Sparhawk v. Goldthwaite

• Decision Date: 04 January 1917
• Citation: 114 N.E. 718,225 Mass. 414
• Parties: SPARHAWK et al. v. GOLDTHWAITE et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

225 Mass. 414

114 N.E. 718

SPARHAWK et al.

v.GOLDTHWAITE et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

Jan. 4, 1917.

Exceptions from Land Court, Essex County.

Writ of entry by Samuel R. Sparhawk and others, demandants, against William J. Goldthwaite and others, tenants, in which the Parker Shoe Company, a corporation, moved that it be allowed to appear as tenant and defend, on the ground that it was in possession of the parcels referred to, and this motion was allowed, with the consent of the demandants. Judgment for tenants, and demandants excepted. Exceptions overruled.

The instructions referred to were as follows:

(1) That the will of William Sparhawk, from whom all parties in interest claim to derive their title, gave Harriet E. Sparhawk a life estate with a limited power to sell and convey, dependent upon the actual need of herself or Samuel Sparhawk for support or maintenance.

(2) That the burden is on the tenants to show that there was such actual need of support and maintenance on the part of Harriet E. Sparhawk or Samuel Sparhawk.

(3) That the power to sell, which was given to Harriet E. Sparhawk by the will of William Sparhawk, did not authorize or empower her to mortgage any part of the estate.

(4) The sale of land by Harriet E. Sparhawk to John M. Ward, and the receipt by her of a mortgage from said Ward, (Exhibits I and J), gave Harriet E. Sparhawk a fund or personal property which, together with the cash received by her from said Ward, and the other income, she had to exhaust for the support and maintenance of herself and Samuel Sparhawk before she could make a valid conveyance of any portion of the estate so as to cut off the rights of the remaindermen therein.

(6) The record of the deed from Harriet E. Sparhawk to John M. Ward, the record of the mortgage back from John M. Ward to Harriet E. Sparhawk, and the records of all proceedings pertaining to the estate of William Sparhawk in the probate court for the county of Essex, were notice to subsequent purchasers that the condition precedent to a valid exercise of the power by Harriet E. Sparhawk-viz. need of funds for support and maintenance of herself and Samuel Sparhawk,-did not exist.

(7) The failure on the part of Harriet E. Sparhawk to set out in her deed to James N. Parker and others the power under, or the capacity in which she purported to convey, or otherwise to inform them thereof in the said deed, was of itself sufficient to render the said conveyance to James N. Parker and others void and of no effect.

John E. Galvin, of Boston, for demandants.

Currier, Young & Pillsbury and P. G. Carleton, all of Boston, for tenant Parker Shoe Co.

DE COURCY, J.

The tenants claim title to the land in controversy by mesne conveyances from Harriet E. Sparhawk, widow of William Sparhawk. The controlling question in the case is whether there was a valid execution of the power given by his will in the following paragraph:

‘Second, I give, devise and bequeath all my estate, Real Personal and mixed of which I shall die seized and possessed or to which I shall be entitled at the time of my decease to my beloved wife Harriet E. Sparhawk, to have and to hold the same to her during her natural life, subject only to the condition, that my brother Samuel now a resident of Cheyenne, Wyoming territory, shall during his life receive a comfortable maintenance and support, both in sickness and health, out of my said estate, and I hereby, give to my said wife, H. E. Sparhawk, free power and authority, to use her own discretion as regard the amt necessary for my brother's comfort, I also give my wife free power, and authority to sell and dispose of all and any part of my said estate, and if at any time she shall...