Lindsley v. Lindsley
| Decision Date | 12 February 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 1353.,1353. |
| Citation | 197 A. 98 |
| Parties | LINDSLEY v. LINDSLEY et al. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Case Certified from Superior Court, Washington County.
Suit in equity by Mildred M. Lindsley against Ogden R. Lindsley, Jr., and others for the construction of a will, wherein testimony was taken before a commissioner appointed by the Superior Court. Casi certified to the Supreme Court for deter mination under General Laws 1923, c. 339 §35.
Decree in accordance with opinion.
Edward Winsor and Edwards & Angell all of Providence, for complainant. S. Everett Wilkins, Jr., of Providence guardian ad litem.
This bill in equity was brought by Mildred M. Lindsley, widow of Ogden R. Lindsley, deceased, against her two minor children for a construction of their father's will, wherein she is made executrix and sole beneficiary. After the respondents through their duly appointed guardian ac litem, had filed their answer and the complainant had filed her replication, testimony was taken before a commissioner, appointed by the superior court, upon a single issue of fact as framed by the parties When the commissioner's report was filed in that court and the case was ready for hearing for final decree, it was certified to this court for determination under the provisions of General Laws 1923, c. 339, § 35
All the interested parties are represented before this court. The will which we are asked to construe was duly signed, published, witnessed, and probated. Its language is clear and not ambiguous, and it makes no provision for any of the testator's children, but leaves all of his property to his wife.
If such omission to provide for his children was occasioned by accident or mistake, they are entitled to receive the same shares which they would have inherited if their father had died intestate. G.L 1923, c. 298, § 22, P.L.1931, c. 1754, § 2. The pertinent portion of this statute reads as follows:
The single issue of fact which was framed by the parties and upon which our determination in law ultimately must depend is whether the testator's omission to make any provision in his will for his after-born children, the respondents here, was intentional and not occasioned by accident or mistake.
The evidence here is entirely undisputed, and the question whether findings of fact by the trial justice should accompany such certification in a case of conflicting evidence is not before us or considered. The evidence discloses, among other things, that Ogden R. Lindsley, the testator, and Mildred M. Lindsley, the complainant, were married on June 18, 1921, and thereafter lived continuously and happily together until the testator's death on May 20, 1935. Two children, respondents here, were born of this union, Ogden R. Lindsley, Jr., on August 11, 1922, and Bradford M. Lindsley on May 4, 1925. The will was executed on May 20, 1922, two months and thirteen days before the expected birth of Ogden R. Lindsley, Jr., and about three years before the birth of Bradford M. Lindsley.
At the time of its execution the testator was a young lawyer associated with a large law office in Providence, with which he continued his association until about April, 1930. According to the complainant's testimony, the testator knew and talked with her about the expected birth of her first child and then expressed his intention to leave all his property to her by his will. Shortly after its execution, he told the complainant that he had made his will in accordance with his originally expressed intention. In conversations with other married couples with whom the testator and complainant were friendly, the testator made known to them that he had made his own will so that everything would go to his wife; and that such was the desirable disposition, in his opinion, for every man who, like himself, was happily married and had confidence that his wife could be trusted to take care of their children.
The evidence further discloses that all of the testator's bank deposits were kept in joint account with his wife; that he had acquired considerable real estate in lieu of insurance; and had instructed her in the proper management thereof so...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elder v. Elder
...children. Indeed such an omission, if not the result of accident or mistake, has been consistently upheld by this court. Lindsley v. Lindsley, 60 R.I. 85, 197 A. 98; Smith v. Smith, 62 R.I. 52, 2 A.2d 896. G.L.1938, chap. 566, § 22. On the other hand a child is not obliged to accept a gift ......
-
Industrial Nat. Bank of R. I. v. Isele
...essential issue is in conflict nor does it foreclose the application of a different principle in such a case. Finally in Lindsley v. Lindsley, 60 R.I. 85, 87, 197 A. 98, and in Havens v. Havens, 61 R.I. 356, 358, 200 A. 956, in what must be termed caveats, we expressly disavowed any intenti......
-
Vance v. Rood
...'The presumption is that the omission was unintentional.' In construing the statute in its present form in Lindsley v. Lindsley, 60 R.I. 85, at page 89, 197 A. 98, at page 99, decided in 1938, this court said: '* * * that there is a presumption that a testator's omission of his children fro......
-
Butterfield v. Fischer
...814; Horton v. Horton, 46 R.I. 492, 496, 129 A. 499; Quigley v. Spencer, 54 R.I. 228, 172 A. 253, and cases cited; Lindsley v. Lindsley, Jr., R.I., 197 A. 98. In the instant case the evidence is undisputed. The testatrix primarily had in mind her own welfare and care in her advancing years ......