Richardson v. Hall

• Decision Date: 26 June 1879
• Citation: 127 Mass. 64
• Parties: William A. Richardson and others, executors, v. John R. Hall, administrator, and others
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

127 Mass. 64

William A. Richardson and others, executors, v. John R. Hall, administrator, and others

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

June 26, 1879

Suffolk.

Decree for the petitioners.

C Allen for the petitioners.

E. O Shepard, for Mrs. French.

Colt J. Ames & Lord, JJ., absent.

OPINION

Colt, J.

At a former hearing of this case, upon the application of the executors and trustees for instructions, the court was required to determine in what manner a deficiency in the assets of the estate of Samuel A. Way, which proved inadequate to meet the requirements of his will, should be borne by the legatees named therein. See 124 Mass. 228. It was then decided that the provisions in favor of the widow of the testator stood first in the order of priority, and were not subject to abatement in favor of any other devisee; and that those in favor of the only son and of the son's wife, and the absolute provisions in favor of Mrs. French, were, with some exceptions, not necessary now to notice, next in priority, and constituted a class by themselves.

The assets of the estate were then supposed to be sufficient for the payment of these last-named legacies in full, with a balance to be distributed at least among the unconditional legacies and annuities, constituting what was considered to be the next or third class in the order of preference. It was not thought necessary, in anticipation of an increased deficiency which might never arise, to determine the question of priority among the legatees thus treated as belonging to the second class.

The son of the testator and the son's wife, defendants in the original suit, now join in a petition for further directions upon the question whether the provisions in their favor are entitled to priority over the absolute legacies in favor of Mrs. French, alleging that since the former hearing and decree the estate has so diminished in value that it has become necessary to settle that question. This is the only question for consideration.

The priority over other legatees, to which the son, son's wife and Mrs. French are entitled, is established by the declaration of the testator in the seventh codicil, "that the provisions of his will and codicils in favor of Mrs. French shall take precedence of all others except those in favor of his wife, son and son's wife." The order of precedence among the legatees so named is not distinctly determined by this clause. If it depended alone upon the construction to be given to these words, there might be difficulty in finding a clear intention that the parties were to take priority in the order in which they are named, instead of standing side by side and being equally subject to abatement in case of a deficiency. But it does not depend on this clause alone; the intention of the testator must be gathered from all the provisions of the will. It is said that the burden lies on the party seeking priority to make out that it was intended by the testator, and that the proof of this must be clear and conclusive, for the reasons that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the testator must be deemed to have considered his estate sufficient to pay all legacies. Miller v. Huddlestone, 3 Macn. & Gord. 513.

It is to be noticed that the case at bar does not seem to come within the reason given, because the clause relied on in the seventh codicil, as well as other provisions in the will and codicils, clearly disclose an apprehension on the part of the testator that his estate would not be sufficient, and manifest a purpose to provide for that contingency. This presumption of intended equality loses much of its weight therefore, and the question of precedence must be determined under ordinary rules by a reasonable interpretation of the will with reference to the character and declared purpose of the legacies in question. It is said that circumstances of near relationship or dependence, though not alone sufficient, may be regarded as auxiliary reasons for allowing such priority when the language of the will...