparent inconsistency on the face of the will. But the unforeseen advent of the Huckels has created confusion as they answer the description of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Gilchrist's Estate
...190 N.E. 721; Stephens v. Dennis, 72 S.W.2d 630; Kosa v. Boucek, (Kan.) 42 P.2d 596; Livingston v. Ward, (N. Y.) 159 N.E. 875; Johnson v. Haldane, 124 A. 63; Garth v. Myrick, 3 Bro. C. C. 30, 28 Eng. Repr. Finlay v. King's Lessee, 3 Pet. 346; Bischemeyer v. Klein, (Ky.) 129 S.W. 551; Runyan......
-
Hackensack Trust Co. v. Ackerman
...decedent and from its ‘four corners' endeavor to ascertain the testator's predominant intent. ‘Vice Chancellor Backes in Johnson v. Haldane, 95 N.J.Eq. 404, 124 A. 63, succinctly expresses the principle in the following language: ‘In construing a will the predominant idea of the testator's ......
-
Guar. Trust Co. Of N.Y. v. N.Y. Cmty. Trust
...of this suit. See Hendershot v. Shields, 42 N.J.Eq. 317, 3 A. 355; Rogers' Ex'rs v. Rogers, 49 N.J.Eq. 98, 23 A. 125; Johnson v. Haldane, 95 N.J.Eq. 404, 124 A. 63; Byrne v. Byrne, 123 N.J.Eq. 6, 195 A. 848; Rausch v. Libby, 132 N.J.Eq. 527, 29 A.2d 378. In Byrne v. Byrne, supra [123 N.J.Eq......
-
Rausch v. Libby
...language of an earlier provision in the will where their effect would be by implication to diminish the first gift. Johnson v. Haldane, 95 N.J.Eq. 404, 124 A. 63; McDonald v. Clermont, 107 N.J.Eq. 585, at page 589, 153 A. It would seem to me that there is little room for doubt that testator......