Knowlton v. Sanderson

• Decision Date: 08 March 1886
• Parties: KNOWLTON, Adm'r, v. SANDERSON and others
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

141 Mass. 323

6 N.E. 228

KNOWLTON, Adm'r,

v.SANDERSON and others

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Bristol.

March 8, 1886.

Bill in equity to obtain the instructions of the court as to the construction of the will of John Coggeshall, Jr. The material facts appear in the opinion.

H.M. Knowlton, for plaintiff.

T.M. Stetson, W.H. Cobb, A.E. Perry, and Wm. Butler, for different defendants.

GARDNER, J.

The testator gave to his executor, for the use of his grandson John W. Coggeshall, $2,000, the income of which was to be paid to him during the life of his father, James, and then the principal was to be paid to John W., or his heirs at law. The testator also gave to his executors $3,000, to be invested in their own names, and at such times as they saw fit they were to pay the interest thereof to James, the son of the testator. The will provided that, if any creditor of James should attempt to obtain any portion of this sum, the executors should not be held to owe the same, or any portion thereof, to James; but in such case all of the interest or income then due was to be paid to John W., or, if he should not be living, the executors were to retain it for their own use. On the death of James the $3,000 was to be paid to said John W., or his heirs; and if John W. should die before his father, James, the $2,000 were to be held during the life of James, and then “be paid in the same way to the heirs at law of the said John W. Coggeshall.” John W. Coggeshall died April 23, 1855, leaving no widow or issue, and, as next of kin, his father, James Coggeshall, who died testate December 3, 1881.

By the provision of the will the principal of both sums was to be paid to the heirs at law of John W., upon the death of his father, James. The heirs of John W. were not to take under the will, by inheritance, but as persons designated by the testator as such heirs, found to be in existence at the time of James' death. The remainder over to the heirs was contingent until the prescribed event should happen. The bequest was to those who should be his heirs upon the happening of the contingency, and not to those who were the heirs of John W. at the time of his decease. Sears v. Russell, 8 Gray, 86. The evident intention of the testator was to exclude James from participating in any portion of the principal of this fund. To carry out this intention he provided that the fund should not vest in the heirs of John W. until the death of James, thereby excluding...