Morse v. Stearns

131 Mass. 389, 1881 Mass. LEXIS 266
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedSeptember 7, 1881
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 131 Mass. 389 (Morse v. Stearns) 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
Morse v. Stearns, 131 Mass. 389, 1881 Mass. LEXIS 266 (Mass. 1881).

Opinion

Lord, J.

The testatrix had two nephews, one named Joseph White Sprague, and the other, Joseph Sprague Stearns; and each claims the legacy which is given in these words: “ To my nephew J. S. Sprague, I give five thousand dollars.”

This is a bill in equity brought by the administrator with the will annexed, to which all the legatees under the will are made parties, in order that all the others beside the two nephews may appear and show that the said bequest is void for ambiguity ; because it is apprehended that the estate of the testatrix, being largely real estate, has so depreciated in value that not sufficient remains to pay all the specific legacies in the will; and the residuary legatees are made parties for the purpose of sustaining their right to have this legacy go into the residuum of the estate.

The bill was taken pro eonfesso as against all the parties except the two nephews, and they were required to interplead between themselves, each to show his right to the legacy.

There is no doubt that it is a proper subject for a bill of inter-pleader. From the earliest time, matters of this kind have been the subject of judicial determination, and many rules have been [390]*390established for determining to whom a legacy shall be paid, when the legatee is not described with exact accuracy, and the description of whom may in some respects be applicable to several different persons, each of whom claims the legacy.

Extrinsic evidence of the conduct and the declarations of the testator is competent. They are not to be deemed direct proof of testamentary intention, but as showing the testator’s relation to, and state of feeling towards, any of the respective claimants. The language of the will is to be interpreted with- reference to the subject matter and all the surrounding facts of the case. A construction is not to be given which is contradictory to the terms of the will. By this it is not meant that the construction of the language of the will must be exactly consistent with every word used in the will, but that the purpose and intention of the testator must be gathered from the language of the will taken in connection with all the surrounding and attendant circumstances.

Various other rules have been established to which it is not necessary to refer, for they are rules made necessary by the peculiar facts of the various cases, many of which have been decided upon the particular and special facts of the case. Sometimes it happens that a will is made when the testator is in extremis, when his voice is feeble and low, and his enunciation indistinct. Sometimes a beneficiary is spoken of by the testator by an abbreviated or by a pet name. The reported cases show many instances of these and other kinds of difficulties and obscurities; but no facts in this case make it necessary or even proper to refer to all the cases which have occurred, nor to the rules which it has been found necessary to establish in determining them. It is sufficient for us to say, that the bequest is to “ J. S. Sprague,” with the use of initials only to indicate the Christian name of the legatee; that that designation is more nearly applicable to Joseph White Sprague than to Joseph Sprague Stearns, inasmuch as the surname corresponds, and the variance is only in the initial letter of the middle name. It cannot be doubted that the bequest was intended for one of these nephews; and, taking all the extrinsic evidence of relation to the parties and circumstances into consideration, there is not sufficient to control the inference in favor of the nephew Sprague.

B. E. Ware, for J. W. Sprague. C. Sobinson, Jr., for J. S. Stearns.

The difficulty having been created by act of the testatrix, the costs of all parties, taxed as between solicitor and client, should come out of the general estate. Charter v. Charter, L. R. 7 H. L. 364. Deane v. Home for Aged Colored Women, 111 Mass. 132.

Becree accordingly.

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

Related

In Re Living Trust Created by Atwood
35 N.W.2d 736 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1949)
Atwood v. Holmes
35 N.W.2d 736 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1949)
Gray v. McCausland
51 N.E.2d 441 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1943)
Taylor v. Albree
34 N.E.2d 601 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1941)
In Re the Estate of Foster
34 Haw. 376 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1937)
Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Prindle
195 N.E. 793 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1935)
Calder v. Bryant
184 N.E. 440 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1933)
First National Bank v. Perkins Institute for the Blind
176 N.E. 532 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1931)
Brown v. Marsh
123 So. 762 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1929)
Inter-Southern Life Insurance v. McDaniel
19 S.W.2d 269 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1929)
First National Bank v. Reynolds
143 A. 266 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1928)
Bond v. Riley
296 S.W. 401 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1927)
Kingman v. New Bedford Home for Aged
129 N.E. 449 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1921)
In re the Estate of Brown
24 Haw. 573 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1918)
German Evangelical Peace Ass'n v. Arnold
184 Iowa 165 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1918)
Security Bank of New York v. Callahan
220 Mass. 84 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1915)
Polsey v. Newton
85 N.E. 574 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1908)
In re the Estate of Doetz
120 A.D. 10 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1907)
Best v. Berry
75 N.E. 743 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1905)
Gould v. Chamberlain
68 N.E. 39 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
131 Mass. 389, 1881 Mass. LEXIS 266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morse-v-stearns-mass-1881.