Steere v. Phillips

Citation200 A. 970
Decision Date08 July 1938
Docket NumberNo. 1398.,1398.
PartiesSTEERE et al. v. PHILLIPS et al.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Certified from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties.

Suit for construction of will by William S. Steere and another against Mary E. Phillips and others. The cause being ready for hearing for final decree was then certified to the Supreme Court for determination in accordance with the provisions of Gen.Laws 1923, c. 339, § 35.

Decree directed to be entered in superior court in accordance with opinion.

Haslam, Arnold & Sumpter, Charles R. Haslam, and Harry A. Tuell, all of Providence, for complainants. Edward W. Day, of Providence, for respondents.

CAPOTOSTO, Justice.

>

This is a bill in equity for the construction of the second paragraph of the will of Mary E. Alverson, late of the city of Providence. The complainant, William S. Steere, is one of the devisees under that paragraph and the only other complainant is his wife, whose sole interest is such as she may have by virtue of her dower rights. The various respondents are all of the persons known who have any possible present interest in the real estate in question, either under the will or as heirs at law of the testatrix. A representative of contingent interests of persons not in being or not ascertainable was duly appointed. After the pleadings were closed, an agreed statement of facts, to which we will later refer, with a certified copy of the will annexed thereto, was filed by the parties in interest. The cause being ready for hearing for final decree was then certified to this court for determination, in accordance with the provisions of general laws 1923, chap. 339, sec. 35.

The testatrix died November 25, 1884, leaving the above-mentioned will which was dated "this day of November A. D. 1884" and was admitted to probate in Providence, December 30, 1884.

The second paragraph of the will, which we are asked to construe, reads as follows: "Second. I give devise and bequeath to my brother William Russell Steere one half of my house at 66 Federal street and to my nephews William S. and David Howard Steere the other half of said house and estate, that is, one quarter each."

The bill of complaint alleges that there is doubt as to the nature of the estates devised by the second paragraph by reason of the provisions of the seventh and eighth paragraphs of the will, which follow:

"Seventh. In the event of the decease of my brother William R. Steere, if without issue, then the estate devised to him shall pass to and be inherited by my nephews the said William S. and David Howard Steere, but if the said William Russell should have children or a child, then the said estate shall be inherited by said child or children of said William R."

"Eighth. It is hereby declared that the estates above devised are given upon the following conditions, namely; that no one of the above named devisees, shall sell, mortgage, hypothecate or otherwise anticipate the rents, profits, benefits or income of the said estates, but shall enjoy the regular income from the said estates during their natural lives."

The questions raised by the bill of complaint which have been duly certified to this court are as follows: "1. Did the devisees named in paragraph 'Second' of said will take interests in fee simple, or merely life estates in the real estate described therein? 2. If said devisees took interests in fee simple in said real estate, who are the present owners of said real estate and in what proportions? 3. If said devisees took merely life estates, in whom are the remainder interests and in what proportion?"

Public Statutes of Rhode Island, 1882, chap. 182, sec. 5, now G.L.1923, chap. 298, sec. 14, which was in force in 1884 when the testatrix died, provides in substance that whenever real estate shall be devised without words of limitation, such devise shall be construed to pass the fee simple or other interest which the testator had the power to dispose of by will, unless a contrary intention shall appear by the will. The same result was reached by this court independently of statute in Waterman v. Greene, 12 R.I. 483. In the instant case, unless a contrary intention appears in the seventh or eighth paragraph of the will, it is clear that the devisees under the second paragraph take an estate in fee simple.

The third and sixth paragraphs of this same will were construed by this court in Phillips v. Smith, 47 R.I. 403, 133 A. 661. The main provisions of those paragraphs were similar to the provisions of paragraphs second and seventh now before us for construction. The provisions of paragraph eighth of this will has equal reference to paragraphs third and sixth in that case and paragraphs second and seventh in the instant case. The entire will was before the court in the Phillips Case, and the effect of paragraph eighth on the sections of the will therein construed was undoubtedly considered by this court in holding that the testatrix intended that her sister, the devisee named in the third paragraph, should have an estate in fee simple if she survived the testatrix. It is apparent that in reaching such decision this court was then clearly of the opinion that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Commercial Trust Co. of N. J. v. Clinton
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
    • April 14, 1950
    ...44 R.I. 350, 117 A. 428; Newport Hospital v. Harvey, 49 R.I. 40, 139 A. 659; Turner v. Turner, R.I., 161 A. 115; Steere v. Phillips, 61 R.I. 232, 200 A. 970. In the McLaughlin case the rule relied on by the executors here was applied, while in the Turner case the court resorted to the rule ......
  • Ryan v. Estate of Ryan, K.P. 08-752
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Rhode Island
    • May 28, 2009
    ...to every portion of the will reconciling, if it fairly may be done, clauses susceptible of inconsistent construction." Steere v. Phillips, 200 A. 970, 972-73 (R.I. 1938). "If it can fairly be done, a later clause in a will will be so construed as to affirm and not to contradict an earlier c......
  • Ryan v. Estate of Ryan
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Rhode Island
    • May 28, 2009
    ...(R.I. 1938). "If it can fairly be done, a later clause in a will will be so construed as to affirm and not to contradict an earlier clause." Id. --------- ...
  • Ryan v. Estate of Ryan, K.P. 08-752
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Rhode Island
    • May 28, 2009
    ...to every portion of the will reconciling, if it fairly may be done, clauses susceptible of inconsistent construction." Steere v. Phillips, 200 A. 970, 972-73 (R.I. 1938). "If it can fairly be done, a later clause in a will will be so construed as to affirm and not to contradict an earlier c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT