Rodler v. Union Trust Co. of District of Columbia

D.C. Circuit

Rodler v. Union Trust Co. of District of Columbia

119 F.2d 454, 73 App. D.C. 350, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 3754

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMarch 31, 1941

DocketNo. 7604

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 119 F.2d 454 (Rodler v. Union Trust Co. of District of Columbia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rodler v. Union Trust Co. of District of Columbia, 119 F.2d 454, 73 App. D.C. 350, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 3754 (D.C. Cir. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

EDGERTON, Associate Justice.

The will of Lemuel F. Clark provided for the division of his real estate, upon the termination of a trust, “equally among all my children * * * and if any of my said children should die before such division is made, it is my will and intention that the child or children of any such deceased child or children shall receive the same share of my estate as his, her or their parent would be entitled to if living.” Before the termination of the trust the testator’s son Blake died, leaving four children and a granddaughter. Appellant, the granddaughter, is the daughter of Blake’s daughter Margaret, who died before he did. The question is whether appellant is entitled to share in the distribution of the trust property. This depends on whether the testator’s reference to the “child or children” of his deceased child is to mean what it says, or is to be expanded to include a grandchild of the deceased child. It is settled that the word children, used in a will to express kinship, includes only immediate offspring unless there is evidence that the testator intended a broader sense.¹ As there is no such evidence here, appellant is excluded.

Affirmed.

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

EDGERTON, Associate Justice.

The will of Lemuel F. Clark provided for the division of his real estate, upon the termination of a trust, “equally among all my children * * * and if any of my said children should die before such division is made, it is my will and intention that the child or children of any such deceased child or children shall receive the same share of my estate as his, her or their parent would be entitled to if living.” Before the termination of the trust the testator’s son Blake died, leaving four children and a granddaughter. Appellant, the granddaughter, is the daughter of Blake’s daughter Margaret, who died before he did. The question is whether appellant is entitled to share in the distribution of the trust property. This depends on whether the testator’s reference to the “child or children” of his deceased child is to mean what it says, or is to be expanded to include a grandchild of the deceased child. It is settled that the word children, used in a will to express kinship, includes only immediate offspring unless there is evidence that the testator intended a broader sense.¹ As there is no such evidence here, appellant is excluded.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 F.2d 454, 73 App. D.C. 350, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 3754, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodler-v-union-trust-co-of-district-of-columbia-cadc-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack