Kelly v. Jefferis
| Decision Date | 24 September 1901 |
| Citation | 19 Del. 286,50 A. 215 |
| Court | Delaware Superior Court |
| Parties | NEIL KELLY, Administrator of CHARLES D. KELLY, deceased, v. CHARLES R. JEFFERIS, Administrator c. t. a. of MARY KELLY, deceased |
Superior Court, New Castle County, May Term, 1901.
AMICABLE ACTION. CASE STATED (No. 143, February Term, 1901).
It is ordered that judgment be entered in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $ 500, with interest from the twenty-ninth day of April, 1898, and costs of suit.
William Michael Byrne for plaintiff.
George Lodge, for defendant.
OPINION
This action is brought by the administrator of Charles D. Kelly against the Administrator c. t. a. of Mary Kelly, for the recovery of a legacy of $ 500 claimed to have been bequeathed by the will of the said Mary Kelly to the said Charles D Kelly.
The following are the material facts set forth in the case stated.
Shortly before her death the said testator made and executed the following will:
The testator died on or about the said twenty-third day of April, 1897, and on the twenty-ninth day of the same month said will was admitted to probate, and (the executor therein named having renounced) letters of administration c. t. a. were granted to the defendant by the Register of Wills of said county.
The said Charles D. Kelly was the child of the said testator and was the person referred to in said will as "my baby." He survived his mother, and died on or about the seventh day of July, 1897, at the age of about two and a half months. Afterwards letters of administration upon his estate were granted to the plaintiff by the said Register of Wills. No part of said legacy was ever applied for the care of the said child, and the defendant has in his hands, after deducting all prior claims, assets more than sufficient for the payment of said legacy.
Where a legacy is given to a person for a particular purpose, to which it becomes impossible to apply it without the fault of the legatee, the legacy will vest on the testator's death, and the legatee will be entitled to the money, because it is to be presumed that the property was intended for the benefit of the legatee at all events, and that the mode of its application was a secondary consideration, and independent of the gift.
1 Roper on Leg., 646.
In Barlow vs. Grant, 1 Vern. 255, a legacy of £ 30 was given to an infant to bind him an apprentice. The infant having died before he attained a competent age to be placed out as an apprentice, it was held that the legacy should go to his executor or administrator.
In the present case the non-application of the legacy, or any part of it, for the care of the child during the brief period of his life was, of course, wholly without his fault.
There are other cases in which legacies given for particular purposes to which they were not applied have been held to have become vested on the testator's death, and payable to the legatee, without regard to the question whether the beneficiaries were or were not responsible for the non-application of the money as directed.
In Nevill vs. Nevill, 2 Vern. 431, the testator bequeathed £ 500 to the eldest son of John Nevill to place him out as apprentice. After the death of the testator the eldest son of John Nevill brought a bill for said legacy. It was objected that the legacy was given for a particular purpose, viz., to place the plaintiff out apprentice, and that he was not entitled until fit to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Houston v. Houston
...the boys to discontinue school, they are now entitled to the balance of the fund remaining in the hands of the trustee. In Kelly v. Jefferis, Kelly's Adm'r., supra, was observed: "There are other cases in which legacies given for particular purposes, to which they were not applied, have bee......