Warren's Adm'r v. Bronson
| Decision Date | 07 May 1908 |
| Citation | 81 Vt. 121,69 A. 655 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | WARREN'S ADM'R v. BRONSON et al. |
Appeal in Chancery, Windsor County; E. L. Waterman, Chancellor.
Bill by Allen L. Slade, administrator of Asahel W. Warren, against Mary A. Bronson and others to foreclose a mortgage. Decree for petitioner, and defendants appeal. Affirmed and remanded.
Asahel W. Warren died testate in June, 1870, owning the real estate described in the bill, and some little personal property. His will was duly probated, and his son Asahel B. Warren was appointed executor thereof and performed the duties of his appointment until about 1885, when he settled his account, and Simon N. Bronson, a son-in-law of the testator, was appointed administrator with the will annexed. Simon N. continued in this position until his death, March 25, 1897. On the 27th day of the following month the orator was appointed administrator with the will annexed, thus continuing to the present time. At the time of the execution of the will Asahel B. was in possession of the farm, together with the farming tools and stock thereon, under a lease from his father for and during the latter's natural life. By the terms of the lease the stock, with some exceptions not material here, was owned by the parties in equal shares. The farming tools were to be furnished by the father, all necessary repairs thereon to be at the joint and equal expense of them both, each to furnish half the seeds for sowing and planting, and to pay half the taxes on the farm and stock, the son to account annually to his father for one-half of the produce and profits made on the farm, and reserving to the father and his wife the right of occupying such part of the house and premises as they might choose for their own convenience and accommodation. The father was survived by his wife and his children named in the will.
The will contained provisions as follows:
There was no residuary clause.
Asahel B. had possession of the real estate before, up to, and continuously after his father's death till September 25, 1885, at which time, by indenture signed by himself and his wife, and by Simon N. Bronson, he for himself and his heirs, conveyed all of his right, title, interest, property, and estate in and to the lands devised by said will to Simon N. his heirs and assigns forever; and Asahel B. also thereby, for himself and his heirs, remised, released, and forever quitclaimed to Simon N., his heirs and assigns, "all the right, title, interest, or demand" that he (Asahel B.) then had, or which he and his heirs might thereafter have, in the estate of his mother, Rhoda Warren, at her decease, or in the estate of his sister, Elizabeth Paulina Warren, at her decease; and as a part consideration thereof the said Simon N. then and there covenanted and agreed to "do and perform all the conditions in said will expressed by me (Asahel B.) to be done and performed, and pay all the legacies therein set forth to be paid at the time and in the manner in said will set forth, save only the legacy in said will set forth to be paid to me, said Asahel B." This indenture was duly recorded September 20, 1885. Simon N. immediately took possession of the premises under this conveyance, and this remained until his death, March 25, 1897. Thereafter the premises were in the possession of his family till June 9, 1903, at which time Rhoda Warren, the widow of Asahel W., deceased. Asahel B. carried out the conditions of the devise of said real estate as to the support of the widow up to the time of his conveyance to Bronson, after which they were performed by Bronson and his family until her death. The legatee Sarah Jane Bronson was the first wife of Simon N. She died March 20, 1877, leaving surviving her her said husband, and three children, Lena Maria Bronson Fred Warren Bronson, and Charles Rupert Bronson. Lena Maria, never having married, died July 30, 1903, intestate and without issue. The legatee Rhoda Ann Warren was the second wife of Simon N. She died April 4, 1890, testate, survived by her husband, but leaving no issue. The legatee Elizabeth Paulina Warren died on the 1st day of February, 1894, leaving no issue.
Argued before TYLER, MUNSON, and WATSON, JJ.
Davis & Davis, for appellants. Fred C. Davis and Stickney, Sargent & Skeels, for appellee.
The defendant Mary A. Bronson insists in her answer by way of demurrer that there is no equity in the bill, and that the orator has an adequate remedy at law. This demurrer on hearing before trial on the merits was overruled, and the bill adjudged sufficient. The same questions are presented by her here on appeal; but inasmuch as the master's report shows substantially the same material facts as are alleged in the bill, and the same questions are raised thereon, the rights of the defendant are fully considered and determined on the merits.
No claim is made but that by the gift of the use of all the testator's real estate, stock, and farming tools to the wife during her life for her support, and for the support of the daughter Elizabeth P., the widow took a life estate. It is contended, however, that under the provisions of the will the real estate, stock, and farming tools did not vest in Asahel B., or his grantee, until the death of the widow and "on the fulfillment of the aforesaid contract with said Asahel B. on his part to be performed as aforesaid." In other words, that the vesting of the property in Asahel B. was made contingent upon his full performance of the terms of the lease, substituting his mother in place of his father therein, extended to the time of her death. The master finds that the condition imposed by the will in this behalf was fully performed by Asahel B. and his grantees until the decease of the mother, and no question is raised thereon. Hence the character of the condition is material only because of its bearing on the present status of some of the legacies in question. Whether the condition was precedent or subsequent is not to be determined upon the mere words used. There are no technical words distinguishing either class from the other. The same words will make a condition of either character according to the intent of the testator to be gathered from the whole instrument. Without the words, "and on the fulfillment of the aforesaid contract with said Asahel B. on his part to be performed as aforesaid," there would be nothing indicating that a performance of the conditions of the lease until terminated by the death of the mother was intended as a condition to the property vesting under the bequest over. With these words thus used, however, there is force in the contention made. The manifest design of the testator was that, during the life of his widow, she should have the use of the property for her support, and for the support of their daughter Elizabeth P., in the same form and with the same conveniences and accommodations as the use had been enjoyed by himself and wife in his lifetime. Beyond its term the lease contains nothing which might not be found in the ordinary written contract for letting such property to tenants to the halves. In itself therefore neither the lease nor the required extension of term shows any intention to give effect different in nature from that naturally resulting from a devise of the use to the widow for the same purpose with a gift over of the corpus, possession to be had at her death. Manifestly the life estate to his wife for her support and for the support of their unfortunate and helpless child during the same period was the first purpose of the testator; yet it is equally manifest that at the end of the life estate h...
To continue reading
Request your trial