Trustees of Unitarian Soc. in Harvard v. Tufts
| Decision Date | 26 February 1890 |
| Parties | TRUSTEES UNITARIAN SOCIETY v. TUFTS. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Verry & Gaskill, for plaintiffs.
J.H Butler, for defendant.
We must hold the legacy in the fourth clause of the will specific although we cannot but fear that, if the testatrix had been fully advised of the consequences of making a legacy specific, she would have changed her will.
The legacy is of "ten shares of the stock of the Worcester and Nashua Railroad Company." By the fifth clause of the will the testatrix gives 10 shares to another legatee, and she gives none of it to any one else. At the time of making her will she owned 20 shares of the stock. We will assume for the purpose of our decision, that the mere coincidence between the amount given and the amount owned would not make the legacy specific, both being round numbers. See Tifft v. Porter, 8 N.Y. 516; Bronsdon v. Winter, 1 Amb. 57; Purse v. Snaplin, 1 Atk. 414; Robinson v. Addison, 2 Beav. 515, 520. This might be admitted, perhaps, without at all questioning White v. Winchester, 6 Pick. 48. But White v. Winchester, and Metcalf v. Framingham Parish, 128 Mass. 370, 373, show that such a coincidence is an important fact to be considered in connection with the language of the will. See Johnson v. Goss, Id. 433, 436.
Turning to the language, we find nothing conclusive in the fourth clause. The word "the," preceding "stock," is ambiguous, and may as well refer to the stock of the company in general as to the stock owned by the testatrix . But if "my" were used instead of "the," the legacy would be specific. Metcalf v Framingham Parish, 128 Mass. 370, 373; Appeal of Foote, 22 Pick. 299, 303. See Johnson v. Goss, 128 Mass. 433, 435. The same principle applies upon equally strong grounds when a testator, after giving legacies of stock generally, gives the rest of the stock "standing in my name." Sleech v. Thorington, 2 Ves.Sr. 560. See Metcalf v. Framingham Parish, 128 Mass. 370, 372; Millard v. Bailey, L.R. 1 Eq. 378; Theob. Wills, (3d Ed.) 100. In this case the eighth clause of the will gives "the balance of my stock as per my stock-book, my furniture, and all other property not otherwise disposed of by me." This language, taken with the facts, makes it pretty plain that the stock disposed of by the testatrix in the fourth clause was stock then belonging to her; and the conclusion is fortified by the other clauses, which show that the general course which she adopted in making her will was to take up different items of her property as it then stood, and to dispose of them. The words used describe a specific legacy too clearly to be controlled by the fact that the proviso discloses a motive which might be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cuppett v. Neilly
...be construed as specific. Adams v. Conqueror Trust Company, 358 Mo. 763, 217 S.W.2d 476, 7 A.L.R.2d 268; Trustees of Unitarian Society v. Tufts, 151 Mass. 76, 23 N.E. 1006, 7 L.R.A. 390. Inasmuch as Section 1, Article 3, Chapter 41, Code, 1931, requires that a will shall be construed, with ......
-
Adams v. Conqueror Trust Co.
...the testator, the bequest is to be construed as specific. 57 Am. Jur., Wills, Sec. 1411, supra; 6 ALR, note, p. 1379; Unitarian Soc. v. Tufts, 151 Mass. 76, 23 N.E. 1006. In present case, when all the provisions of the will are considered together it is reasonable to infer that the testator......
-
Bostwick v. Hurstel
...in other situations involving the disposition of stock, such as where the ademption of a legacy is involved, Harvard Unitarian Soc. v. Tufts, 151 Mass. 76, 23 N.E. 1006 (1890); Desoe v. Desoe, 304 Mass. 231, 234--236, 23 N.E.2d 82 (1939), or where the court has considered the problem of con......
-
Gorham v. Chadwick
...Martin, Petitioner, 25 R.I. 1, 54 A. 589; Emery v. Wason, 107 Mass. 507; Johnson v. Goss, 128 Mass. 433; Harvard Unitarian Society v. Tufts, 151 Mass. 76, 23 N.E. 1006, 7 L.R.A. 390; Fidelity National Bank & Trust Co. v. Hovey, 319 Mo. 192, 5 S.W.2d 437, 73 A.L.R. 1228; In re Estate of Larg......