Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/276/276mass580.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 08:26:46+00:00

Document:
CHESTER K. GILMAN, administrator with the will annexed, vs. CONGREGATIONAL HOME MISSIONARY SOCIETY.
(2) The decree of the Probate Court was reversed and distribution was ordered among the legatees under the will of the daughter.
PETITION, filed in the Probate Court for the county of Suffolk on November 18, 1930, by the administrator with the will annexed of the estate of Friend Tilden, late of Boston, for distribution, the petitioner alleging that, if the balance of the estate in his hands passed under the will of Mary C. Donely, the respondent Congregational Home Missionary Society should receive one half thereof and eight other individuals one sixteenth each; but, if distribution should be made to heirs of the testator ascertained as of the death of Mary C. Donely and not as of the death of Friend Tilden, it should be among thirty-six individuals in shares ranging in size from one one thousand and eighth to one sixth.
The petition was heard by Dolan, J., by whose order there was entered a final decree ordering distribution among the thirty-six individuals.
The Congregational Home Missionary Society appealed.
S. R. Wrightington, stated the case.
H. S. Davis, for Congregational Home Missionary Society.
E. O. Proctor, (V. W. Marr with him,) for Norman L. C. Gay and others.
left as his sole heir at law a daughter, Mary C. Donely, wife of John E. Donely. At the death of her father she had a son and a daughter, but both predeceased her, as did also her husband. In 1929 she died without issue. By his will, dated in 1886, in the eighth clause, the testator gave the residue of his estate to his daughter "for and during the term of her natural life only, she to apply the income arising from the same, for her maintenance and support" and, as enlarged by a codicil, gave her "full power and authority to apply the whole or any part of the principal . . . to her own use and behoof, for her support and maintenance or otherwise, and as in her judgment only, she may deem it expedient so to do." It was provided in clause ninth: "At the decease of my said daughter, I give devise and bequeath, said rest and residue . . . to the children of my said daughter, living at the time of her said decease, or the issue of any deceased child, so living, by right of representation . . . in case at the death of my said daughter, she leaves no issue or the issue of any deceased child, living, then . . . her present husband . . . John E. Donely . . . is to hold said rest and residue . . . for and during the term of his natural life only . . . and at his decease, all said rest, residue and remainder . . . is to go to my heirs at law . . . but if said John E. Donely is not living, . . . at the time of her said decease, and she dying in manner aforesaid, then and in such case said rest, residue and remainder of my estate is to go to my heirs at law . . . ." The question for decision is whether by these words the testator meant, in the events which have come to pass, a gift to his heirs at law or a gift to those who would be his heirs at law if he had died a moment subsequent to the decease of his daughter. If he meant the former, the residue of his estate will pass under the will of his daughter; if the latter, it will be divided in different shares among thirty-six persons who would be his heirs if he had died after the death of his daughter.
194 Mass. 540. Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Blanchard, 196 Mass. 35. These decisions establish no different principle although in some there was diversity of view among the members of the court in its application. The fact that the life tenant may be one of the heirs at law, or even the sole heir at law, is not such an incongruity as to prevent the usual meaning of the word from being applicable. Keating v. Smith, 5 Cush. 232, 236. Blume v. Kimball, 222 Mass. 412. Rand v. Butler, 48 Conn. 293. Ware v. Rowland, 2 Phil. Ch. 635. It is a circumstance to be weighed with all relevant factors in ascertaining the testamentary design.
at law not to be defined until after her death. As a part of the entire instrument it is at most a word of admonition to the daughter with respect to her children.
Cases have arisen where the word "then" in relation to other parts of the will has been held to disclose a purpose that the members of a class of distributees are to be ascertained as of the date of the death of the life tenant. See, for example, Wood v. Bullard, 151 Mass. 324; Carr v. New England Anti-Vivisection Society, 234 Mass. 217. In the case at bar the word "then" in the phrase "then and in such case" has no such significance. It is not descriptive of the time when the heirs of the testator are to be ascertained. Its relation to that which goes before and that which follows is purely conjunctive denoting the time and occasion for distribution. Dove v. Torr, 128 Mass. 38, 40. Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Parker, 197 Mass. 70, 73. Brown v. Spring, 241 Mass. 565, 568. See Childs v. Russell, 11 Met. 16, 24; State Street Trust Co. v. Sampson, 228 Mass. 411, 413.
The use of the words "heirs at law" instead of "heir at law" is of slight importance as indicating that heirs are to be determined at the death of the life tenant. Welch v. Brimmer, 169 Mass. 204, 213.
ficial class of beneficiaries, rather remote kindred, instead of the class constituting his heirs, even though the daughter was his sole heir.
The case at bar falls within the class of cases illustrated by Blume v. Kimball, 222 Mass. 412, Crowell v. Chapman, 257 Mass. 492, Thompson v. Clarke, 264 Mass. 56, and Old Colony Trust Co. v. Sullivan, 268 Mass. 318, rather than within Heard v. Read, 169 Mass. 216, and Brown v. Wright, 194 Mass. 540.
It follows that the decree must be reversed and a decree entered on the footing that the words, "heirs at law" in clause ninth of the will mean the one answering that description at the death of the testator.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.