Case ID: va_22/html/0097-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "JUDGE BROOKE,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Trigg and Wife v. King’s Representatives.
    December, 1822.
    Wills — Construction—All Parts Taken Together. — A testator gives to bis two nieces, $10,000. "in twelve months after marriage, provided they are then eighteen years of age; if not, at the age of eighteen.” Although these words import a joint interest in $10,000, they may be explained by circumstances to be collected from other parts of the will, to mean a legacy to each of his nieces, of $10,000.
    This was an appeal from the superior court of chancery, holden at Wythe courthouse.
    Joseph Trigg and Elizabeth his wife, filed a bill against Eilbourn L. Henderson and others, representatives of William King deceased, claiming a legacy of $10,000, which had been left to the female plaintiff by his will, who, before her marriage, was Elizabeth Findlay. The clause in question was in these words: “To my nieces Elizabeth Findlay, and Elizabeth Mitchell, (being called after my grandmother with whom I was brought up,) ten thousand dollars in twelve months after marriage, provided they are then eighteen years of age; if not, at the age of eighteen.” In the preceding clause, he gives a *like sum of $10,000 to his nephew Connally Findlay. The testator was a man of large estate, and believed himself fully able to pay all the legacies.
    Henderson, the executor, answered, that he interpreted the will to give nothing more than 10,000 dollars to both the legatees; that, under that construction, the female plaintiff would only be entitled to $5,000, which he had already paid to her: that in other parts of his will, whenever the testator intends a several legacy, he is careful in saying to each of the legatees, &c.
    The other defendants answer to the same effect.
    The chancellor dismissed the bill, and the plaintiffs appealed to this court.
    Wickham, for the appellants.
    No counsel for the appellees.
    
      
      ISee monographic note on “Wills” appended to Hughes v. Hughes, 2 Munf. 209.
    
   JUDGE BROOKE,

December 14. — delivered the opinion of the court.

■ The court is of opinion, that the words of Wm. King, the testator, used in the devise to the female plaintiff, and Elizabeth Mitchell, his two nieces, are not so imperative as to compel the court to adopt a construction of them, in conflict with the intention of the testator, to be collected from that and other parts of the will. It is evident to1 the court, that the testator believed himself able to give to his two nieces $10,000 each. He assigns in the clause the reasons why they were his favourites. That sum is given in the preceding clause to his nephew, Connally Find-lay, and, as is said by the chancellor, seems to be a favourite one. The devise to the young man who should remain in his service at his decease, is clearly a several devise, though the language would equally seem to import a joint interest in the legatees. The words in the clause in question, are, “to *my nieces, Elizabeth Findlay and Elizabeth Mitchell, $10,000 in twelve months after marriage, provided they are then eighteen years of age; if not, at the age of eighteen.” It is true the language imports a joint interest; but, in effect, must be understood as intending a several interest. It was improbable that his two nieces would marry at the same point of time; nor does it appear that they would arrive at the age of eighteen at the same period. He must have intended that each of his nieces should have $10,000 at the periods mentioned, or it is believed he would have used other words, or have added some in explanation. On the whole, the court is of opinion, that the female plaintiff was entitled to receive $10,000 at the expiration of twelve months after marriage, if she was then eighteen; or, at the age of eighteen, if then unmarried.

The decree dismissing the bill is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceeding, according to the principles of this decree. 
      
      Judge Gbeen did not sit.tbe case having been argued before' his appointment. — Note in Original Edition.
     
      
      This cause having been argued before the appointment of Judge Gbeen, he did not sit in it.— Note in Original Edition.