TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Brigham v. Wheeler

Charles Brigham & another, Executors v. William H Wheeler & another

Brigham v. Wheeler, 49 Mass. 127 (1844)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 15, 1844
Judges
Wilde
Citations
49 Mass. 127
Headnotes
A testator, by his will, gave real and personal property to the children ot ms nephew, and their heirs and assigns forever, and appointed their father to be their guardian, without giving bonds, a for the purpose of receiving and managing said property so given.” Held, that said appointment of a guardian was void, for want of authority in the testator $ and that the will could not be so construed as to vest an estate in trust in the father of the children.
Summary
Appeal from a decree of the judge of probate. The parties submitted the case to the court upon the following facts: Jonathan Wheeler, of Grafton, by his last will, (which was duly proved and allowed,) after disposing of part of his property, made this provision ; to wit, “ the residue and remainder of my estate I order divided into two equal shares, and give and devise the same as follows, viz. one share or half to the child or children, now born or hereafter to be born, of my niece, Hannah A. Mills, (wife of Lewis Mills,) their heirs and assigns forever; and the other share or half to the children, now born or hereafter to be born, of my nephew, Jonathan D. Wheeler, their heirs and assigns forever. And I hereby appoint the said Lewis Mills, and the said Jonathan D. Wheeler, to be guardians of their respective children, without giving bonds, for the purpose of receiving and managing said property, so given to their respective children.” Said “ residue and remainder ” consisted of real and personal property, and money. The executors of said will (the appellants) presented to the judge of probate the first account of their administration, and therein charged the sum of $ 500, paid to Jonathan D. Wheeler, as guardian or trustee of his minor children, under said will. The judge appointed for said children a guardian ad litem, to appear in their behalf, and, after a hearing, disallowed said charge. The executors thereupon appealed to this court. It was agreed by the parties, that if said executors could .awfully pay said money to said Jonathan D. Wheeler, and if his receipt therefor would be a good discharge to them for said sum, the decree of the judge, disallowing said charge, should be reversed ; otherwise, that it should be affirmed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Wilde

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Wilde, J.

The main question in this case is, whether Jonathan D. Wheeler took any estate or interest under the last will of Jonathan Wheeler; and it appears to the court very clear that he did not. The testator undertook to appoint him guardian of his own children, without giving bonds, for the purpose of receiving and managing the property given to them by the will. This appointment the testator had no authority to make. He could only appoint a guardian for his own children. Rev. Sts. c. 79, § 6. The appointment, therefore, is wholly void.

It has been argued that, to effectuate the intention of the testator, the will may be so construed as to vest an estate in *129 trust in Jonathan D. Wheeler, for the use of his children. But the language of the will is plain, and will admit of no such construction.

The disallowance, therefore, to the executors, of the charge of $500 paid to Jonathan D. Wheeler, as guardian or trustee of his minor children, by the judge of probate, must be affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1905: 11907: 119052026peak 1905 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re the Accounting of Kellogg80 N.E. 207 (N.Y. 1907)
  2. In re Estate of Burdick47 Misc. 28 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1905)

Most recent

  1. In re the Accounting of Kellogg80 N.E. 207 (N.Y. 1907)
  2. In re Estate of Burdick47 Misc. 28 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1905)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list