Rhode Island Hospital Trust Co. v. Bateman
Decision Date | 22 June 1961 |
Docket Number | No. 2907,2907 |
Citation | 172 A.2d 84,93 R.I. 116 |
Parties | RHODE ISLAND HOSPITAL TRUST COMPANY et al., Trustees, v. Jonathan H. BATEMAN et al. Equity |
Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Tillinghast, Collins & Tanner, Colin MacR. Makepeace, Providence, for complainants.
Edwards & Angell, Walter A. Edwards, Ronald R. Lagueux, Providence, for respondent Jonathan H. Bateman.
Sheffield & Harvey, J. Russell Haire, Newport, for respondent William Sidney Bateman, Jr., individually.
Corcoran, Peckham & Hayes, Edward J. Corcoran, Newport, for respondent Dorothy Bateman Beck.
John H. Chafee, Providence, for respondent Horace Palmer Beck, Jr.
John H. Chafee, Providence, guardian ad litem for Melinda Bateman and Bushnell Bird Beck.
Roberts & Coffey, Matthew E. Ward, Providence, for respondent Matthew E. Ward, guardian ad litem for persons not in being, or not ascertainable.
This is a bill in equity for the construction of the fifth clause of the will of William Sidney Bateman, late of the city of Newport, deceased. When the cause was ready for hearing for final decree in the superior court it was certified to this court for our determination in accordance with G.L.1956, § 9-24-28.
The testator died December 6, 1948 and thereafter his will was duly provided in the probate court of the city of Newport. He was survived by a son and a daughter, three grandchildren and one great-grandchild. By the fifth clause of his will, after bequeathing one fourth of his residuary estate to his son, one fourth to his daughter and one sixteenth to her son, he left an undivided seven sixteenths to his trustees in trust with the following directions:
The complainants Rhode Island Hospital Trust Company and William Sidney Bateman, Jr., the testator's son, are the present trustees. The respondents are the testator's daughter, Dorothy; his son William Sidney Bateman, Jr., individually; Dorothy's son, Horace Palmer Beck, Jr.; William Sidney Bateman, Jr.'s two children, Jonathan H. Bateman and Melinda Bateman; and Horace Palmer Beck, Jr.'s daughter, Bushnell Bird Beck. The minor children Melinda Bateman and Bushnell Bird Beck were represented by a guardian ad litem, and a representative of the contingent interests of persons not in being or not ascertainable, whose interests may be affected by the cause, was appointed pursuant to the provisions of G.L.1956, § 9-14-17.
The testator was an elderly man when he executed his will on August 5, 1948. His descendants at that time were his son and daughter; the two children of his son, Jonathan H. Bateman born May 4, 1935, and Melinda Bateman born April 13, 1946; his daughter's son, Horace Palmer Beck, Jr. born September 27, 1920; and Horace's daughter, Bushnell Bird Beck born July 11, 1948. These descendants are all living and there have been no children born to either William Sidney Bateman, Jr. or Horace Palmer Beck, Jr. since the execution of the testator's will.
The trustees have been administering the trust principal in one fund and transferring the income therefrom in equal shares to three separate funds for the benefit respectively of Jonathan H. Bateman, Melinda Bateman and Bushnell Bird Beck, and have either paid out the income for the benefit of the beneficiary or accumulated and invested it as a part of each separate fund or partly so paid and partly so accumulated and invested it. The trust was originally administered by the testator's son and Chase Page as cotrustees. Upon the latter's resignation the Rhode Island Hospital Trust Company in 1955 was appointed as cotrustee.
It appears that by letter dated June 24, 1955, William Sidney Bateman, Jr., Dorothy Bateman Beck and Horace Palmer Beck requested the trust company to accept such appointment with the following directions:
'* * * until the birth of another child to William Sidney Bateman, Jr. or Horace Palmer Beck to pay or accumulate the trust income hereafter received, and also that heretofore received with due regard for any payments already made therefrom for the account of Jonathan Bateman, for the equal benefit of Jonathan Bateman, Melinda Bateman and Bushnell Bird Beck, until one of them becomes twenty-five or dies under that age.'
They severally agreed to hold the trust company harmless from any loss or damage resulting from its compliance with said request. In addition they agreed in their letter that upon the birth of another child to either William Sidney Bateman, Jr. or Horace Palmer Beck, or upon one of the said Jonathan Bateman, Melinda Bateman or Bushnell Bird Beck attaining twenty-five or dying under that age, the trustees would seek from this court a construction of the will with reference to payment of the income and principal of the trust.
Jonathan H. Bateman attained the age of twenty-five years on May 4, 1960. Because the trustees were in doubt with reference to the payments of principal and income now that one of the beneficiaries has attained the age of twenty-five years, they filed the instant bill in equity for construction of the fifth clause of the will and for instructions of the court in answer to the following questions:
At the hearing in the superior court, besides oral testimony, documentary evidence was introduced relative to the pertinent family facts and to the administration of the trust. The solicitor who drew the will testified about the circumstances surrounding its execution. He stated that, at the request of the testator, the words 'born and maybe born' were inserted in longhand by him and initialed by the testator immediately after the provision for division 'into as many equal shares and separate trust funds as there are children.' He also testified that before the will was signed he wrote at the end of the will just above the testator's signature the statement reading: 'The words 'born and may be born' on second page added before execution.'
In addition he testified as to certain statements made by the testator at the time of the execution of the will in regard to his intention in inserting therein the words 'born and maybe born.' Upon objection by some of the parties the trial justice ruled that such evidence was inadmissible, but permitted the solicitor to be examined relative to such statements so that this court, if it deemed his testimony material to a determination of the testator's intention, might consider it.
These statements were in substance that the testator did not believe that his son would have any more children though it was possible that he would; that there was a possibility that his grandson Horace would have more children since he was a much younger man; and that he wanted all of his grandchildren and great-grandchildren to share alike and therefore wanted to look out for them even though they were not then born. Thereafter the cause, being ready for hearing for final decree, was certified to this court.
The answers to the questions requested depend upon the intent of the testator. As was said in Industrial Trust Co. v. Saunders, 71 R.I. 94, at page 98, 42 A.2d 492, at page 494:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lancellotti v. Lancellotti
...where the person testifying to such declarations is the attorney or scrivener who drafted the document. Id.; Rhode Island Hosp. Trust Co. v. Bateman, 93 R.I. 116, 172 A.2d 84 (1961); Hanley v. Fernell, 54 R.I. 84, 170 A. 88 (1934). Thus, the trial justice erred when he permitted the will's ......
-
Lux v. Lux
...(1938); 5 American Law of Property §§ 22.40, 22.41 (1952); see concurring opinion, Frost and Roberts, JJ., Rhode Island Hospital Trust Co. v. Bateman, 93 R.I. 116, 172 A.2d 84 (1961). Despite our invocation of the rule requiring the class to remain open until the corpus is distributed, we s......
-
Jackson v. City of Woonsocket Zoning Board of Review
... ... No. PC-14-6102 Superior Court of Rhode Island November 15, 2016 ... Providence ... ...
-
Jackson v. City of Woonsocket Zoning Bd. of Review
... ... No. PC-14-6102 STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, SC. SUPERIOR ... ...