Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

81 Me. 268

Moses v. Allen

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided January 21, 1889

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · decided 1889-01-21

In equity. Bill in equity, brought by the administrator, with the will annexed, of David Crooker, late of Bath, deceased, to obtain the construction of the will, by the court, upon the question as to who were entitled, as lawful claimants, to share im the estate, under the residuary clause of the will. The case was submitted, by agreement, upon the facts stated in the bill. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““All the rest and residue of my estate, real, personal, and mixed, I give, devise, and bequeath unto my nephews and nieces, in equal portions."”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Strong v. Smith

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1889-01-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently June 1922

6 state decisions

4018891890190019101920decided

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 →

Walton, J.

¶1This is a bill in equity to obtain the construction of a will. The will contains this clause: — “Sixth. All the rest and residue of my estate, real, personal, and mixed, I give, devise and bequeath unto my nephews and nieces in equal portions.” The question is whether the surviving children of deceased nephews and nieces, who died prior to the death of the testator, take the respective shares of their deceased parents. We think they do. It was decided in Nutter v. Vickery, 64 Maine, 490, that upon reason, principle and authority, the lineal descendants of a relative of the testator having a bequest in the will, are *271entitled to the legacy given to their ancestor, though the original legatee was dead at the date of the will: that such may fairly be presumed to have been the intention of the testator; and that our statute, which has been in force for nearly a century, was intended to secure this result. R. S., c. 74, § 10. The only difference between that case and this is that, in that case the relatives were referred to by name, while in this they are described by their relationship to the testator. We think this can make no difference in the application of the rule.

¶2Decree accordingly with costs (including reasonable counsel fees') to all parties, to be paid out of the estate.

Peters, C. J., Daneorth, Virgin, Emery and Haskell, JJ., concurred.
/81/me/268 · .json · Public domain