TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hill v. Bowers

James W. Hill, administrator v. William B. Bowers & others

Hill v. Bowers, 120 Mass. 135 (1876)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 3, 1876
Judges
Gray
Citations
120 Mass. 1351876 Mass. LEXIS 132
Headnotes
A testator left the residue of his property “ to the children of my brother A. by hia present wife, and the survivors of them, and to the children of my nephew B. and the survivor of them, their heirs and assigns forever.” At the death of the testator, A. had eight children, and B. had two. Held, that the children of A. and of B. took par capita and not per stirpes.
Summary
Bill in equity by the administrator, with the will annexed, of Josiah Bowers, to obtain the instructions of the court, and alleging the following facts: The will of the testator contained the following clause : “ Fourth. I give, devise and bequeath to the children of my brother Joseph by his present wife, and the survivors of them, and to the children of my said nephew Albert, and the survivor of them, all the rest and residue of all my property and estate, and the remainder and reversion thereof, after the decease of my wife and sister Ann aforesaid, to them, their, heirs and assigns forever.” At the death of the testator there were living eight children of the testator’s brother Joseph, “by his present wife,” and one of them has since died without issue. There were also living two children of the nephew Albert, both of whom are living. The testator’s wife and sister Ann died after him. The administrator requested instructions as to whether the remaindermen took per capita or per stirpes. The answers admitted the allegations of the bill, and the case was reserved by Morton, J., on the pleadings, for the consideration o: the full court.

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

Opinion of the Court — Gray

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

Gray, C. J.

The general rule is that by a bequest to the children of A. and to the children of B., the children take per capita and not per stirpes, in the absence of words indicating a different intention. There are no such words in this will. The repetition of the words “ and the survivors of them ” only makes clear the intention of the testator not to include any children, of either person named, who did not survive the testator. Upon his death, the children who should take were ascertained, and the residue of the estate was to be equally divided among them. Blackler v. Webb, 2 P. Wms. 383. Butler v. Stratton, 3 Bro. Ch. 367. Lincoln v. Pelham, 10 Ves. 166, 176. Heron v. Stokes, 2 Dru. & War. 89 ; S. C. l Con. & Laws. 270 ; 4 Irish Eq. 284, Collins v. Hoxie, 9 Paige, 81 . Weston v. Foster, 7 Met. 297 Balcom v. Haynes, 14 Allen, 204 . Decree accordingly.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 18 cases

View all citing references →
1895: 11906: 11907: 11911: 11914: 11915: 11916: 11917: 11919: 11920: 11921: 11925: 11928: 11931: 11940: 11950: 11961: 11978: 118952026peak 1895 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Crapo v. Price76 N.E. 1043 (Mass. 1906)
  2. Kalbach v. Clark110 N.W. 599 (Iowa 1907)
  3. Hoadley v. Beardsley93 A. 535 (Conn. 1915)
  4. Wooley v. Hays226 S.W. 842 (Mo. 1920)
  5. Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Doolan29 N.E.2d 844 (Mass. 1940)
  6. Proctor v. Lacy160 N.E. 441 (Mass. 1928)

Most recent

  1. Byington v. Fuller587 P.2d 636 (Wyo. 1978)
  2. Gaughen v. Gaughen107 N.W.2d 652 (Neb. 1961)
  3. Agricultural National Bank v. Schwartz91 N.E.2d 195 (Mass. 1950)
  4. Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Doolan29 N.E.2d 844 (Mass. 1940)
  5. Estate of Rauschenplat297 P. 882 (Cal. 1931)
  6. Proctor v. Lacy160 N.E. 441 (Mass. 1928)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Collins v. Hoxie, 9 Paige Ch. 81 (1841) 36

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