McCarthy v. McCarthy
Decision Date | 09 June 1922 |
Citation | 117 A. 313 |
Parties | MCCARTHY et al. v. MCCARTHY et al. |
Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Report from Supreme Judicial Court, Cumberland County, in Equity.
Suit by Florence J. McCarthy and others against Elizabeth G. McCarthy and others to obtain the construction of the will of Charles McCarthy, Jr. Case reported. Dismissed.
Argued before CORNISH, C. J., and SPEAR, HANSON, PHILBROOK, MORRILL, and WILSON, JJ.
Strout & Strout, of Portland, for complainants.
Charles L. Donahue and Paul E. Donahue, both of Portland, for defendants McCarthy and Walsh.
Cook, Hutchinson & Pierce, of Portland, for defendant Dunphy.
This is a bill in equity to obtain the construction of the will of Charles McCarthy, Jr., brought by certain legatees and heirs of the testator, against the widow, the life tenant, Louis S. Walsh, conservator of the estate of Elizabeth G. McCarthy, and Elizabeth B. Dunphy, a devisee under the will. All persons interested are parties to the bill.
The clauses of which interpretation is requested are the following:
Then follows certain legacies which are not involved in the questions presented to the court. And the second paragraph of said will, subdivision C, viz.:
After the provisions regarding said legacies comes the following residuary clause, which is designated as subdivision 11 of paragraph 2:
"All the rest, residue and remainder of my estate, of every name and nature and wherever and however situate, including any of the foregoing legacies which may lapse or fail for any reason whatever, I direct shall be disposed of according to the laws of inheritance of the state of Maine in force at date thereof."
The plaintiffs pray:
(1) "That the court will construe and interpret the provisions of said will and particularly determine whether the said Elizabeth G. McCarthy takes a share in the residue and remainder of said estate in full ownership, in addition to enjoying the income on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Moore v. Emery
...which is contingent and uncertain. Huston v. Dodge, 111 Me. 246, 88 A. 888; Connolly v. Leonard, 114 Me. 29, 95 A. 269; McCarthy v. McCarthy, 121 Me. 398, 117 A. 313; Minot v. Taylor, 129 Mass. 160; Coghlan v. Dana, 173 Mass. 421, 53 N.E. 890; Hall v. Cogswell, 183 Mass. 521, 67 N.E. 644; W......
-
First Portland Nat. Bank v. Rodrique
...occasion for it.' The law enunciated in this decision was followed in Connolly v. Leonard, 114 Me. 29, 95 A. 269; and in McCarthy v. McCarthy, 121 Me. 398, 117 A. 313. In Moore et al. v. Emery et al., 137 Me. 259, 271, 18 A.2d 781, 787, the court in declining to answer had this to 'With a u......
-
Walker v. First Trust & Savings Bank
...517, 97 A. 758; Strawn v. Jacksonville, etc., 240 Ill. 111, 118, 88 N. E. 460; Huston v. Dodge, 111 Me. 246, 88 A. 888; McCarthy v. McCarthy, 121 Me. 398, 117 A. 313; Wethered v. Safe Dep. & Tr. Co., 79 Md. 153, 163, 28 A. 812; Wahl v. Brewer, 80 Md. 237, 30 A. 654; Coghlan v. Dana, 173 Mas......
-
Price v. Shiels
... ... until the anticipated contingency arises, or at least until ... it is about to arise; until it is imminent.' McCarthy v ... McCarthy, 121 Me. 398, 117 A. 313 ... We conclude ... the foregoing authorities are applicable to this ... ...