Morse v. Stearns

• Citation: 131 Mass. 389
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
• Decision Date: 07 September 1881
• Parties: Nathan Morse, administrator, v. Thomas H. E. Stearns & others

131 Mass. 389

Nathan Morse, administrator, v. Thomas H. E. Stearns & others

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

September 7, 1881

Argued January 23, 1879; January 24, 1879

Middlesex.

D. E Ware, for J. W. Sprague.

C Robinson, Jr., for J. S. Stearns.

Lord J. Field, Devens & Allen JJ., absent.

OPINION

Lord, J.

The testatrix had two nephews, one named Joseph White Sprague, and the other, Joseph Sprague Stearns; and each claims the legacy which is given in these words: "To my nephew J. S. Sprague, I give five thousand dollars."

This is a bill in equity brought by the administrator with the will annexed, to which all the legatees under the will are made parties, in order that all the others beside the two nephews may appear and show that the said bequest is void for ambiguity; because it is apprehended that the estate of the testatrix, being largely real estate, has so depreciated in value that not sufficient remains to pay all the specific legacies in the will; and the residuary legatees are made parties for the purpose of sustaining their right to have this legacy go into the residuum of the estate.

The bill was taken pro confesso as against all the parties except the two nephews, and they were required to interplead between themselves, each to show his right to the legacy.

There is no doubt that it is a proper subject for a bill of interpleader. From the earliest time, matters of this kind have been the subject of judicial determination, and many rules have been established for determining to whom a legacy shall be paid, when the legatee is not described with exact accuracy, and the description of whom may in some respects be applicable to several different persons, each of whom claims the legacy.

Extrinsic evidence of the conduct and the declarations of the testator is competent. They are not to be deemed direct proof of testamentary intention, but as showing the testator's relation to, and state of feeling towards, any of the respective claimants. The language of the will is to be interpreted with reference to the subject matter and all the surrounding facts of the case. A construction is not to be given which is contradictory to the terms of the will. By this it is not meant that the construction of the language of the will must be exactly consistent with every word used in the will, but that the purpose and intention of the testator must be gathered from the language of the will...