Bill in Equity, for an adjudication of the conflicting claims of the defendants to a balance remaining in the hands of the plaintiff as trustee under the will of Charles Moody. ■ The following are the material provisions of the will: “2.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1880-12-05
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently November 1964
14 state decisions
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.
¶1
The interpretation of a will is the ascertainment of the testator’s intention ; and the question of intention is ordinarily determined as a question of fact by the natural weight of competent evidence.
Rice
v.
Society,
56 N. H. 191, 197, 198, 203;
Brown
v.
Bartlett,
58 N. H. 511. In this case there is no statute that defeats the testator’s intention; and a legal rule, having that effect, cannot be invented by the court, and cannot be enforced unless shown to have been duly enacted by a body authorized to make law. There is a balance in the trustee’s hands, which has been held and used, according to the order of the will, during the life of the testator’s widow; but the will does not direct how it shall be disposed of after her death. We think the will proves the fact that the testator intended no legal or equitable title of this balance should vest in any other person than the trustee and widow during her life. The balance goes to Lucy A. Lancaster, who was the testator’s next of kin at the decease of the widow.
