Mooney's Estate, In re
| Decision Date | 06 November 1951 |
| Citation | 84 A.2d 175,97 N.H. 187 |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
| Parties | In re MOONEY'S ESTATE. |
Cooper, Hall & Cooper, Rochester, for executor, files no brief.
Vincent P. Clarke and Pierre Belliveau, Boston, Mass., for Morgan Memorial.
Alfred Gardner and James W. Perkins, Boston, Mass., for Deaconess Hospital.
Sulloway, Piper, Jones, Hollis & Godfrey, Concord, for Franklin, New Hampshire Orphan's Home, filed no brief.
Rev. G. Bennett Buskirk, for Preacher's Aid Society of New Hampshire Conference of Methodist Church, filed no brief.
Murchie & Cofran, Concord, for New Hampshire Conference of the Methodist Church.
The issue which we believe is properly before us, In re Harrington Estate, N. H., 84 A.2d 173 is whether the testatrix intended the five named legatees in the residuary clause of her will to share equally, or whether she wished the New Hampshire Conference of the Methodist Church to receive twice as much as any of the others. Marvin v. Peirce, 84 N. H. 455, 457, 152 A. 484, 486. Applying this test it seems to us that it is probable the testatrix intended that the residue should be divided equally among the five named legatees.
Only the interpretation of an equal division among these named beneficiaries is consistent with the first direction in the residuary clause and generally when there is equivocation, the interpretation which is consistent with other provisions of the will should be adopted. See Roaf v. Champlin, 79 N.H. 219, 224, 107 A. 339. It is significant that the testatrix knew how to make an unequivocal gift of a full portion to a subsidiary society of the New Hampshire Conference of the Methodist Church when she so desired as evinced by such a gift to the Preacher's Aid Society which is named separately as a beneficiary. She could have done the same with the 'Home' and 'Foreign' Missions had she so intended. It may also be noted that the word 'shares' is used only once. She did not use it when she provided for an equal division among the named legatees though she could easily have said 'six equal shares' or used some similar expression to make her desires plain if she wished to give the Conference a full portion for each of the 'Home' and 'Foreign' Missions.
Lastly, it may be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lawrence's Estate, In re
...This is especially true when an interpretation may be reached which seems consistent with other provisions of the will. In re Mooney Estate, 94 N.H. 187, 189, 84 A.2d 175. We therefore hold that grandnieces and grandnephews, whether their parents are living or not, qualify as relatives unde......
-
Harrington's Estate, In re
...law certified by him sufficiently indicated that he desired instructions for the proper decision of matters duly before him. In re Mooney Estate, N.H., 84 A.2d 175. See Duncan v. Bigelow, 96 N.H. 216, 219, 72 A.2d The phrase 'to the representatives of those not living * * * in equal shares'......
-
Byrne's Estate, In re
...matters within the statutory jurisdiction of that court. In re Harrington's Estate, 97 N.H. 184, 185, 84 A.2d 173; In re Mooney's Estate, 97 N.H. 187, 84 A.2d 175; In re Grondin Estate, N.H., 100 A.2d 160. Such matters are 'duly before' the probate court not only when a final account or a p......
-
Grondin's Estate, In re
...84 A.2d 173, it is clear that the probate court had jurisdiction to certify this question to the Supreme Court. See also In re Mooney's Estate, 97 N.H. 187, 84 A.2d 175; In re Byrne's Estate, N.H., 100 A.2d Counsel for the executor recognized that he had no right to seek any particular cons......