Miller v. Metcalf
Decision Date | 12 August 1904 |
Citation | 58 A. 743,77 Conn. 176 |
Parties | MILLER v. METCALF et al. |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Case Reserved from Superior Court, New Haven County; Ralph Wheeler, Judge.
Action for the construction of a will by Willis E. Miller, executor of Edwin Marble, deceased, against John T. Metcalf and others. Reserved by the superior court for the advice of the Supreme Court. Judgment advised.
Erroll M. Augur, for plaintiff. George D. Watrous and Henry H. Townshend, for defendants John T. Metcalf and others.
Henry Stoddard, for defendants Mary Elizabeth Day and others.
James H. Webb, for defendant Caroline M. Harris and others.
The testator died in May, 1903. His entire estate consisted of certain shares of the capital stock of a corporation, located in New Haven, called the Henry Hooker & Co., and the sum of about $1,300 due to him from said corporation. The capital stock of said company was divided into 8,000 shares, and the testator owned 5,875 of said shares, which were inventoried; at the value of $146,875. His will was executed in September, 1893, and in it he appointed his wife to be his sole executrix and trustee. The will is divided into three main clauses. In the first he provides merely for the payment of his debts. In the second he gives to his wife his entire estate for her life, in trust for certain purposes, one of which was that she should have for life an assured income of $5,000 per annum. About these two clauses no questions arise in this case. Julia E. Marble, the wife of the testator, died in September, 1899, and after this event the testator, in May, 1900, made a codicil to his will. It is mainly with reference to the third clause of the will and to the codicil that the advice of this court is asked. That clause and the codicil read as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
New York Life Insurance Co. v. Kansas City Bank of Kansas City
...Hubbard v. Turner, 93 Ga. 752; Rose v. Wortham, 95 Tenn. 505; Gaugh v. St. Louis Co., 88 Ill. 251; In re Conrad, 89 Iowa 396; Miller v. Metcalf, 77 Conn. 176; Staples v. Lewis, 71 Conn. 288; Knights Templar v. Greene, 79 F. 461. (3) That the law of the State of New York, in which the polici......
-
Chase Nat. Bank of City of New York v. Schleussner
... ... Duffield v. Pike, 71 Conn. 521, 530, 42 ... A. 641; Beardsley v. Bridgeport Protestant Orphan ... Asylum, 76 Conn. 561, 564, 57 A. 165; Miller v ... Metcalf, 77 Conn. 176, 180, 58 A. 743 ... We ... understand counsel for other parties than the brothers and ... sister to ... ...
-
Beardsley v. Johnson
... ... 607, Morse v. Ward, 92 Conn. 408, ... 103 A. 119, Ruggles v. Randall, 70 Conn. 44, 48, 38 ... A. 885; and next of kin in Miller, Ex'r, v. Metcalf ... et al., 77 Conn. 176, 58 A. 743 ... The ... solution of this question is primarily the ascertainment of ... the ... ...
-
Brooks Bank & Trust Co. v. Beers
... ... lineal descendants (Staples v. Lewis, supra; ... Connecticut Trust & Safe Deposit Co. v. Hollister, ... 74 Conn. 228, 231, 50 A. 750; Miller v. Metcalf, 77 ... Conn. 176, 181, 58 A. 743; Newman v. Jennings, 90 ... Conn. 685, 689, 98 A. 321). Other meanings may at times be ... attributed ... ...