Hartman v. Pendleton

180 P. 572, 96 Or. 503, 8 A.L.R. 904, 1920 Ore. LEXIS 184
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 27, 1920
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 180 P. 572 (Hartman v. Pendleton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hartman v. Pendleton, 180 P. 572, 96 Or. 503, 8 A.L.R. 904, 1920 Ore. LEXIS 184 (Or. 1920).

Opinions

McBRIDE, C. J.

This suit is not brought to correct an alleged mistake in the will of Samuel P. Sturgis. The plaintiffs claim that the testator made a perfect will, making it the beneficiary, and allege that defendants claim a different interpretation, whereupon it asks that the true purpose and intent [506]*506of the document be judicially declared. The defendants, on the other hand, claim that the Pendleton Public Library was the beneficiary and that there are ambiguous terms used, and ask a decree construing the will to mean that the trust fund therein provided was bequeathed to and belongs to the Pendleton Public Library, and that the same is the property of the people of the City of Pendleton.

1. If there is any ambiguity in the terms of the will it is latent and not apparent on the face of the instrument. Anyone ignorant of local conditions and controversies would, upon reading the clause in dispute, at once conclude that, (1) there was at the time an organization known as the Commercial Association of Pendleton,- (2) that it had a library, (3) that its habitat was the City of Pendleton, Oregon, and (4) that it was the intent of the testator that the trustees named in the will should expend the income of the. fund so bequeathed for the benefit of that library. If the first three of these conditions actually existed the fourth necessarily follows as a matter of law.

2. Before considering the testimony in the instant ease, it may be well to advert to some firmly established principles laid down for the construction of wills, because there is no branch of judicature which, beyond this, so much requires adherence to those rules which the wisdom and experience of generations have developed.

The remark of Tindal, C. J., in Clarke v. Ludlam, 7 Bing. 279, is one of universal application:

“I agree in the necessity of adhering to general rules in the construction of wills and other instruments. It is expedient that such rules should be held sacred, because they withdraw the decision from the discretion of the individual judge, and pre[507]*507vent him from pursuing his own views of each particular case. And there is less inconvenience in the hardship which may sometimes be occasioned by a strict adherence to the rule than in the confusion which must follow on departing from it.”

• One of these rules is this: Where the language employed in the will is clear, and of well-defined force and meaning, extrinsic evidence of what was intended in fact cannot be adduced to explain, qualify, enlarge or contradict this language, but the will must stand as written.

Applied to the concrete case, if there was in fact in Pendleton, Oregon, a library of the Commercial Association of Pendleton, extrinsic evidence cannot be introduced to show that the testator intended that “The Pendleton Public Library” was to be the beneficiary. The pivotal question in this case, therefore, is: Was there in existence at the time this will was executed an organization known as the “Commercial Association of Pendleton,” and did it own a library? If these two facts existed they settle the contention in favor of the plaintiff. If either is wanting, then it will be proper rather than the bequest should be allowed to fail because of an equivocal description, for the court to seek in extrinsic evidence an interpretation of the testator’s intention.

Thus, In re Taylor, 34 Ch. D. 255, where the testator devised property to “My cousin Harriet Cloak,” when in fact a cousin of that name had been married and no longer bore it and there was another Harriet Cloak, the wife of a cousin of the testator, parol evidence was admitted to show that the latter was the person for whom the legacy was intended.

And in Gilmer v. Stone, 120 U. S. 586 (30 L. Ed. 734, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 689, see, also, Rose’s U. S. [508]*508Notes), where a residuary estate was given for equal division “between the Board of Foreign Missions and the Board of Home Missions,” and it appeared that there were such boards in various religious denominations, evidence was admitted to show that the testator, being a zealous Presbyterian, must have intended the bequest for boards of that denomination.

On the other hand, if there is in existence a party of the name designated in the will, extrinsic evidence will not be admitted to show that another party with a different though closely similar name was intended.

Thus in Tucker v. Seaman’s Aid Society, 7 Metc. (Mass.) 188, where one Nathaniel Tucker gave a legacy to “The Seaman’s Aid Society in the city of Boston,” another society,- “The Seaman’s Friend Society,” in the same-city claimed the legacy and offered evidence to prove that the testator had no knowledge of the existence of the society named in his will; that he knew of the existence of said other society, was deeply interested in its objects, and had contributed to its funds and had frequently expressed a determination to give it a legacy; that, he directed the scrivener who wrote his will to insert the legacy, as made to said society; that the scrivener, not knowing the existence of said society, told the testator that the name of the society was the “Seaman’s Aid Society” and the testator thereupon submitted to having that' name inserted. The Supreme Court held the evidence to be inadmissible and sustained the bequest as it appeared in the will. The opinion of Chief Justice Shaw completely covers every phase of the proposition -here discussed, and it is unnecessary to cite other precedents.

It being conceded in this case, that when the will was executed there was in existence in the City of [509]*509Pendleton an organization known as the “Commercial Association of Pendleton,” we pass to the vital proposition in this case. Did the association at the time have a library? We must, from the terms of the bequest, assume that the testator thought there was a library connected with the association because the bequest is conditioned upon the continued existence of the Commercial Association. The testator says:

“If, from any cause, said Commercial Association of Pendleton ceases to exist for a period of three years, then all said five thousand dollars shall revert to my estate.”

This is not the language of a man making a gift to the general public. If the Commercial Association was not the ultimate party to be benefited, why make the bequest contingent upon the continued existence of that association. If a testator makes a bequest in favor of A., it would not be unnatural that he should provide that in case of A.’s death, the money should revert to the'testator’s estate, but if the bequest should be made to A. with the provision that it should revert in case of the death of a stranger, the sanity of the testator would be questioned.

Here the bequest is a Siamese twin to the Commercial Association. It dies with it or at least as soon thereafter as the lapse of time has demonstrated that the association is dead beyond revival. To the writer this is strong evidence that the ultimate benefit of the bequest was intended for the Commercial Association, and that while no doubt the testator expected and hoped the people of Pendleton would share in that benefit, he expected that benefit to flow through the channel of the Commercial Asso[510]

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

Related

Scarlett v. Hopper
823 P.2d 435 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1992)
Crow v. Strome
327 P.2d 414 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1958)
Heimbigner v. U. S. National Bank
227 P.2d 827 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1951)
State v. Sunbeam Rebekah Lodge No. 180
127 P.2d 726 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1942)
Van Wart v. Jones
295 F. 287 (Fourth Circuit, 1924)
Pushor v. Hilton
122 A. 673 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
180 P. 572, 96 Or. 503, 8 A.L.R. 904, 1920 Ore. LEXIS 184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartman-v-pendleton-or-1920.