Knight v. Mahoney

• Citation: 25 N.E. 971,152 Mass. 523
• Parties: KNIGHT et al. SAME v. MAHONEY et al. SAME v. KING. SAME v. STOTT. SAME v. JARRETT et al. SAME v. GARLINGTON et al.
• Decision Date: 28 November 1890
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

152 Mass. 523

25 N.E. 971

KNIGHT et al. SAME v. MAHONEY et al. SAME v. KING. SAME v. STOTT. SAME v. JARRETT et al. SAME v. GARLINGTON et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

November 28, 1890

COUNSEL

J.M. Cochrane, for plaintiffs.

Rice King & Rice, for tenants in possession.

E.J Bartholemew, for Southbridge Savings Bank.

OPINION

FIELD C.J.

These suits are writs of entry, and the demandants in each suit are the heirs at law of Wheaton T. Knight, who died testate on February 8, 1874, seised of the lands, and leaving a widow Sabra A. Knight, who married again on August 3, 1878, and died on June 6, 1888. The first clause of the will of Wheaton T. Knight is as follows: "I give and bequeath to my beloved wife, Sabra A. Knight, all my real estate and personal property of every kind and description, after paying all my debts and legal charges, and paying out to my children the allowances hereinafter made, so long as she remains my widow." The executors of the will have paid all the debts of the deceased and the legacies given by the will. The will contains no devise of real property except that to the widow which has been cited. We think that the true construction of the will is that the testator intended to give to his wife the use of the real estate only so long as she remained his widow. We consider it unnecessary to discuss the many distinctions which have sometimes been made with reference to conditions and limitations in restraint of marriage, when annexed to gifts by will of realty or of personalty, or of both together as one gift. Sabra A. Knight did not waive the provisions for her in the will, and, after the death of her husband, and before she married again, conveyed in fee to different persons different parcels of the land devised, and all the tenants in the suits claim title in fee from her under these conveyances, and in some of the suits certain mortgagees have been joined as tenants with the owners of the equity of redemption. The suits were brought after the death of Sabra A. Knight. The principal question of law is whether, under the will, Mrs Knight took an estate in fee or for her life, or during her widowhood. Many of the decisions on this subject are collected in 2 Pom.Eq.Jur. § 933, and notes; 1 Story, Eq.Jur. (13th Ed.) § 274, note a; 2 Jarm. Wills, (5th Ed., by Bigelow,) page 44, and notes. The weight of authority is in favor of treating as valid limitations or conditions which are annexed to devises and bequests to the wife of the testator, although they tend to restrain her from marrying again, and although the will does not dispose of the property by a gift over to other persons in the event of her marrying again. This is shown by the opinions in Loring v. Loring, 100 Mass. 340; Dole v. Johnson, 3 Allen, 364; White v. Sawyer, 13 Metc. (Mass.) 546; and Gibbens v. Gibbens, 140 Mass. 102, 3 N.E. 1. The decision in Parsons v. Winslow, 6 Mass. 169, was by a majority of the court, and it was made in reliance upon what was understood to be the state of the English law at that time. The case concerned a bequest of personalty in trust for the wife of...