Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

67 N.H. 216

29 A 638

Hancock v. Lyon

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided June 5, 1892

Supreme Court of New Hampshire · decided 1892-06-05

Bill in Equity, for the construction of a will and the recovery of a legacy. Facts found by the court. August 14,1879, Harriet Lyon, then of Franklin, N. H., and being there, made and executed her will as follows: 1. She gives and bequeaths to Edward Lyon one dollar. 2.

Relies on Mann v. Mann · Jenkins v. Fowler

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1892-06-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently December 1952

2 district · 3 state decisions

201892190019101920193019401950decided

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 →

Clark, J.

¶1 it is held, in Jenkins v. Fowler, 63 N. H. 244, that the phrase “ all my moneys ” covered deposits in savings-banks and railroad stock not specifically devised. This interpretation was based upon the evidence of the testator’s intention as ascertained from the will, the fact that it contained no residuary clause, and that the deposits and stock were not disposed of by the testator unless they passed under the term “ money,” and the fact that the remainder of the estate was not sufficient to satisfy the other bequests of the will. Under these circumstances it was considered that the testator used the word “ moneys ” in a broader sense than its ordinary signification. In its ordinary and popular sense, “ money ” signifies cash or its equivalent used as a circulating medium. It does not include choses in action, or money loaned or deposited as an investment, or due on notes, bonds, and mortgages. It may properly include money deposited in a bank to be checked out by the owner at his pleasure, and used and treated as cash placed there for safe keeping. Mann v. Mann, 14 Johns. 1.

¶2 It is apparent that the testatrix used the phrases “ what money I may have on hand ” and “what money may be remaining at my decease ” as embracing the same subject-matter, and there is nothing indicating that she used the word “ money ” in any sense different from, the ordinary acceptation. The reasonable inference is that she meant, by “ money on hand ” and “ money remaining at my decease,” money in her actual possession and control and available for immediate use, — not money invested or deposited at interest in a savings-bank at a distance, and from which it could be drawn only at certain times and under certain conditions prescribed by the rules of the bank. The general provisions of the will, in connection with the situation of the testatrix and her property, indicate a purpose that the defendant should receive the bulk of her estate; and the defendant is entitled to the savings-bank deposit.

¶3 Appeal dismissed and decree of prolate court affirmed.

Allen, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
/67/nh/216 · .json · Public domain