Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

159 Mass. 226

Holmes v. Coates

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1893-05-20

Bill in equity, filed January 7, 1885, by the executors of the will of Gideon S. Holmes, to obtain the instructions of the court as to the construction of the will, and alleging the following facts. Gideon S. Holmes, died on February 29,1880, leaving a will, dated March 24,1876, which was duly admitted to probate, and letters testamentary issued to the plaintiffs, the executors therein named. Among other provisions of the will was the following: “ Sixth.

Relies on Langdon v. . Astor's Executors · Olliffe v. Wells · Newton v. Seaman's Friend Society

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1893-05-20

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently November 1960

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

3018931900191019201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Field, C. J.

¶1A bequest for the use and benefit of disabled soldiers and seamen who served in the Union army in the late war of the Rebellion in the United States, their widows and orphans, is a good public charitable bequest. Maimed soldiers and .mariners, as well as orphans, are expressly mentioned in St. 43 Eliz. c. 4; Jackson v. Phillips, 14 Allen, 539; Powell v. Attorney General, 3 Mer. 48; Thompson v. Corby, 27 Beav. 649; Attorney General v. Comber, 2 Sim. & Stu. 93; 2 Perry on Trusts, § 699.

¶2The persons described in the bequest are in most, if not all respects the same as those entitled to receive pensions under the laws of the United States at the time when the will was executed and at the time when the testator died. U. S. Rev. Sts. §§ 4692, 4693, 4702-4706. It is contended that the bequest is void, because it is dependent upon the contents of books of account of the testator, which were not in existence when the will was made. The direction is, that, “ in ease at my decease my books of account shall not show that I have given said sum of five hundred dollars annually for said purpose,” then the executors shall pay over “ such sums of money as will make up in full to the time of my decease said annual amount of five hundred dollars per annum,” etc. See Thayer v. Wellington, 9 Allen, *229283, 292; Newton v. Seaman's Friend Society, 130 Mass. 91; Olliffe v. Wells, 130 Mass. 221. We think that the construction of this article of the will is, that the executors are to pay the amount specified unless it appears by his books of account that the testator has paid it in his lifetime. As thus construed, it is a valid disposition of property by a will duly executed. See Treadwell v. Cordis, 5 Gray, 341; Cummings v. Bramhall, 120 Mass. 552; Langdon v. Astor, 16 N. Y. 9.

¶3All the parties who have argued the case agree that for the last year the amount should be apportioned, as the testator lived eight months of that year. Either this is true, or nothing should be paid for that year. As the payments are to be made “ in full to the time of my decease,” a proportional payment for that year is perhaps what the testator intended.

¶4It must be left for a single justice to determine to whom the money shall be paid, and in what way the gift can be made effectual. Decree accordingly.

/159/mass/226 · .json · Public domain