Page images
[ocr errors]

8 652. Money May Be Specifically Bequeathed.

Money may be the subject of a specific bequest, as in the case of a gift of a sum of money in a bag, or a certain amount deposited in a designated place or with a particular person.48 Thus, a testator may, if he sees fit, be

48 Pulsford V. Hunter, 3 Bro. upon the estate."-Towle v. SwaC. C. 416; Lawson v. Stitch, 1 Atk. sey, 106 Mass. 100. 507.

A gift of the money in several A direction to the executors "to banks at the time the will was proceed to obtain the sum of five made, which should not be other. thousand dollars from" the testa- wise disposed of, even though the trix's share of the estate of her money was withdrawn from those deceased father “and place it in banks and deposited in another the care of the Methodist Episco- bank, where it remained until the pal Conference . . said con. testator's death, is specific ference being pledged never to use legacy.- Prendergast v. Walsh, 58 said five thousand dollars except N. J. Eq. 149, 42 Atl. 1049. as a part of an endowment fund

Ten legacies to be paid "only for a school for Methodist minis- out of the moneys now deposited ters," constitutes a specific legacy. in" three designated banks, are --Estate of Goodfellow, 166 Cal, specific. — Bullard v. Leach, 213 409, 137 Pac. 12.

Mass. 117, 100 N. E. 57. A bequest of “$2000 received A bequest of the amount due on from the estate of my father," is a named mortgage, is specific.specific.-Smith v. McKitterick, 51

Matter of Bouk's Estate, 80 Misc. Iowa 548, 551, 2 N. W. 390.

Rep. (N. Y.) 196, 141 N. Y. Supp. A bequest of moneys to be re- 922. ceived from a decree in chancery, A clause, “I direct my daughter, is specific.—Chase v. Lockerman, out of the moneys belonging to 11 Gill & J. (Md.) 185, 35 Am. Dec. me on deposit in her name, to pay 277, 280.

my said son the sum of fifteen A gift of whatever sum the tes. hundred dollars," without any tator may have on deposit in a general bequest to the son, consti. bank at the time of his death, is tutes a specific and not & demona specific legacy.-Barber v. Da- strative legacy.-Crawford v. Ma vidson, 73 Ill. App. 441; Towle v. Carthy, 159 N. Y. 514, 54 N. E. Swasey, 106 Mass. 100.

277, reversing 21 App. Div. 484, "If there had been no deposit 47 N. Y. Supp. 436. at the time of the testator's death, A bequest of money afterward the son would have had no claim described by the testator as prop

queath all of a particular fund in a purse or a bank, which is separate from other funds, employing such language as will show that he creates a specific legacy of that particular fund, rather than a legacy of a definite amount to be paid from a specific fund. He may undoubtedly so charge a money legacy upon a particular fund as to make the legacy follow the fund.“' But a legacy of money is not rendered specific by directing it to be expended for some particular use, as for rings,5o for government securities, or for lands.63



8 653. Stocks, Bonds, and Securities,

In case of a bequest generally of stocks, bonds, securities, or of a sum of money in stocks, bonds or securities, erty "specifically disposed of,” is crease of the fund over twenty a specific legacy.-Witherspoon v. thousand dollars should be applied Watts, 18 S. C. 396.

to certain other purposes. The 49 Tennille v. Phelps, 49 Ga.

court decided that the bequests to 532; Hart v. Brown, 145 Ga. 140,

the brothers were specific, and

that as a part of the fund had 88 S. E. 670; Towle v. Swasey, 106

been stolen, they could not go upon Mass. 100; Smith's Appeal, 103 Pa.

the estate to make them whole. St. 559.

Stevens v. Fisher, 144 Mass. 114, The courts are averse to con

10 N. E. 803. sidering legacies specific when

Where a testatrix ordered the they may be fairly construed

sale of her real estate and, after otherwise.-Ellis v. Walker, Amb.

payment of debts and legacies 309.

from the proceeds, the income of A fund of twenty thousand dol. the remainder to be paid to a cerlars, created in a certain manner tain legatee, it was held to be a out of the estate, was directed to specific devise, and not subject to be held by trustees to pay the contribute to the payment of pe. income to the testatrix's mother cuniary legacies.-In re Wilson's during her life; then was be- Estate, 15 Phila. (Pa.) 528. queathed to the testatrix's two 50 Apreece v. Apreece, 1 Ves. & brothers, ten thousand dollars B. 364. each, "out of my estate after my 51 Lawson v. Stitch, 1 Atk. 507. said mother's decease"; it was 52 Hinton v. Pinke, 1 P. Wms. then further provided that the in- 539.


without further explanation and without more particularly referring to or designating the corpus of the identical stocks, bonds or securities, the court will not construe such a legacy to be specific, 58 even though the testator possessed the particular property referred to at the time of the execution of his will.54 However, where words are used with reference to the corpus of the fund which qualify and distinguish it, such as my” or “standing in my name," they show an intent on the part of the testator that a legacy of the particular stocks, bonds or securities mentioned was intended to be speci. fied.55

53 Wilson v. Brownsmith, 9 Ves. Jun. 180; In re Gillins, 1 L. R. Ch. Div. 1909, 345, 100 L. T. N. S. 226; Ladd v. Ladd, 2 Cranch C. C. 505, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7972; Douglass v. Douglass, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 21; Gilmer's Legatees v. Gilmer's Exrs., 42 Ala. 9; Evans v. Hunter, 86 Iowa 413, 41 Am. St. Rep. 503, 17 L. R. A, 308, 53 N. W. 277; Palmer v. Palmer's Estate, 106 Me. 25, 19 Ann. Cas. 1184, 75 Atl. 130; Dryden v. Owings, 49 Md. 356; Johnson v. Goss, 128 Mass. 433; Matter of King, 122 App. Div. (N. Y.) 354, 106 N. Y. Supp. 1073; Matter of Bergen, 56 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 92, 106 N. Y. Supp. 1038; McGuire v. Evans, 40 N. C. 269; Appeal of Sponsler, 107 Pa. St. 95; Estate of Snyder, 217 Pa. St. 71, 118 Am. St. Rep. 900, 10 Ann, Cas. 488, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 49, 66 Atl. 157; Pearce v. Billings, 10 R. I. 102.

54 Dryden v. Owings, 49 Md. 356; Evans v. Hunter, 86 Iowa 413, 41 Am. St. Rep. 503, 17 L. R. A, 308, 53 N. W. 277; Matter

of Van Vliet, 5 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 169, 25 N. Y. Supp. 722; Davis v. Cain's Exr., 36 N. C. 304, 309; Appeal of Sponsler, 107 Pa. St. 95.

Contra: Jewell v. Appolonio, 75 N. H. 317, 74 Atl. 250.

“The fact that the testator has at the making of his will of that which is given a quantity equal to or greater than the bequest, is ground of an argument, and combined with other circumstances, may lead to the conclusion that a specific legacy was intended, but under the authorities, and the established inclination of the courts to regard legacies general rather than specific, it can not of itself change the class of legacies from general to specific." - Gilmer's Legatees v. Gilmer's Exrs., 42 Ala. 9.

“The cases cited from other jur. isdictions, holding as a matter of law that legacies of stock to the exact amount owned by the testator are general rather than spe. cific are in conflict with the New Hampshire rule."-Jewett v. Appolonio, 75 N. H. 317, 74 Atl. 250.


$ 654. Insurance Policies.

A bequest of a specified insurance policy, 56 or of a policy amounting to a certain named sum, 57 or of the amount of money which may become due under named policies,58 must be deemed to be specific. A legacy of "my life insurance” is specific, 59 but a bequest of "the sum of ten thousand dollars to be realized out of the proceeds of such life insurance as may be in force on my life at the time of my death,” is demonstrative. 60

8 655. Proceeds From Sales.

Where the testator orders the sale of specified bonds, mortgages, furniture, or other personal property, or the sale of any designated real estate, and directs that the proceeds thereof be paid to certain persons, such bequests are deemed to be specific.61 If the beneficiaries named

55 In re M'Afee, 1 Ir. R. 124; 68 Nusly v. Curtis, 36 Colo. 464, Gardner v. McNeal, 117 Md. 27, 118 Am. St. Rep. 113, 10 Ann, Cas. Ann. Cas. 1914A, 119, 40 L. R. A. 1134, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 592, 85 Pac. (N. S.) 553, 82 Atl. 988; Allen v. 846. Allen, 76 N. J. Eq. 245, 139 Am. St. 59 Kearns v. Kearns, 77 N. J. Rep. 758, 74 Atl. 274; Kearns V. Eq. 453, 140 Am. St. Rep. 575, 76 Kearns, 77 N. J. Eq. 453, 140 Am. Atl. 1042. St. Rep. 575, 76 Atl. 1042; Mecum 60 Kramer v. Kramer, 201 Fed. v. Stoughton, 81 N. J. Eq. 319, 86 248, 119 C. C. A. 482. Atl. 52.

61 Page v. Leapingwell, 18 Ves. 56 Barker V. Rayner, 5 Madd. Jun. 463; Kaiser v. Brandenburg, 208; affirmed 3 Eng. Ch. 126; Mat. 16 App. Cas. (D. C.) 310; Weed v. ter of Gans' Estate, 60 Misc. Rep. Hoge, 85 Conn. 490, Ann. Cas, (N. Y.) 282, 112 N. Y. Supp. 259; 1913C, 543, 83 Atl. 636; HutchinIn re Pruner, 222 Pa. St. 179, 40 son v. Fuller, 75 Ga. 88; Heslet v. L. R. A. (N. S.) 561, 70 Atl. 1000. Heslet, 8 Ill. App. 22; Miller's Exr.

57 Platt v. Moore, 1 Dem. (N. Y. v. Malone, 109 Ky, 133, 95 Am. St. Surr.) 191.

Rep. 338, 58 S. W. 708; Boston

[ocr errors]

are to receive their legacies only out of the proceeds of sale of specified property devised to a trustee, their rights are limited to the proceeds from such a sale, and if the property in question had been disposed of by the testator prior to his death, the bequests fail.62

8 656. Real Estate.

At common law. all devises of real estate were regarded as specific. This fact seems to have been the real reason for placing lands devised after lands descended in the order of charging them with the debts of the estate. The early common law rule, however, was that a testator could devise only such real property as he owned at the time he executed his will.63 This rule has long since been changed, and a testator may make a testamentary disposition of all real property owned by him at the time of his death, although acquired subsequent to the execution of his will, if such is his intent.64 The reason, therefore, for holding all devises of realty to be specific, no longer exists ;65 and in the United States generally, deSafe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Plum. in particular or general terms, mer, 142 Mass. 257, 8 N. E. 51; must of necessity be specific from Gardner v. Printup, 2 Barb. (N. Y.) the circumstance that a man can 83; Matter of Matthews, 122 App. devise only what he has at the Div. (N. Y.) 605, 107 N. Y. Supp. time of devising

but it is 301; Starbuck v. Starbuck, 93 N. C. quite different as to personal es183; Gilbreath V. Alban, 10 Ohio tate." — Howe v. Earl of Dart64; In re Black's Estate, 223 Pa. mouth, 7 Ves. Jun. 137, 147. St. 382, 72 Atl. 631; In re Martin, 64 See $$ 229-234. 25 R. I. 1, 54 Atl. 589; Bailey v. 65 In re Sutton's Estate, (Del.) Wagner, 2 Strobb. Eq. (S. C.) 1; 97 Atl. 624; Wilts v. Wilts, 151 Manlove v. Gaut, 2 Tenn, Ch. App. Iowa 149, 130 N. W. 906. 410. See 8 288.

In Estate of Woodworth, 31 Cal. 62 Meily V. Knox, 269 Ill. 463, 595, the court says: "A will made 110 N. E. 56.

under this provision (referring to 63 See $$ 26-29, 229.

the statute permitting the disposi“Other devises of land, whether tion of after-acquired property),

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »