Powers v. Godwise
Decision Date | 07 January 1899 |
Citation | 52 N.E. 525,172 Mass. 425 |
Parties | POWERS v. GODWISE. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
C.C. Powers, for plaintiff.
G.A.P Godwise, pro se.
This is a writ of scire facias to recover a certain amount of money from the defendant, who, as executor of the will of James M Shaw, was charged as trustee in an action by the plaintiff against Elisha W. Shaw. Isaac H. Hazelton, Oliver C Livermore, and Arnold Livermore were the witnesses, and the only witnesses, to the will. Oliver C. Livermore when the will was executed was, and ever since has been, the husband of Georgie S. Livermore, who was one of the nieces of James M. Shaw, living at the time of his decease. The three articles of the will material to the present case are as follows: The present defendant has paid to the plaintiff $50, with interest, being the amount of the legacy given to Elisha W. Shaw by the seventh article of the will. The superior court ruled that all legacies given by the will to Georgie S. Livermore are void, because she was and is the wife of one of the three witnesses of the will. Pub.St. c. 127, § 3. The gift of $100 to Georgie S. Livermore by the fourth article of the will being void, this would go into the residue of the estate given and devised by the eighth article. By the eighth article the residue is given and devised unto two nieces, Georgie S. Livermore and Fanny M. Hildreth, "to be equally divided between them, share and share alike." We infer from the exceptions that all of the residue is personal property. The only question of law raised by the exceptions is whether, that part of the residue given to Georgie S. Livermore being void, the whole residue goes to Fanny M. Hildreth, or whether the part given to Georgie S. Livermore must be administered as intestate estate. We think...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rosenbloom v. Kokofsky
...benefited thereunder." 4 Mrs. Ely urges us to reject the construction of this provision which we adopted in Powers v. Codwise, 172 Mass. 425, 426, 52 N.E. 525 (1899) that a bequest or devise to a subscribing witness or spouse of such a witness is entirely void and interpret the statute so a......
-
Casey v. Genter (In re Andersson's Estate)
...legacy which lapses is a part of the residue it cannot again fall into the residue but must pass as intestate property. Powers v. Codwise, 172 Mass. 425, 52 N. E. 525;Lyman v. Coolidge, 176 Mass. 7, 56 N. E. 831;Derby v. Derby, 252 Mass. 176, 147 N. E. 842. ‘A construction of a will resulti......
-
Dorfman v. Allen
...succession. Derby v. Derby, 252 Mass. 176, 147 N.E. 842 (1925). Lyman v. Coolidge, 176 Mass. 7, 56 N.E. 831 (1900). Powers v. Codwise, 172 Mass. 425, 52 N.E. 525 (1899). Sohier v. Inches, 12 Gray 385 (1859). However, where the testator has created a gift over, the bequest passes according t......
-
Worcester Trust Co. v. Turner
...* * * will pass to the next of kin under the statute of distributions.’ Frost v. Courtis, 167 Mass. 251, 45 N. E. 687;Powers v. Codwise, 172 Mass. 425, 52 N. E. 525; Colt v. Colt, 33 Conn. 270; Floyd v. Barker, 1 Paige (N. Y.) 480;Craighead v. Given, 10 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 351;Crawford v. Moun......