Stickel v. Douglass

• Decision Date: 11 June 1951
• Docket Number: No. A--133,A--133
• Citation: 7 N.J. 274,81 A.2d 362
• Parties: STICKEL et al. v. DOUGLASS et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Page 274

7 N.J. 274

81 A.2d 362

STICKEL et al. v. DOUGLASS et al.

No. A--133.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued May 14, 1951.

Decided June 11, 1951.

Harold M. Kain, Newark, argued the cause for the appellant (R. Wayne Stickel, Newark, attorney).

John A. Wyckoff, Newark, argued the cause for the defendant-respondent.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

OLIPHANT, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Chancery Division in an action seeking construction of a will. The question presented is to whom the trust fund set up by the second paragraph of the will should be paid. The paragraph provides as follows:

'Second: If my husband Robert Bruce Douglass survive me, I give, devise and bequeath the sum of Sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) unto my executors hereinafter named, in trust, nevertheless, to invest and keep invested the same and from time to time to vary the investment thereof, to collect the income therefrom, and to pay over such income to my said husband during his natural life and upon his death to pay over the principal in equal shares to my issue, if any, him surviving, and if there be no such issue of mine then to pay such principal to my mother if she be then living, or if she be dead then to my brother Daniel A. Heald if he be living, or if he be dead then to my said brother's issue in equal shares per stirpes.'

The testatrix, Ruth Heald Douglass, died April 11, 1922, eleven days after giving birth to her only child, the defendant Bruce Heald Douglass. Robert Bruce Douglass, her husband, the life tenant under the trust set out above, died June 18, 1949, leaving him surviving his son Bruce Heald Douglass and the son and daughter of the latter, Robert Bruce Douglass II aged two, and Carol Pepper Douglass, as the only issue of the testatrix.

Since the trustees were in doubt as to whether the remainder passed entirely to Bruce Heald Douglass, or to Bruce Heald Douglass and his two children equally, they instituted the present action for the construction of the will.

The trial court held the remainder passed to Bruce Heald Douglass and his two children and unless a contrary intention appears from the will the word 'issue' includes grandchildren as well as children, and distribution is Per capita and not Per stirpes. In his memorandum Judge Freund said:

'The basic rule is 'that, unless a contrary intention appears from the will, the word 'issue' includes grandchildren as well as children and the distribution is per capita and not per stirpes'. Hoyt v. Orcutt, 1 N.J. 454, 64 A.2d 212, 13 A.L.R.2d 1020 (1949). There is nothing in the will from which it is to be inferred that the testatrix intended to exclude her grandchildren from participation in the distribution of the principal of the trust upon the death of the life tenant, her husband. Indeed, I find that the testatrix intended that her grand-children should participate in the distribution of her estate.

'As to the extent of their participation, it is to be noted that the testatrix directed that upon the termination of the trust the corpus be paid over 'in equal shares to my issue' without qualification. In other parts of the will the testatrix stipulated that sharing among issue be per stirpes. The absence of provision for a per stirpital disposition...