King v. Grant

• Decision Date: 17 December 1886
• Citation: 10 A. 505,55 Conn. 166
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: KING, Ex'r, v. GRANT and others.

10 A. 505

55 Conn. 166

KING, Ex'r,

v. GRANT and others.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

December 17, 1886.

Reserved case from superior court, Hartford county.

Suit for construction of the will of George Foster.

C. M. Joslyn and E. H. Hyde, Jr., for defendants Mary Grant and Mary H. Francis. J. J. Jennings, for defendant Frances A. Atkins and the heirs at law. J. H. Suck and A. F. Fggleston, for Second Ecclesiastical Society in South Windsor.

PARK, C. J. The object of this suit is to obtain a judicial construction of the will of one George Foster. Foster left no children. His wife died soon after the execution of the will, and about two years previously to the death of the testator. The second clause of the will directs the executor to sell the real estate and effects of the testator, if not sold by him before his death, and safely invest the proceeds thereof; and the testator gives the income of the investments, together with so much of the principal as may be needed, for the "support, care, and comfort" of his wife "during the remainder of her life." The third clause of the will is as follows: "After the decease of my wife, I hereby will and direct that the income from said investments be divided equally between my sister, Mary Grant, and my nieces Mary Frances and Mrs. Frances Atkins, one third to each, as long as they remain unmarried." The fifth clause is as follows: "I will and direct that after the previous gifts have been fully met, or at the death of each of the previously noticed relatives, whatever remains of said investments be turned over to the Second Ecclesiastical Society, to be used under a trustee to help in support of preaching, as long as such is kept up as at present."

The executor asks the advice of this court regarding the proper construction to be given to the second, third, and fifth clauses of the will, and submits for our consideration the following questions: (1) Do the legatees named in the third clause of the will take only the income from the investments made by the executor, or the income from the whole estate? (2) Will the right to the income of each and all the legatees named in the third clause of the will cease and determine upon the marriage of either of them? (3) Is the gift attempted to be made in the fifth clause void for uncertainty? (4) Which Second Ecclesiastical Society is intended as the legatee under the fifth clause? (5) When does the estate given in the fifth clause, if any, vest in and become payable to the legatee?—at the death of all the previously noticed relatives? or at the death of the first one? or does an undivided one-third part of the estate vest in the legatee at the death of each?

The cardinal rule which governs courts in the construction of wills is the intent of the testator, made manifest by the will. Applying this rule to the present case, it is clear that the testator intended to dispose of all his property by the will; and when he uses the expression, "all my real estate and effects," he means all his real and personal property. He intended that his executor should turn into money all his property that might remain at his death in some other form than investments, and safely invest the amount, so that all his estate should be in money-producing investments. The testator had no children, and his first and highest object was to make ample provision for the support and comfort of his wife, without subjecting her to any responsibility in managing the estate. He intended that she should have the income of his whole property, and, lest the income derived therefrom might not be ample for the...