Sewall v. Elder

181 N.E. 720, 279 Mass. 473, 1932 Mass. LEXIS 959
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJune 28, 1932
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 181 N.E. 720 (Sewall v. Elder) 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
Sewall v. Elder, 181 N.E. 720, 279 Mass. 473, 1932 Mass. LEXIS 959 (Mass. 1932).

Opinion

Rugg, C.J.

The questions here presented involve the interpretation of the will of Charles Cummings. He died testate in 1907 leaving a son, George D. Cummings, whose wife was Anna F. Cummings and whose daughter was Alice J. Cummings. Anna F. Cummings died in 1916. Alice J. Cummings married Lancaster H. Heustis and died in 1923 leaving her husband (who was appointed administrator of her estate) and three minor children. George D. Cummings, having survived both his wife and daughter, died in 1928. He was appointed, in 1907, executor of the will of the testator and continued to be such executor until his death. The testator by the first clause of his will .gave to his son, George D. Cummings, “all my estate, real, personal or mixed and wherever found and however situated, to have and to hold the same for and during the term of his natural life, for his proper use, benefit and support and maintenance, he to have the income thereof and also as much of the principal sum as he may deem necessary for the comfortable support of himself or of his family.” The fifth clause of the will is in these words: [476]*476“If after the decease of George D. Cummings his wife Anna F. Cummings survives him and her share of his estate does not amount to the sum of five thousand dollars I hereby direct my executor to immediately pay to her from my estate the difference between what she received from her husband’s estate and the said sum of five thousand dollars. And to further insure her competent support, I hereby direct that my executor deposit, as soon after my decease as may be, in the Medford or some other Massachusetts Savings Bank the sum of one thousand dollars there to remain until the death of my son George D. Cummings and that five years thereafter there be paid from said deposit the sum of two hundred dollars to Anna F. Cummings. I also direct that for the four ensuing years a like amount be paid to her each year from said deposit and all accrued interest on the deposit is to be paid to her the following year. Should her death occur either before or after the first payment becomes due then I direct my executor to pay to my grand daughter Alice J. Cummings whatever remains of the original deposit aforesaid and the accrued interest; but in case said Alice J. Cummings is not living then said remainder is to be paid to the Treasurer of the Mystic Church in Medford for the benefit of said Church.” George D. Cummings complied with the direction in clause fifth of the will by depositing in a savings bank in May, 1907, the sum of $1,000. That sum remained on deposit until his death. It was in his name as executor of the will of the testator. He filed a permanent dividend order with the bank under which all dividends accruing on the deposit during his life were sent to him and were received and used by him personally. The matter to be decided is the rights of the respective parties to this deposit and the dividends that accrued thereon both before and after the death of George D. Cummings.

The hearing was upon an agreed statement of facts. Therefore this court considers the questions involved without reference to the decision of the trial judge. Sanderson v. Norcross, 242 Mass. 43, 44.

The accepted rule for the interpretation of a will is to [477]*477ascertain the intent of the maker as gathered from the testamentary language read in the light of the knowledge possessed by him and of the material circumstances attendant upon him at the time, attributing due weight to all the words used, not stressing provisions of doubtful meaning but searching for a general plan from a survey of the whole instrument, presumably designed to express a consistent and harmonious purpose, and then to give effect to that intent unless prevented by some rule of law. Williams v. Bradley, 3 Allen, 270, 280. Polsey v. Newton, 199 Mass. 450, 453. Ware v. Minot, 202 Mass. 512, 516. Eustace v. Dickey, 240 Mass. 55, 72-73. Temple v. Russell, 251 Mass. 231, 235-236. Anderson v. Bean, 272 Mass. 432, 438.

The first clause of the will contains words of unmistakable import to the effect that George D. Cummings is to have the use of the entire estate of the testator during his life, and all the income thereof. This thought is emphasized to the extent of redundancy. Such a positive provision perhaps may in conceivable instances be cut down by a subsequent repugnant clause. Shattuck v. Balcom, 170 Mass. 245, 251. But the phraseology here used in its context goes far toward expressing a purpose intended to be regnant over other parts of the instrument. It was the provision made by the testator for his only child, a son, who at the date of the will was about fifty years old. Upon that child rested the burden of supporting his wife and daughter, who were the chief beneficiaries under the fifth clause of the will. In him the testator manifestly had great confidence, for he was named executor and exempted from giving sureties upon his official bond. The first clause must be considered in connection with the fifth clause.

The first sentence of the fifth clause may be disregarded because it never became operative, since Anna F. Cummings did not survive George D. Cummings. The rest of that clause relates to the deposit of $1,000 in the savings bank. That provision was designed primarily for the benefit of Anna F. Cummings. The requirement that the de[478]*478posit remain in the savings bank until the death of George D. Cummings, and thereafter be applied solely for the benefit of his wife Anna and his daughter Alice, bears indication of testamentary intent that the provision of clause first to the effect that George D. Cummings might use as much of the principal sum as he thought necessary should not be applicable to this deposit, at least not -until the rest of the estate was exhausted. That question, however, does not arise because George D. Cummings kept the original deposit of $1,000 intact. Clause fifth, however, draws a distinction between the original deposit and the interest thereon. The direction to the executor is to “deposit . . . the sum of one thousand dollars” in some savings bank “there to remain until the death of my son.” As matter of grammatical construction the direction “to remain” is confined to the deposit. No express reference is found in the clause to the interest on the deposit during the time it is required so to remain. The payments to Anna F. Cummings, beginning with $200 at the expiration of five years after the death of her husband, are to be made “from said deposit.” The like payment of the same sum in each of the four ensuing years is to be made “from said deposit.” It is to be observed that these five payments would precisely exhaust the original deposit. “All accrued interest on the deposit” was to be paid her in the following or tenth year after the death of her husband. At the usual savings bank rate, the interest likely to accrue within the time posited in this clause to elapse after the death of George D. Cummings would slightly exceed $200. Thus the first five payments would be of the same sum and the final payment would not vary very much from that sum. “Accrued interest” aptly describes the income from the deposit after the death of the life tenant, George D. Cummings. The same words in the fourth sentence of the clause are used in the same sense. Clark v. State Street Trust Co. 270 Mass. 140, 151.

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

Related

Hochberg v. Proctor
441 Mass. 403 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2004)
Kilfoyle v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
56 Mass. App. Dec. 134 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1975)
Tucci v. DiGregorio
265 N.E.2d 570 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1970)
Campbell v. Anusbigian
153 N.E.2d 757 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1958)
Crockett v. Crockett
126 N.E.2d 363 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1955)
Morris v. Smith
123 N.E.2d 212 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1954)
Old Colony Trust Co. v. Stetson
96 N.E.2d 245 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1951)
McHale v. Treworgy
90 N.E.2d 908 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1950)
Jewett v. Brown
65 N.E.2d 307 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1946)
Pitman v. Pitman
50 N.E.2d 69 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1943)
Sears v. Childs
35 N.E.2d 663 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1941)
Taylor v. Albree
34 N.E.2d 601 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1941)
Mills v. Blakelin
30 N.E.2d 873 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1940)
Beals v. Magenis
31 N.E.2d 20 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1940)
Cronan v. Cronan
190 N.E. 721 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1934)
Hull v. Adams
190 N.E. 510 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1934)
O'Reilly v. Irving
188 N.E. 253 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1933)
North Adams National Bank v. Curtiss
187 N.E. 546 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1933)
Stuart v. Sargent
186 N.E. 649 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1933)
McInnes v. Spillane
185 N.E. 47 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
181 N.E. 720, 279 Mass. 473, 1932 Mass. LEXIS 959, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sewall-v-elder-mass-1932.