N.J. Title Guarantee & Trust Co. v. Smith
| Decision Date | 17 July 1919 |
| Docket Number | No. 45-546.,45-546. |
| Citation | 108 A. 16 |
| Parties | NEW JERSEY TITLE GUARANTEE & TRUST CO. v. SMITH et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
Suit between the New Jersey Title Guarantee & Trust Company, executor of the estate of Charles Arthur Smith, deceased, and Margaret Smith and others. Decree in accordance with the opinion.
Gilbert Collins, of Jersey City, for complainant.
George W. Rurode, of Jersey City (Theodore Rurode, of Jersey City, of counsel), for defendant guardian.
Vredenburgh, Wall & Carey, of Jersey City, for defendant Margaret Smith.
The bill seeks the construction of the will of Charles Arthur Smith upon the following questions: (1) Whether the income payable to Margaret Smith, the widow, is to be paid from the date of the testator's death, or only after one year from his death. (2) Whether the real estate is charged with the payment of pecuniary legacies. (3) As to the status of George W. Rurode, who is designated as guardian of Margaret Smith, the widow. (4) Whether the executor can safely pay to George W. Rurode the income on the trust fund for the benefit of the widow. (5) As to the executor's duty in regard to the payment of principal for support and maintenance of the widow. (6) Out of what fund the inheritance tax on the trust fund is payable. (7) As to the bequest in the thirteenth paragraph of the will for the benefit of the inhabitants of Forked River. (8) As to the bequest in the nineteenth paragraph of the will for the benefit of the Toms River Hospital.
1. The intention of the testator, who provided substantially for his widow, is clear. He said:
"It is my intention and my wish that she shall always be well provided for and maintained."
It would be absurd to hold that such provision and maintenance should be withheld for a period of a year following the testator's death; for, in that time, through lack of funds, or proper attention and care, the widow might herself have passed away. I have no hesitancy, therefore, in construing this provision of the will in accordance with what I thus take to be the testator's clear intention; and the income on the trust fund of $165,000, for the benefit of the widow should be paid from the date of the death of the testator.
2. I also feel that there can be no real question as to the testator's intention that, if the personal estate is insufficient to produce the trust fund of $165,000, created for the benefit of the widow, then the additional amount necessary should be raised from the real estate. By the first article of the will the testator directs the executor to set aside "such part of my estate to the amount of $165,000."
By the twelfth article he says:
"In the event that my estate shall not be sufficient to pay the legacies herein bequeathed, I then direct that my executor shall first set apart the sum of $165,000 mentioned in the first clause of my will, and the remaining legacies shall be reduced pro rata."
In the first article the testator also shows that he wanted his widow to be supported as he had been supporting her, even if it were necessary to use the principal of the trust fund. He says, "She shall always be well provided for and maintained," and that she should always be supported "as she is now being maintained and supported by me," and, further, "as I am now supporting her and maintaining her." It seems entirely clear, therefore, that the testator's intention was to raise the fund of $165,000 mentioned for the benefit of his widow, regardless of whether it came from his personal estate or from his real estate, in the event of the personal estate being insufficient for that purpose. I therefore so construe the will in this respect.
The legacies far exceeded the value of the personal estate, not only at the time of the testator's death, but at the date of the execution of his will, and the residuary clause disposes of the real and personal property in a blended mass. This implies an intention on the part of the testator to charge the pecuniary legacies on the real estate, if the personal estate is insufficient to pay them. It follows that the real estate should be charged with the payment of the pecuniary legacies.
3. The testator was deeply solicitous of the welfare of his wife. Mr. George W. Rurode...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mirinda v. King
...Parker, 76 N.J.Eq. 447, 74 A. 447 (Ch.1909); White v. City of Newark, 89 N.J.Eq. 5, 103 A. 1042 (Ch.1918); N.J. Title Guar. & Trust Co. v. Smith, 90 N.J.Eq. 386, 108 A. 16 (Ch.1919); King v. Rockwell, 93 N.J.Eq. 46, 115 A. 40 (Ch.1921); Bloomer v. Bloomer, 98 N.J.Eq. 576, 131 A. 388 (Ch.192......
-
U.S. v. Kingsley
...& A.1927), cert. denied sub nom. Allison v. Schnell, 276 U.S. 625, 48 S.Ct. 304, 72 L.Ed. 738 (1927); New Jersey Title Guarantee & Trust Co. v. Smith, 90 N.J.Eq. 386, 108 A. 16 (Ch. 1919); Lanning v. Commissioners of Public Instruction of the City of Trenton, 63 N.J.Eq. 1, 51 A. 787 (Ch. 19......
-
Guar. Trust Co. Of N.Y. v. Catholic Charities Of Archdiocese Of N.Y.
...154, 26 A. 464, 32 L.R.A. 625, affirmed, Dandy v. Methodist Society of Ireland, 51 N.J.Eq. 330, 30 A. 429; New Jersey Title Guarantee & Trust Co. v. Smith, 90 N.J.Eq. 386, 108 A. 16; New Jersey Title Guarantee & Trust Co. v. American Nat. Red Cross, supra; 1 Page on Wills, Lifetime Ed., 456......
-
Estey v. Commerce Trust Co.
... ... Talbot, 110 A.D. 519, ... 96 N.Y.S. 976; New Jersey Title, Guarantee & Trust Co. v ... Smith, 90 N. H. Eq. 386, 108 A. 16; ... ...