Paul v. Dole

• Decision Date: 15 March 1901
• Citation: 49 A. 572,70 N.H. 593
• Parties: PAUL v. DOLE et al.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

49 A. 572

70 N.H. 593

PAUL

v. DOLE et al.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Sullivan.

March 15, 1901.

Bill by George W. Paul, as administrator of the estate of Charles H. Dole, deceased, against Amanda L. Dole and others, for a construction of testator's will.

Bill in equity for a construction of the following provision in the will of Charles H. Dole in respect to the rights of Amanda L. Dole: "I give and bequeath to my wife, Amanda L. Dole, all the real estate and personal property that I possess, and all money, during her natural life. After her decease, I will what may be left to Clara A. Dole during her natural life. After her decease, I will and bequeath Mrs. Olen D. Cram one thousand dollars, and to Susan M. Hall one thousand dollars. If, after the above, there should anything remain, I bequeath to the following persons: Mrs. Mary E. Dresser, Charles P. Webster,—to be equally divided."

Hosea W. Parker, for plaintiff.

Amanda L. Dole, pro sc.

CHASE, J. The extent of Amanda's interest in the real estate left by the testator, if any, does not concern the plaintiff, and so cannot be determined in this suit Ellis, v. Aldrich (N. H.) 47 Atl. 95.

The terms of the will are the only evidence submitted upon the question of the testator's intention in respect to Amanda's interest in the personal property. They correctly describe a life estate. The only fact that can raise a doubt that this was the estate intended is the use of the words "what may be left" to describe the remainder bequeathed after the decease of Amanda. There may be an implication in these words that the life tenant was to have the right to use some of the principal of the property as well as the income; but, in the absence of evidence as to the nature and extent of the property, the relationship of the legatees to the testator, and other circumstances tending to show the standpoint in which the words were used (Stratton v. Stratton, 68 N. H. 582, 586, 44 Atl: 699), it cannot be found that the intent was to give Amanda anything more than a life estate. Case discharged. All concurred.