Conant v. Kent

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Conant v. Kent

130 Mass. 178, 1881 Mass. LEXIS 42

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJanuary 6, 1881

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 130 Mass. 178 (Conant v. Kent) 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

Conant v. Kent, 130 Mass. 178, 1881 Mass. LEXIS 42 (Mass. 1881).

Pincite

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

By the General Statutes, if a person died intestate, leaving no issue, and no father nor mother, his estate went in equal shares to his “ brothers and sisters, and to the children of any deceased brother or sister by'right of representation ; ” and “ if he leaves no issue, and no father, mother, brother nor sister, then to his next of kin in equal degree.” Gen. Sts. c. 91, § 1, cls. 3, 5; c. 94, § 16. Under those statutes, it was held that where an intestate left no issue, father nor mother, but left one sister, children of another sister, and children of deceased children of a third sister, these grand-nephews or grandnieces could not share in the distribution. Bigelow v. Morong, 103 Mass. 287.

A statute passed in 1876, under which the present case arises, reenacted the first clause above quoted, with the substitution of the word “ issue ” for the word “ children; ” so that in a case like Bigelow v. Morong the grandchildren of a deceased sister would take a share of the estate. But the clause so altered applies only when the intestate leaves a surviving brother or sister; and the statute of 1876 reenacted in its very words the second clause above quoted. St. 1876, c. 220, § 1, els. 5, 6; § 4. The clear words of this clause require that, if the intestate leaves no issue nor parent, and no brother nor sister, his estate should go “ to his next of kin in equal degree.” The necessary consequence is that, when no brother nor sister of the intestate survives him, the estate goes to the children of deceased brothers or sisters as the next of kin of the intestate, to the exclusion of children of deceased nephews or nieces.

The words of the statute being clear and unambiguous, it is not for the court to conjecture whether the distinction in the rights of grandchildren of a deceased brother or sister, depending upon the fact whether any brother or sister survived the intestate, was intentional or accidental; nor can the St. of 1880, e. 219, abolishing the distinction, and allowing the issue, in whatever degree, of every deceased brother or sister, to share by right of representation in all such cases, affect rights vested under the statute of 1876.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Gray, C. J.

By the General Statutes, if a person died intestate, leaving no issue, and no father nor mother, his estate went in equal shares to his “ brothers and sisters, and to the children of any deceased brother or sister by'right of representation ; ” and “ if he leaves no issue, and no father, mother, brother nor sister, then to his next of kin in equal degree.” Gen. Sts. c. 91, § 1, cls. 3, 5; c. 94, § 16. Under those statutes, it was held that where an intestate left no issue, father nor mother, but left one sister, children of another sister, and children of deceased children of a third sister, these grand-nephews or grandnieces could not share in the distribution. Bigelow v. Morong, 103 Mass. 287.

A statute passed in 1876, under which the present case arises, reenacted the first clause above quoted, with the substitution of the word “ issue ” for the word “ children; ” so that in a case like Bigelow v. Morong the grandchildren of a deceased sister would take a share of the estate. But the clause so altered applies only when the intestate leaves a surviving brother or sister; and the statute of 1876 reenacted in its very words the second clause above quoted. St. 1876, c. 220, § 1, els. 5, 6; § 4. The clear words of this clause require that, if the intestate leaves no issue nor parent, and no brother nor sister, his estate should go “ to his next of kin in equal degree.” The necessary consequence is that, when no brother nor sister of the intestate survives him, the estate goes to the children of deceased brothers or sisters as the next of kin of the intestate, to the exclusion of children of deceased nephews or nieces.

The words of the statute being clear and unambiguous, it is not for the court to conjecture whether the distinction in the rights of grandchildren of a deceased brother or sister, depending upon the fact whether any brother or sister survived the intestate, was intentional or accidental; nor can the St. of 1880, e. 219, abolishing the distinction, and allowing the issue, in whatever degree, of every deceased brother or sister, to share by right of representation in all such cases, affect rights vested under the statute of 1876.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 Mass. 178, 1881 Mass. LEXIS 42, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conant-v-kent-mass-1881.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack