Whitman v. White

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Whitman v. White

36 A. 1135, 19 R.I. 431, 1896 R.I. LEXIS 117

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedApril 21, 1896

DocketJury Trial Waived, No. 130.

StatusPublished

This text of 36 A. 1135 (Whitman v. White) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Whitman v. White, 36 A. 1135, 19 R.I. 431, 1896 R.I. LEXIS 117 (R.I. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

We think that the testator by the third clause of the codicil to his will, in which he directs a different distribution of his property from that provided in the will, because of the decrease in his property after the will was executed, and because of his larger advances to his children other than the distributees, clearly evinced the intention to treat the so called advances as gifts. In view of these so called advances, he leaves out of the distribution directed by the third clause of the codicil the defendant and other children to whom such larger advances had been made, thereby showing, that, in order to make “a more just division” of his estate, he did not intend that those debts which he termed advances should be paid, but that his other children should have what remained of his property. We think, therefore, that the plaintiff is not entitled to maintain her suit.

Judgment for the defendant for costs.

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

We think that the testator by the third clause of the codicil to his will, in which he directs a different distribution of his property from that provided in the will, because of the decrease in his property after the will was executed, and because of his larger advances to his children other than the distributees, clearly evinced the intention to treat the so called advances as gifts. In view of these so called advances, he leaves out of the distribution directed by the third clause of the codicil the defendant and other children to whom such larger advances had been made, thereby showing, that, in order to make “a more just division” of his estate, he did not intend that those debts which he termed advances should be paid, but that his other children should have what remained of his property. We think, therefore, that the plaintiff is not entitled to maintain her suit.

Judgment for the defendant for costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 A. 1135, 19 R.I. 431, 1896 R.I. LEXIS 117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitman-v-white-ri-1896.