R.I. Hosp. Trust Co. v. Calef

• Decision Date: 16 March 1921
• Docket Number: No. 498.,498.
• Citation: 112 A. 787
• Parties: RHODE ISLAND HOSPITAL TRUST CO. v. CALEF et al.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

112 A. 787

RHODE ISLAND HOSPITAL TRUST CO.

v. CALEF et al.

No. 498.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

March 16, 1921.

Case Certified from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties.

Bill in equity by the Rhode Island Hospital Trust Company, as administrator with the will annexed of the estate, and trustee under the will, of William H. Hall, against Herbert C. Calef and others, seeking instruction of court as to discharge of its duty as trustee. Certified from Superior Court under Gen. Laws 1909, c. 289, § 35. Plaintiff instructed.

Tillinghast & Collins, of Providence, for complainant.

Frederick W. O'Connell, Francis B. Keeney, and Swan, Keeney & Smith, all of Providence, for respondent Richard C. Sanders.

John Courtland Knowles, of Providence, for respondent Rebecca G. Sanders.

Percy W. Gardner and Ada L. Sawyer, both of Providence, for other respondents.

VINCENT, J. This is a bill in equity brought by the Rhode Island Hospital Trust Company as administrator with the will annexed of the estate, and trustee under the will, of William H. Hall, late of the city of Cranston, deceased, against Herbert C. Calef and others, seeking the instruction of this court as to the discharge of its duty as such trustee under certain provisions of said will. The case has been certified to this court under the provisions of General Laws of 1909, c. 289, § 35.

By his original will, dated August 6, 1881, Mr. Hall, after making certain devises and bequests which are not. material to the present consideration, devised and bequeathed all the rest and residue of his estate, real and personal, to his wife, Cleora N. Hall, in trust, the net income arising therefrom to be taken by or paid to her for her own use during her life. Mr. Hall deceased June 3, 1916. Mrs. Hall, named in the will as executrix and trustee, declined to act in either capacity, and the complainant was appointed administrator with the will annexed June 30, 1916, and on July 18, 1918, was, by a decree of the superior court, appointed trustee under said will. Mrs. Hall died May 2, 1920. The will provides for the distribution of the trust estate upon and after the death of Mrs. Hall, one of such provisions being as follows:

"The sum of fifteen thousand dollars in equal shares to and among such of them Albert L. Sanders, Rebecca G. Sanders of said Providence, Emma Calef, wife of George C. Calef, of Johnston, as may then be living, and the child or children then living of such of them respectively as may then have deceased leaving a child or children then living, the child or children of each such deceased nevertheless to take the share only, original or accruing, which his, her or their parent would have taken if then living, to their own respective uses forever."

On May 21, 1893, after the execution of this will, Albert L. Sanders died, leaving one son, Richard C. Sanders, one of the respondents named in said bill of complaint. On March 18, 1896, Mr. Hall executed a codicil to his will, which contained the following provision:

"I hereby revoke the legacies by my said will given to * * * and to my nephew, Albert L. Sanders, he having died."

In the same codicil there is a bequest of $500 to the above-named Richard C. Sanders.

The complainant now desires to be instructed as to whom it should now pay the $5,000 which by the terms of the original will would have passed to Albert L. Sanders if living or in the event of his death to his only surviving child, Richard C. Sanders.

The first question presented for our consideration and determination is, Did the revocation of the legacy to Albert L. Sanders carry with it a revocation of the provision that upon his death, before the testator, such legacy should pass to his son, Richard C. Sanders?

If this question should be answered in the affirmative, we would come to the further question, Do those to whom the rest of the $15,000 was given take the $5,000 in addition or does it pass to the residuary legatee, the William H. Hall Free Library?

The court is of the opinion that the gift under the clause hereinbefore quoted was to a class of beneficiaries. A gift to a class must be of an aggregate sum to a body of persons uncertain in number at the time...