Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

79 Me. 177

Wallace v. Hawes

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided February 28, 1887

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · decided 1887-02-28

Bill in equity by the administrator, with the will annexed of the estate of Jane H. Hawes, brought to obtain a construction of the will, which was as follows : I, Jane H. Hawes, of Searsmont, in the county of Waldo and state of Maine, being weak in body, but of a sound mind and memory (blessed be Almighty God for the same), do make, publish and declare this my last will and testament, in manner and form following, viz. : 1.

Decided 1887-02-28

Peters, C. J.

¶1The instrument which calls for an interpretation under this bill, is an illustration of the confusion of ideas which prevails among unskilful persons who write their own or-their neighbors’ wills. While the idea of this testatrix might be conjectured to be one thing, the language used so clearly and absolutely expresses a different thing, we can only follow the. general rules of construction which appertain to such cases.

¶2In the first clause of the will, she gives to her husband an absolute estate in her farm, valued at six hundred dollars, her-principal or only property. By R. S., c. 74, § 16, a devise of land conveys all the estate of the devisor therein, unless it appears by the will that he intended to convey a less estate. Iff the other portions of the will had the effect to prevent a fee passing to the husband, he would take no estate at all, but only a life support.

¶3In the second clause, the testatrix does not cut the fee down to a life estate or otherwise qualify it, but " declares ” the husband is to have his support out of the farm as long as he lives. In the next item she also declares that another person shall receive-his support out of the same farm, "in accord unto former agreement,” when, as the case finds, there never was any agreement about such a matter.

¶4In the next item, she undertook to provide for the erection off grave stones for her husband and herself, but fails to make a sensible provision.

¶5She, then, in the next item, " orders ” that still another, person,. " if he proves faithful and remains on the farm” until the death, of the before named persons, shall have the residue of her estate, and that, if he does not so behave himself, the same shall be-divided among several other persons.

¶6The wife, having first given the whole estate to her husband, and using afterwards no appropriate language to cut it down or take it away from him, the interpretation of the will must be-that he takes a fee in the farm, subject to her debts and last expenses. Mitchell v. Morse, 77 Maine, 423.

¶7Decree accordingly.

Walton, Danforth, Virgin, Emery, Foster and Haskell, JJ., concurred.
/79/me/177 · .json · Public domain