Action by a judgment creditor to secure the appropriation to the payment of his claim of the income of a testamentary trust fund of which his debtor was the beneficiary, brought to and reserved by the Superior Court in Fairfield County {Haims, J.), upon an agreed statement of facts, for the advice of this court.
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
(dissenting). Without taking space to argue the case, I dissent from the conclusion reached by the other members of the court, on the ground that the clear intent of the testatrix, derived from the words of the will, read in the light of the facts and circumstances relating to the conditions of the family of the testatrix
(Johnson
v.
Edmond,
65 Conn. 492, 495, 33 Atl. 503), is to provide for the support of her husband so as to bring the case within the third exception of the statute of 1899 referred to in the prevailing opinion. The words used were not literally in the language of the statute, for the will was executed more than a year prior to the passage of the Act. Literal compliance with the very words of the exception is not required, if the words in fact used indicate the intent to effect the purpose allowed by the statute. I think the rational interpretation of the words used requires such a construction.
