Perry v. Brown
Citation | 83 A. 8,34 R.I. 203 |
Parties | PERRY et al. v. BROWN et al. |
Decision Date | 01 May 1912 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island |
Case Certified from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Willard B. Tanner, Presiding Justice.
Action by George A. Perry and others, as executors of the will of Julia P. A. Anthony, against Robert P. Brown and others, asking for instructions. Certified from the Superior Court under Gen. Laws 1909, c. 289, § 35. Questions answered.
Tillinghast & Collins, of Providence, for complainants. Claude R. Branch, Edward P. Jastram, and Edwards & Augell, all of Providence, for Robert P. Brown and others, residuary legatees.
Mumford, Huddy & Emerson (Charles C. Mumford, of counsel), all of Providence, for Frederick E. Anthony. Thomas A. Jenckes, of Providence, for respondents Polleys.
Comstock & Canning, Patrick P. Curran, John Henshaw, Livingston Ham, and William W. Douglas, all of Providence, Hugh J. Carroll of Pawtucket, and William P. Fowler, for various other respondents.
This is a suit in equity wherein the bill is filed by the executors and trustees under the will of Julia P. A. Anthony, for instructions on certain questions arising under the will and involving the construction thereof. The case has been certified to this court for its determination under chapter 289. § 35. Gen. Laws, 1909, being ready for hearing for final decree.
The will of Julia P. A. Anthony is entirely in her own handwriting, and consists of 16 pages clearly and neatly written on ordinary legal cap paper. It consists of three clauses, of which the "first" relates solely to directions as to her burial and that of her husband, to headstones, etc. The "second" clause contains directions as to the erection of a certain monument, and the payment of funeral expenses. All these provisions are clear and undisputed. The "third" clause of the will, under which all disputed questions arise, covers the remaining 15 pages of the will, is all in one paragraph, contains many provisions which are somewhat confusing and, at first sight, contradictory and inconsistent with each other. It would seem, from the fact that the testatrix uses much legal phraseology, that she must have had before her one or more wills from which she copied such phrases; but it is evident from the general consideration of the whole will that she was not familiar with the meaning of technical legal terms, and did not intend to use them in their precise technical sense.
This "third" clause opens with a bequest to Swan Point Cemetery Corporation of $2,000 in trust to use income for perpetual care of certain lots, etc. Then follow directions for the sale of enough personal property (within two months after her death) to pay certain specific legacies of money, $1,000 each to six named persons; $500 each to six others; $250 each to two others if living. The will then proceeds as follows, all the words in italics being underlined by the testatrix in the will itself: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cockrell v. First Nat. Bank of Kansas City
... ... estate not distributed to her. Mercantile-Commerce Bank & Trust Co. v. Morse, 201 S.W.2d 317; Brown v ... Mead, 121 Conn. 1, 183 A. 27; New York Trust Co. v ... Murray, 120 N.J.Eq. 494, 186 A. 531; Perry v ... Brown, 34 R.I. 504, 83 A. 8 ... ...
-
B. M. C. Durfee Trust Co. v. Franzheim
...shall be distributed equally among the heirs surviving me.' This was held to require a per capita distribution. Cf. also Perry v. Brown, 34 R.I. 203, 226-228, 83 A. 8; Oulton v. Kidder, 128 A. 674, 675-676 (R.I.); Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Doolan, 307 Mass. 233, 238-239, 29 N.E.2d ......
-
Indus. Trust Co. v. Wilson
...which in such a case is the expiration of the preceding life estate. Hazard v. Stevens, 36 R.I. 90, 88 A. 980; Perry v. Brown, 34 R.I. 203, 226, 227, 83 A. 8; Greene v. Rathbun, 32 R.I. 145, 156, 78 A. 528; Rozell v. Rozell, 217 Mich. 324, 186 N.W. 489; Webber v. Jones, 94 Me. 429, 47 A. 90......
-
Schwan v. Permann
...because he failed to provide the companionship and personal presence required by the condition. ( Id. at p. 193 ; accord Perry v. Brown (1912) 34 R.I. 203, ["the clause under discussion was intended not primarily as a gratuity to [the employee], but rather as a provision for the support of ......