Webb v. Lines

• Decision Date: 14 June 1904
• Citation: 58 A. 227,77 Conn. 51
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: WEBB v. LINES et al.

58 A. 227

77 Conn. 51

WEBB

v. LINES et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 14, 1904.

Case Reserved from Superior Court, New Haven County; Ralph Wheeler, Judge.

Suit by James H. Webb, as executor, against Mary Ann Lines and others, to determine the construction of the will of Augustus E. Lines, deceased. Reserved by the superior court, upon an agreed statement of facts, for the advice of the Supreme Court of Errors.

Augustus E. Lines, of New Haven, died November 8, 1902, leaving a large estate, consisting chiefly of personalty, and a will, which was duly probated. He was survived by his wife, Mary Ann Lines; his sister, Jane E. Lines; his foster son, Harry K. Lines; and the latter's wife, Clifford C. Lines; and Louise D. Lines, the daughter of Harry K. Lines. He left no children. By his will the testator gave his wife certain real estate, $25,000 in cash, and his furniture and personal effects. To his sister, Jane, and the wife of his foster son he gave $1,000 each. He also made several personal and charitable bequests. In addition to these absolute gifts, he, in the third paragraph, gave to the plaintiff, Webb, as trustee, the sum of $120,000 in trust to pay over to his wife, in quarterly payments, the net income thereof during her life. Upon her death the principal of said fund was disposed of by absolute gifts, mostly charitable or educational. In the fourth paragraph the sum of $25,000 was similarly given in trust to said Webb to pay over the annual net income thereof to the testator's sister, Jane, as long as she should live, and upon her decease, or in case she was not living at his decease, to his foster son, Harry K. Lines, so long as he should live. Upon his death the fund was given to the latter's daughter, Louise. In the fifth paragraph the sum of $15,000 was in like manner given in trust to said Webb to pay over the net income thereof to Clifford C. Lines, the wife of Harry K. Lines, so long as she should live. Upon her death said fund was given to said Louise. In the sixth paragraph the sum of $25,000 was similarly given in trust to said Webb to pay over to said Louise the net annual income thereof until she should become 23 years of age, and then to her absolutely. In the seventh paragraph the sum of $15,000 is in like manner given in trust to said Webb for the use and benefit of said Harry during his life, but with the power in him to direct the application of the net income, giving or withholding as he should think best; what was withheld being added to principal, and no part of the income being liable to attachment while in the trustee's hands. Upon the death of Harry, said fund and its accumulations were given to Louise absolutely. Louise was made residuary legatee, and Webb executor. Webb qualified and is now sole executor. All lawful claims and absolute legacies have been paid, and there remains in the executor's hands estate sufficient to pay all the bequests in trust, and to leave a large residuary estate. Said Jane E. Lines died January 12, 1903, and the defendant Ida M. Adams is the executrix of her will. All the other trust beneficiaries named are still living. The average rate of income earned by the personal estate during the year following the testator's death was 4.14 per cent. The estate was during that period managed as an entirety, and no separation into funds made.

James H. Webb, for executor.

Frank S. Bishop, for Mary Ann Lines. Samuel C. Morehouse and Arnon A. Ailing, for Louise D. Lines.

J. Birney Tuttle, for Harry K. Lines and others.

PRENTICE, J. (after stating the facts). It is well settled in this state, as it is in many other jurisdictions, that "where there is a bequest of the whole or of an aliquot part of the residue of an estate to a legatee for life, remainder over, and no time is fixed by the will for the commencement of such life use, the legatee is entitled to the use or income of the clear residue so bequeathed, as the same may be at last ascertained, to be computed from the death of the testator." Bancroft v. Security Co., 74 Conn. 218, 50 Atl. 735; Lawrence v. Security Co., 56 Conn. 423, 15 Atl. 406, 1 L. R. A. 342; Bartlett v. Slater, 53 Conn. 102, 22 Atl. 678, 55 Am. Rep. 73. The gifts under review in this case do not fall under this description and rule, for the reason that the property of which the income is given, with remainder over, is specified sums of money, and not portions of the residuum. The claim of the residuary legatee is that the difference indicated is such a vital one that the beneficiary for life in the one case is to be deprived of that to which the life beneficiary in the other is entitled. We have searched in vain for some reason for the distinction thus attempted to be made. The principle invoked in support of the distinction is the well-known one that general legacies do not, in the absence of a contrary testamentary direction, bear interest until one year from the grant of letters testamentary. This rule, however, it will be noticed, deals with interest which is given as compensation for the withholding of money, and not with income earned. The rule therefore requires a corollary to make it fit a situation like the present The necessity for this corollary is suggestive. The payment of interest upon a legacy involves a payment which may be, and to the extent it is unearned, must be, an additional charge upon the corpus of the estate, and serve to diminish it to the prejudice of the residuary estate. The rule relating to interest upon general legacies, which is said to have originated in the ecclesiastical courts of England, is not one founded upon the presumed intent of the testator, but was, in its origin, largely one of administrative policy and convenience. As applied to a bequest out of the corpus, it bad and still has reasons to support it. When, however, it is sought to extend its application to gifts in trust to pay income only to one during life or a term, so that the period of enjoyment shall be cut down one year, a radically different situation is encountered. Such bequests are, in their essence, in so far as the life or term beneficiaries are concerned, bequests of income only. When income earned is paid over, nothing comes out of the corpus of the estate. What is paid can by no...