Neilson v. Bishop
| Decision Date | 25 June 1889 |
| Parties | NEILSON et al. v. BISHOP et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
On final hearing on bill, answer, and proofs taken in open court.
George C. Ludlow, for complainants. Garret D. W, Vroom, for the executrix of Alexander McC. Bishop, deceased.
The complainants are the executors of the will of Mary A. McClelland, deceased. They ask direction as to what disposition they shall make of a part of the estate of their testatrix. The testatrix, by her will, executed in March, 1864, gave two of her grandchildren, Howard W. Bishop and Alexander McC. Bishop, $3,000 each. Howard W., one of the two legatees, died in September, 1866, leaving an only child, named Howard Bishop. In December, 1868, the testatrix executed a codicil to her will, revoking the gift of $3,000 each to Howard W. and Alexander McC, and in lieu thereof gave to her executors the sum of $12,000, with directions to invest the same for the sole use and benefit of her grandson Alexander McC. Bishop, and of her great-grandson, the son of her deceased grandson, Howard W. Bishop. The codicil then, in substance, says: By a further codicil, executed in January, 1869, the testatrix said: The testatrix died in February 1870. Her grandson Alexander McC. Bishop died in April, 1885, without issue, never having been married. He left a will by which he made Mary F. Bishop his sole legatee, and appointed her his sole executrix. Howard Bishop, the testatrix's great-grandson, attained his majority in February 1888, and soon thereafter brought a suit in this court, in which he sought to recover the whole of the $12,000. He was awarded one-half, together with the income on the whole sum from the death of his co-legatee up to the time he attained his majority. Bishop v. McClelland, 44 N. J. Eq. 450, 16 Atl. Rep. 1. The other half still remains in the hands of the complainants. Adverse claims are made to it. It is claimed by the personal representative of Alexander McC. Bishop, deceased, and also by the next of kin of the testatrix and the residuary legatees under her will. The complainants bring this suit to obtain direction as to whom they shall pay it.
It was conceded on the argument that the time of death meant in the last codicil is death before the legacies became payable. The testatrix, by that codicil, in substance, said that if both of her legatees should die without children their, and each of their, shares should revert to her estate. Death, it will be observed, is spoken of generally, and without restriction as to time; but both counsel conceded that a bequest made in this form is to be construed, not as meaning death at any time in the future, but death before the legacies became payable by the terms of the will. This is the construction which such bequests must receive according to the well-established rule. Baldwin v. Taylor, 37 N. J. Eq. 78, on appeal, 38 N. J. Eq. 637.
According to well-established principles, the legacy in question must he held to have vested in Alexander McC. Bishop. The general policy of the law and the rules of interpretation require that legacies in all cases,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sessions' Estate, In re
...605. 'A gift in this form is in equity equivalent, in all respects, to a direct gift to the cestuis que trustent.' Neilson v. Bishop, 1899, 45 N.J.Eq. 473, 17 A. 962, 964. The direction to the trustee to 'pay over' to Michael at the given age is not reasonably susceptible of the constructio......
-
Mey v. Mey
...Byrne, 123 N.J.Eq. 6, 17, 195 A. 848 (Ch.1938); Traverso, v. Traverso, 99 N.J.Eq. 514, 519, 133 A. 705 (Ch.1926); Neilson v. Bishop, 45 N.J.Eq. 473, 476, 17 A. 962 (Ch.1889). Cf. Lippincott v. Pancoast, 47 N.J.Eq. 21, 26, 20 A. 360 (Ch.1890). The present interest of a Cestui is nonetheless ......
-
Rusch v. Melosh
...the testator, should be held to be vested rather than contingent. Van Dyke's Adm'r v. Vanderpool's Adm'r, 14 N.J.Eq. 198; Neilson v. Bishop, 45 N.J.Eq. 473, 17 A. 962; Clark v. Morehous, 74 N.J.Eq. 658, 70 A. 307. And so, in furtherance of this policy, it is generally held that, when the ab......
-
Simpkins v. Simpkins
...v. Fisch, supra; In re Buzby's Estate, 94 N.J.Eq. 151, 118 A. 835; Van Dyke's Adm'r v. Vanderpool's Adm'r, 14 N.J.Eq. 198; Neilson v. Bishop, 45 N.J.Eq. 473, 17 A. 962; Clark v. Morehous, 74 N.J.Eq. 658, 70 A. This rule of construction is always observed where it is apparent from the terms ......