William Rice And Esther R. Woods v. Town of Woodstock

• Decision Date: 03 February 1942
• Citation: 24 A.2d 355,112 Vt. 366
• Parties: WILLIAM RICE AND ESTHER R. WOODS v. TOWN OF WOODSTOCK ET AL
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

24 A.2d 355

112 Vt. 366

WILLIAM RICE AND ESTHER R. WOODS v. TOWN OF WOODSTOCK ET AL

Supreme Court of Vermont

February 3, 1942

January Term, 1942.

Derivative Rights Under Will.---1. Support of Decree Sole Question on Chancery Appeal.---2. Asserting Party Proves.---3. Affirmative Finding Necessary to Take Property.---4. Derivative Rights Not Direct.---5. No Derivative Rights Without Proof of Same.---6. No Derivative Rights Through Inter- mediate Who Left Heirs.---7. No Derivative Rights From a Testator Unless a Legatee Thereof.

1. When no bill of exceptions is signed and filed as required by statute the only question upon a chancery appeal is whether the decree is warranted by the pleadings and supported by the findings.

2. The burden is on the party asserting an issue to prove it.

3. Parties seeking funds must procure an affirmative finding that they have some right or interest in and to such funds.

4. Persons claiming property as the only surviving blood relatives of a testator can not take as such when their rights would not come from the testator but through other persons.

5. Persons claiming through derivative rights are not entitled to recover when the facts either disclose that the chain of derivative rights has been broken or fail to show that any rights in the property descended to them.

6. A finding that an aunt of claimants died after her two children but leaving a husband does not without more indicate any descent to the claimants through the aunt from a common ancestor.

7. Claimants fail to show their derivative rights from an ancestor whose estate was bequeathed in part to a relative who died testate but of whom it does not appear that the claimants were legatees.

BILL IN EQUITY brought against the Town of Woodstock and Earl A Ransom, F. W. B. Smith and Blanche Godsill, Trustees of Public Funds of the Town of Woodstock, to have terminated a trust fund and have the proceeds paid to plaintiffs as heirs of creator of trust. Heard by Windsor County Court of Chancery, December Term, 1940, Adams, Chancellor. Findings of fact were made. Decree entered dismissing the bill. Plaintiffs appealed. The opinion states the case.

Decree affirmed.

Victor A. Agostini and Benjamin Marsicano for plaintiffs.

Paul A. Bourdon and Loren R. Pierce for defendants.

Present MOULTON, C. J., SHERBURNE, BUTTLES, STURTEVANT and JEFFORDS JJ.

OPINION

JEFFORDS

This is a bill in equity asking a decree from the court of chancery that a certain trust fund established under the will of Sally C. Hartwell be terminated and that the fund be paid over to the plaintiffs. Hearing was had findings of fact were made and a decree was entered on March 24, 1941, dismissing the bill of complaint with costs to the defendants. The plaintiffs appealed from the decree.

No bill of exceptions has been signed and filed as required by statute so the only question before us is whether the decree is warranted by the pleadings and supported by the findings. Stevens v. Flanders, 103 Vt. 434, 154 A. 673; Fire District No. 1. v. Graniteville Spring Water Co., 102 Vt. 511, 150 A. 459; Burlington B. & L. Ass'n v. Cummings, 111 Vt. 447, 452, 17 A.2d 319. As the reason why the fund should be paid over to them, the plaintiffs allege in their bill that they are the sole surviving heirs and next of kin of Sally C. Hartwell. The burden was on the plaintiffs having asserted the issue to prove this fact. Packard v. Quesnel, 112 Vt. 175, 178, 22 A.2d 164; Colston v. Bean, 78 Vt. 283, 62 A. 1015; Holton, Adm'r v. Hassam, 94 Vt. 324, 111 A. 389. In other words in order to give them any standing in court it was incumbent on the plaintiffs to procure an affirmative finding that they have some right or interest in and to the trust fund as such heirs and next of kin. If they have neither it is self evident that the decree was the only one which could properly be entered.

The chancellor at the start of his findings states that the plaintiffs allege that they are grandniece and grandnephew of Sally C. Hartwell and her sole surviving heirs and next of kin. The following findings are then made.

ONE Sally C. Hartwell of Sutton in the County of Worcester, and State of Massachusetts deceased testate in 1901. At the time of her decease she left surviving her as her only heirs at law and next of kin a nephew George A. Rice, a niece Clara A. Rice, and a niece, Marion M. Mills, wife of Mason Mills.

TWO The said George A. Rice lived at Bridgewater, Vermont, and had two children by his first marriage, namely William B. Rice and Esther R. Woods, who are the plaintiffs in this action. George A. Rice deceased in September, 1919, and at that time left surviving him a widow, his second wife, Eunice M. Rice, and the aforesaid two children by his first marriage. He deceased testate, and by his last will and testament, which was duly probated and allowed in the Probate Court for the District of Windsor, Vermont, he gave to his said two children, the plaintiffs in this case, FIVE DOLLARS EACH, and devised all the residue of his estate...