Welman v. Neufville

75 Ga. 124
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 9, 1886
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 75 Ga. 124 (Welman v. Neufville) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Welman v. Neufville, 75 Ga. 124 (Ga. 1886).

Opinion

Hall, Justice.

The complete analysis of the will to be construed, the clear and concise statement of the questions raised, and their satisfactory determination by Judge Adams, relieve us of much trouble and labor in the investigation and decision of this case, and render almost superfluous any addition, upon our own part, to his luminous judgment, which is so clear and concise, and withal so complete and comprehensive, that we cannot do better than to transcribe and adopt it as our own opinion. To this conclusion, we have come after listening to and carefully considering the arguments and authorities presented by the learned and able counsel for both the contending parties. The following, save and except its merely formal parts, is that opinion:

[127]*127“This case involves the construction of the seventeenth item of the will of Miss Jane M. Young, which said seventeenth item is as follows :
‘ To my friend, Miss Margaret M. Welman, I give and bequeath all the silver, jewelry and other personal effects I may die possessed of, and not hereinbefore enumerated, having already communicated to her my wishes on the subject, and in connection with this bequest, I state that all the silver owned by me when the city of Savannah was captured by General Sherman, as well as that left by my aunt, Mrs. Scott, was at that time stolen.’
Of the preceding items, it is sufficient to say that the first directs that the debts of the testatrix be paid. The second directs that $500 be paid to her friend, Miss Welman, tobe by her appropriated to the erection of suitable monuments to the memory of the deceased mother and aunt of testatrix. The third bequeaths lot 3,4th tything, Anson ward, and improvements and all household and kitchen furniture, to ‘the church wardens and vestrymen of the Episcopal church in Savannah, called Christ Church,’ and their successors in trust, as a parsonage for the residence of the rector of said church, and if not required for this purpose, then to be disposed of as may be deemed best conducive to the interests of said church, the furniture not to be sold, but if any portion of it be not needed for the parsonage, to be distributed among her servants, or the poor of the congregation of said church. The other preceding items distribute certain shares of Central Railroad stock among various charities, most of them connected with the Episcopal church, and among a few friends, the daughters of the late Bishop Elliott and others. The eighteenth and last item is as follows:
‘ All the rest and residue of my estate not hereinbefore specifically devised, bequeathed or disposed of, of what kind soever and wheresoever located, I give, devise and bequeath to the church wardens and vestrymen of the Episcopal church, in the city of Savannah, called Christ Church, and to their successors forever, whom I declare my residuary legatees, to be by them held or applied to and for the use and benefit of the said church in such manner as they may deem best for its interest.’
A codicil to this will bequeaths to said wardens of Christ Church seven shares of the stock of the Merchants’ National Bank in trust to pay over the dividends to Wm. Waters, a former slave of testatrix, during his .life, and after his death, ‘to hold said stock to the said the church wardens and vestrymen of the Episcop d church, in the city of Savannah, called Christ Church, with the rest and residue of my estate as provided, declared and bequeathed in the eighteenth item of my said will.’
If we do not adoptHhe view which is favorable to the contention of this complainant, it is not the fault of the distinguished counsel, [128]*128who have so ably and earnestly maintained it. The authorities which they have so industriously collated, and the arguments by which these authorities have been so skillfully enforced, have received the most careful consideration of this court. More than ever has that consideration impressed us with the slight utility of precedents in the determination of questions of this character. Here, as always in the construction of a will, the great purpose is to discover and to effectuate the intention of the testator.
To us it is perfectly apparent that the words ‘ personal effects,’ as used in the 17th item of this will, are employed in a restrictive sense; that they were intended by Miss Young to embrace only ‘ effects ’ of ‘personal’ use, like ‘jewelry and silver;’ that they were notintended to operate on the residuum of her personal estate, but that this entire residuum is clearly and certainly bequeathed to Christ Church, named as the residuary legatee in the 18th and last item of the will.
This bequest of ‘silver, jewelry and other personal effects’ is accompanied with the statement that the' testatrix has already communicated to her friend, Miss Welman, her wishes on the subject. These wishes are not declared in the will. They have been confided to Miss Welman. They are to control her disposition of these ‘ personal ’ effects. This language is entirely comprehensible and reasonable when applied to articles having but slight pecuniary value, having a value derived chiefly from association and personal use. This language is entirely incomprehensible and unreasonable, if applied to the valuable property, aggregating some $25,000, which formed the residuum of this personal estate. It is evident that the testa-. mentary scheme of Miss Young was by her carefully considered as to its minutest details. It is likewise evident that her purpose was to express this scheme with particularity and certainty in her will. This scheme involves a number of individuals and institutions made the recipient of pecuniary bounties, each being carefully described— the recipient of ten shares of stock, the recipient of five shares, the recipient of the income during life from seven shares. With this evidence of careful and particular direction afforded by these legacies, how can it be assumed that, in disposing of the great bulk of her personal estate, this testatrix left undefined and undeclared the trusts which were to govern its use ?
The gift of these ‘ effects ’ is not an absolute gift. The‘wishes communicated’ impress upon it a trust, a most important and responsible trust, if it involves the disposition of this large personal estate. What were these wishes ? What the trust? Who and what were to be its beneficiaries? Miss Young was without kindred. She particularizes the different persons and objects that she seems to have associated with her testamentary scheme. What other wishes can be reasonably imputed to her, that are to operate upon quite the moiety of her fortune, save those wishes of which (as we conceive) her will [129]*129contains tlie specific declaration? We think that the language employed in connection with this bequest, and to which we have adverted, in itself furnishes a convincing and unanswerable argument against the construction which is maintained by the complainant.
The eighteenth and last item of this will bequeaths all the rest and residue of this estate, not thereinbefore specifically devised, of what kind soever and wheresoever located, to the wardens of Christ Church, who are declared to be the residuary legatees.
Here is an express gift of the entire estate, excepting only that which has been before specifically devised.

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

Related

Cannon v. First National Bank
229 S.E.2d 361 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1976)
In re the Will of Burnside
185 Misc. 808 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1945)
Blakeman v. Harwell
31 S.E.2d 50 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1944)
Mathis v. Causey
159 S.E. 240 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1931)
Barney v. May
160 N.W. 790 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
75 Ga. 124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/welman-v-neufville-ga-1886.