Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Stratton

156 N.E. 885, 259 Mass. 465, 1927 Mass. LEXIS 1290
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMay 20, 1927
StatusPublished
Cited by30 cases

This text of 156 N.E. 885 (Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Stratton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Stratton, 156 N.E. 885, 259 Mass. 465, 1927 Mass. LEXIS 1290 (Mass. 1927).

Opinion

Rugg, C.J.

These are petitions for instructions as to the meaning of clauses in the will of Ira Stratton.

The rule for the construction of wills, briefly stated, is that the intention of the testator is to be ascertained from the whole instrument, attributing due weight to all its language, and then to give effect to that intent unless prevented by some positive rule of law. Ware v. Minot, 202 Mass. 512, 516. Temple v. Russell, 251 Mass. 231, 535.

The testamentary words and the facts to which this rule is to be applied in the case at bar are as follows: By clause [471]*471Fourth of his will the testator created a trust fund of $50,000, the income to be paid to life tenants, all of whom are now deceased. The will then proceeds, “And at the decease of both my son and daughter to pay over and distribute said trust fund among such issue of my said children as may then be living, share and share alike.” Both son and daughter have died, leaving no issue. In this event the testator made provision for the division of this particular trust fund into three unequal parts, with special and differing words of gift as to each part. As to the first part, the testamentary words now operative, and to be construed, are these: “I direct my said trustees to pay from said trust fund to my cousin Royal A. Stratton . . . if he be then living and if he be not living to his widow and daughter, share and share alike or to the survivor of them the sum of five thousand dollars.” The circumstances which have arisen and with reference to which the intention of the testator as displayed by these words must be discovered, are these: The last life tenant, who was also the last surviving child of the testator, died in 1925, Royal A. Stratton died in April, 1887, his wife in the preceding February, and their daughter in August, 1900, she having left a will in which her husband, also now deceased, testate, was the residuary legatee.

We are of opinion that under the frame of the will the testator intended that this $5,000 should go to his cousin Royal if he survived the life tenants, and, if he did not so survive, then to his widow and daughter and the survivor of them, absolutely, subject only to the contingency that no issue should survive the testator’s own children. The gift to the cousin Royal is made subject to the condition that he be alive at the death of the life tenants without issue; but the gift to the widow and daughter of Royal is not made upon that condition. Their right is free from that condition expressly attached to the gift to Royal. Such omission in this context is significant. There is no gift over of this $5,000 in the event that neither the widow nor daughter of Royal live to enj oy the legacy in person. Gifts over are made in specific terms of the other two parts of the $50,000 trust fund created [472]*472by clause Fourth. That is some indication of a testamentary thought that the $5,000 part of that fund here under consideration had been disposed of fully and finally by the words expressly relating thereto. This conclusion is aided by the general presumption against partial intestacy in an elaborate and carefully drawn will. Jones v. Gane, 205 Mass. 37, 43. The gift to Royal A. Stratton and his widow and daughter was contingent upon the death of the two children of the testator without issue, but it was vested in the widow and daughter and the survivor of those two subject to that contingency and to the further condition that Royal A. Stratton should predecease them or either of them. The result is that in the circumstances here disclosed the interest in this $5,000 vested in the daughter of Royal A. Stratton dependent upon the contingency that there might be issue of the son or daughter surviving them. Upon the removal of that contingency by the events which have come to pass, title in her and in her estate became free and clear. Having become a vested interest in a contingent remainder by the predecease of her father and mother long before the termination of the last life estate, it was transmissible and became a part of her estate. It was not dependent upon her survival of the life tenants. Cummings v. Stearns, 161 Mass. 506, 508. Clarke v. Fay, 205 Mass. 228, 231-236, and cases there collected. O’Brien v. Lewis, 208 Mass. 515, 518. Porter v. Porter, 226 Mass. 204. Stowell v. Ranlett, 238 Mass. 599, 604. Porter v. Molloy, 254 Mass. 398.

The daughter of Royal A. Stratton, as already has been stated, died in 1900, and her executor has administered her estate and died. She left the residue of her estate to her husband, who died testate in 1909. His estate was settled by an administrator with the will annexed, who has since died. All the property of her husband by his will was given to “The Massachusetts Society for the Protection of Dumb Animals,” by which it is assumed that the defendant, The Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, was meant, because the residue of his estate has been paid to this defendant. In these circumstances it seems likely that all debts of these estates are either paid or [473]*473barred, and there is no objection to direct payment to this society without the appointment of an administrator de bonis non with the will annexed of either estate. Buswell v. Newcomb, 183 Mass. 111, 114. Minot v. Purrington, 190 Mass. 336, 342. State Street Trust Co. v. Morris, 218 Mass. 429, 431. Springfield Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Dwelly, 219 Mass. 65, 71.

The testamentary words as to the second part of the trust fund created and distributed by clause Fourth are these: “I direct my said trustees ... to pay and convey over to the Trustees for the time being of the New Salem Academy located in New Salem, Mass, the sum of twenty five thousand dollars to be held in trust by them, to invest said twenty five thousand dollars and to pay over the income thereof to said Institution so long as it continues to be an institution of learning — but whenever it ceases to be an institution of learning I direct said Trustees to pay said principal sum of twenty five thousand dollars to my heirs at law.”

The facts with reference to which these testamentary words must be interpreted are these: The testator was a graduate of New Salem Academy, as was also his son. In 1856 the testator gave $1,000 to the Academy. The trustees of New Salem Academy were incorporated in 1795 by c. 44, acts of 1794-1795, which is still in force and has never been amended. The trustees have continued to hold regular meetings from 1795 to the present. In 1797 and in 1869 substantial grants were made by the Commonwealth to this corporation. No question is made that prior to 1895 the trustees of the Academy conducted an institution for learning in New Salem. In 1872, when the will of the testator was executed, the trustees had funds in their possession amounting to about $15,000. The school was maintained from the income of these funds and such sums as were paid for tuition. The trustees had the entire management of the institution. They owned three buildings, together with land, one known as the Old Academy and the others as boarding houses. In 1908 they erected another building known as the New Academy building. During the period prior to 1900 there was no other school of high school grade in the town of New [474]*474Salem.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Estate of Klinkner
85 Cal. App. 3d 942 (California Court of Appeal, 1978)
Title Insurance & Trust Co. v. SS. Peter & Paul Congregation
85 Cal. App. 3d 942 (California Court of Appeal, 1978)
Wolfe v. Massachusetts Port Authority
319 N.E.2d 423 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1974)
State ex rel. Bd. of Tax Com'nrs. v. Marion Superior Ct.
203 N.E.2d 908 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1965)
E. M. Loews, Inc. v. Deutschmann
147 N.E.2d 832 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1958)
Doggett v. New England Trust Co.
97 N.E.2d 401 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1951)
Old Colony Trust Co. v. Winchester Home for Aged Women
85 N.E.2d 622 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1949)
Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Plumtree School for Boys, Inc.
51 S.E.2d 477 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1949)
Fiduciary Trust Co. v. Mishou
75 N.E.2d 3 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1947)
Massachusetts Charitable Mechanic Ass'n v. Beede
70 N.E.2d 825 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1947)
Valley Savings Bank v. Penn College
14 N.W.2d 638 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1944)
Tyler v. City Bank Farmers Trust Co.
50 N.E.2d 778 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1943)
Old Colony Trust Co. v. Rhodes
12 N.E.2d 809 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1938)
Old Colony Trust Co. v. Shackford
291 Mass. 361 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1935)
Old Colony Trust Co. v. Brown
191 N.E. 358 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1934)
Old Colony Trust Co. v. Third Universalist Society of Cambridge
285 Mass. 146 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1934)
Curtis v. First Church
285 Mass. 73 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1933)
Whiteside v. Merchants National Bank of Boston
187 N.E. 706 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
156 N.E. 885, 259 Mass. 465, 1927 Mass. LEXIS 1290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boston-safe-deposit-trust-co-v-stratton-mass-1927.