Towle v. Doe
Decision Date | 09 April 1903 |
Citation | 97 Me. 427,54 A. 1072 |
Parties | TOWLE v. DOE et al. |
Court | Maine Supreme Court |
(Official.)
Report from Supreme Judicial Court, Penobscot County.
Bill by Josiah C. Towle against Alice H. Doe and others. Case reported. Decree rendered.
Bill in equity to obtain the construction of the residuary clause of the last will and testament of Josiah Towle, late of Bangor, deceased.
The will showed evidence of being holographic, and the complete residuary clause was as follows:
The only child of William M. Towle at the testator's death, at the termination of the intervening life, and also at his death, was Alice H. Doe.
There was also a codicil, which, however, had no bearing on the case.
Argued before WISWELL, C. J., and EMERY, WHITEHOUSE, POWERS, PEABODY, and SPEAR, JJ.
P. H. Appleton and H. R. Chaplin, for plaintiff.
J. R. Mason, for defendants. C. H. Bartlett, guardian ad litem, for minor defendants.
Matthew Laughlin, administrator of the estate of William M. Towle, pro se.
This cause comes before the law court on report. It is an equity suit brought for the purpose of obtaining a legal construction of certain provisions of the will of Josiah Towle, late of Bangor, Me., deceased.
The case shows that the testator made and executed his will on the 17th day of Au gust, A. D. 1800, and a codicil thereto on the 9th day of March, A. D. 1870. The provisions of the codicil are immaterial in the case. The portions of the will which the parties desire construed, being part of the residuary clause, are as follows:
"To my wife Lucinda L. Towle I give & bequeath all the remainder of my property of every description both real personal & mixed to have & to hold occupy & enjoy & receive all the income rents & profits & interest during her lifetime & at her decease I give & bequeath all the aforesaid property which I have devised to her during her life time & which shall remain at her decease, to my four children viz: Wm. M. Towle & his heirs one-fourth part to be invested by my executor in U. S. bonds or State bonds & the interest deducting expenses paid over to said Wm. M. Towle and his children so long as they live & then the principal divided to his or their heirs."
The remaining parts of the residuary clause relate to the bequests to the other three children of the testator, and do not affect the question submitted, except as indicating the intention of the testator.
The testator died January 26, 1883, and his widow, Lucinda L. Towle, died April 8, 1886. His son William M. Towle died January 23, 1896, leaving a widow, now living; and his granddaughter Alice H. Doe, the surviving child of William M. Towle, has died since the filing of the bill in equity, leaving a husband and children, who are now living.
The validity of the will and codicil is not questioned, and their terms clearly indicate that the testator thereby intended to dispose of his entire estate. The will is not arti ficially drawn, as is evident both from the words used and the structure of its testamentary provisions.
In the portion of the will quoted the words used in the first section of the clause imply an absolute bequest to his son William M. Towle, but they are followed by words showing that the testator intended that the legal estate in this fourth part of the residuum should vest in a trustee, to be disposed of in accordance with the terms of the trust.
In determining the general intent of the testator, the words defining the bequest to William M. Towle and his heirs cannot be dissociated from those which immediately follow; and the language of the whole clause shows that the bequest was not intended by the testator to be a remainder in fee to William M. Towle, but an executory bequest to be held by the executor in trust for the lives of William M. Towle and his...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Estate
...make it valid and operative, the latter should be preferred. Allen v. Almy , 87 Conn. 517, 89 A. 205, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 112; Towle v. Doe , 97 Me. 427, 54 A. 1072; In re Phelps Estate , 182 Cal. 752, 190 P. In re Stickney's Will , 85 Md. 79, 36 A. 654, 35 L.R.A. 693, 60 Am. St. Rep. 308; Cog......
-
Story v. First Nat. Bank & Trust Co., in Orlando
... ... fairly susceptible of two constructions, one of which would ... turn it into an illegal perpetuity and the other make it ... valid and operative, the latter should be adopted, as the law ... presumes that the testator intended to make a binding will ... Sorrells v. McNally, supra; Towle v. Doe, 97 Me ... 427, 54 A. 1072; Coggings' Appeal, supra, 124 Pa. 10, 16 ... A. 579, 10 Am. St. Rep. 565: Taylor v. Crosson, 11 ... Del. Ch. 145, 98 A. 375 ... The act ... of striking down a will is no trivial matter. One who assumes ... this burden is confronted at the ... ...
-
In re Peck's Estate
...make it valid and operative, the latter should be preferred. Allen v. Almey, 87 Conn. 517, 89 Atl. 205, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 112; Towle v. Doe, 97 Me. 427, 54 Atl. 1072; In re Phelp's Estate, 182 Cal. 752, 190 Pac. 17; In re Stickney's Will, 85 Md. 79, 36 Atl. 654, 35 L. R. A. 693, 60 Am. St. R......
-
White v. Fleet Bank of Maine
...adopt the construction that does not offend the rule. See Singhi v. Dean, 119 Me. 287, 289, 110 A. 865, 866 (1920); Towle v. Doe, 97 Me. 427, 432, 54 A. 1072, 1075 (1903). [¶ 15] Mr. Moore's requirement that twenty-five percent of the income be used to fortify the trust corpus removes the l......