Case ID: mass_167/html/0292-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Allen, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Margaret J. Wynn, administratrix, vs. Nelson S. Bartlett & others, executors.
    Essex.
    November 4, 1896.
    January 8, 1897.
    Present: Allen, Morton, Lathrop, & Barker, JJ.
    
      Will — Principal of Trust Fund — Life Estate — Residue.
    
    If there is nothing in a will to show an intention that anything should be paid to a legatee except the income of a fund during life, the fund upon his death falls into the residue, and an action by his administrator against the executors to recover the amount thereof cannot be maintained.
    Contract, by the administratrix of the estate of William E. Wynn, to recover the legacy given by the forty-first paragraph of the will of Samuel E. Sawyer, late of Gloucester.
    The testator died on December 15, 1889. The paragraph in question is as follows: “ 41. I give and bequeath to my executors and trustees, the survivors and survivor of them, the sum of four thousand dollars, to be safely invested, and the income only paid over semiannually to my coachman, William Wynn of Gloucester.” The will contained a residuary clause. The plaintiff’s intestate died on June 6,1892, and is the William Wynn named above.
    The defendants demurred to the declaration, assigning as ground therefor'that the intestate took only the income for life in the fund in question. In the Superior Court, Braley, J. sustained the demurrer, and ordered judgment for the defendants; and the plaintiff appealed to this court.
    
      J. J. Flaherty, for the plaintiff.
    
      C. A. Russell, for the defendants.
   Allen, J.

In Bartlett, petitioner, 168 Mass. 509, 521, it was said by the court, with reference to this bequest, “ Wynn having since died, the interest up to the time of his death is payable to his estate; the principal of this trust fund belongs to the residue of the testator’s estate.” The plaintiff now says that she had no notice of that suit, and did not appear, and is not bound by what was there declared. It is, however, obvious that it was right. The language of the bequest was that “ the income only ” should be paid to Wynn; and there was a general residuary clause. There is nothing to show an intention that anything should be paid to him except the income during his life. In re Grove’s trusts, 28 L. J. (N. S.) Ch. 536. In re Morgan, [1893] 3 Ch. 222. Judgment for the defendants affirmed.