La Mere v. Jackson
| Decision Date | 09 March 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 15.,15. |
| Citation | 288 Mich. 99,284 N.W. 659 |
| Parties | LA MERE et al. v. JACKSON et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by John F. La Mere and others against James E. Jackson, executor of the estate of John H. Jackson, deceased, and others for the construction of a will. From a decree for plaintiffs, defendants appeal.
Decree modified and, as modified, affirmed.Appeal from Circuit Court, Keweenaw County, in Chancery; John G. Stone, Judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Spencer & McCormack, or Houghton, for appellants.
McIntyre & McIntyre, of Detroit ( John R. Rood, of Lapeer, and H. C. Schulte, of Houghton, of counsel), for appellees.
John H. Jackson died January 20, 1937, and his last will and testament dated October 14, 1919, was probated. It provided for the payment of his debts and funeral expenses and also for the maintenance of a cemetery lot, $1,000 being left to James Jackson to be invested in safe securities and the interest thereon to be expended for masses for the repose of testator's soul after his death. Paragraph 3 provides for the payment of $5 to his brother William, such amount to be in full for any and all bequests that the testator might leave him as a brother and heir. Paragraph 4 of the will causes the present difficulty and we are asked to construe it.
Nine brothers and sisters of testator were living at the time of the making of the will. Of these Phoebe LaMere, Josephine Barney, Elizabeth Gidley and Margaret Grosse, sisters, and Andrew Jackson, a brother, predeceased him. They all died intestate, each of them leaving issue. Marie Grosse, sole heir at law of Margaret, and the four children of Andrew are not parties to this suit. Testator was survived by his sisters Nellie Thorpe and Tillie Birel and by his brothers James and William. Tillie Birel and William Jackson also are not parties to the suit. The children of Phoebe, Josephine and Elizabeth are plaintiffs herein and ask a construction of the will.
The court construed the fourth paragraph of the will to mean that the property was to be equally divided among all the brothers and sisters with the exception of William, the heirs of deceased brothers and sisters to take by right of representation, and that the purpose of leaving the property to James, Nellie and Margaret was to enable them or their survivors to use their discretion in apportioning a particular kind of property to each of the beneficiaries, without impairing the ultimate equality between them. James E. Jackson and Nellie Thorpe here claim that this construction was erroneous and the bill should be dismissed.
The fourth paragraph of this will presents opportunity for a variety of possible interpretations. Appellants, for example, argue in their brief that the property was left absolutely to the three named persons, or the survivors thereof, and that since James E. Jackson and Nellie Thorpe are such survivors, they are entitled unconditionally to the residue of the estate. In the direction to the three named persons to apportion the property as they think proper, appellants find only indefinite and precatory language, creating no rights in the other brothers and sisters among whom the apportionment is to be made. There are, no doubt, arguments pointing in that direction. But under that construction, it should be noted, the heirs of Margaret Grosse would receive nothing, notwithstanding that she was one of the three named beneficiaries in which the testator reposed his confidence.
Appellees urge with force that the fourth paragraph of the will creates a trust for the benefit of the ‘remaining brothers and sisters....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Old Kent Bank and Trust Company v. United States
...This court is not permitted by conjecture to read into the will language that the testator did not choose to use. LaMere v. Jackson, 288 Mich. 99, 103, 284 N.W. 659; Gardner v. City National Bank & Trust Co., 267 Mich. 270, 289, 255 N.W. 587; Kinney v. Kinney, 34 Mich. 250, We therefore con......
-
Bruin's Estate, In re, 31
...N.W. 255. The Court may not indulge in speculation or conjecture in construing a testamentary disposition of property. LaMere v. Jackson, 288 Mich. 99, 103, 284 N.W. 659. Neither does the fact, as in the case at bar, that an heir is left a specific legacy bar the right to inherit intestate ......
-
Howe v. Comstock
...of Michigan authority is undoubtedly in favor of plaintiff. We do not agree with defendants' contention that the case of LaMere v. Jackson, 288 Mich. 99, 284 N.W. 659, controls but rather that this is akin to several decisions where the decedent for some reason or other might have wanted to......
-
Estate of Fitzpatrick, In re
...to include a brother already deceased. The limited caselaw construing the word "remaining" is of little assistance. In LaMere v. Jackson, 288 Mich. 99, 284 N.W. 659 (1939), overruled on other grounds in In re Brown Estate, 362 Mich. 47, 52, 106 N.W.2d 535 (1960), our Supreme Court despaired......
-
Models of the Will and Negative Disinheritance - Frederic S. Schwartz
...902 (Va. 1916) (holding void for uncertainty a devise to "whoever has been [the] best friend" of the testator's son); LaMere v. Jackson, 284 N.W. 659, 661 (Mich. 1939); 4 Bowe & Parker, supra note 2, Sec. 34.37, at 476-77. 23. Gordon, supra note 12, at 11-16. 24. Cf. In re Estate of McWilli......