Bradlee v. Converse

16 Citing cases

  1. In re Last Will and Testament of Lewis

    434 S.E.2d 472 (Ga. 1993)   Cited 4 times

    In examining these authorities, we are guided by the cautionary observation of this Court in MacGregor v. Roux, 198 Ga. 520, 523 ( 32 S.E.2d 289) (1944), that See Bennett v. Lloyd, 245 Ga. 706 ( 267 S.E.2d 3) (1980); Humphrey v. Lawson, 225 Ga. 803 ( 171 S.E.2d 534) (1969); MacGregor v. Roux, 198 Ga. 520 ( 32 S.E.2d 289) (1944); Bradlee v. Converse, 318 Mass. 117 ( 60 N.E.2d 345) (1945); In re Ives' Estate, 161 Misc. 60 ( 291 N.Y.S. 981) (1936); Camden Safe Deposit c. Co. v. MacMullan, 112 N.J. Eq. 574 ( 165 A 105) (1933). See Bennett v. Lloyd, supra, (nieces and nephews construed as being primary legatees, therefore being stirps and taking per capita shares; court dealt only with ambiguous provision); MacGregor v. Roux, supra, (direction to distribute estate "equally" among several grandchildren construed to require per stirpes distribution since the testator specifically stated "not per capita"); Bradlee v. Converse, supra, (court examined only the ambiguous provision, directed per stirpital distribution); In re Ives' Estate, supra, (direction to distribute to nieces and nephews "share and share alike, per stirpes and not per capita" construed to require per capita distribution as nieces and nephews comprised class of primary legatees); Camden Safe Deposit c. Co. v. MacMullan, supra, (distribution to eight nieces "share and share alike per s

  2. Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Co. v. Goodwin

    59 Mass. App. Ct. 270 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003)   Cited 2 times

    The determinative factor in construing the provisions of a testamentary document is the creator's intention. Cammann v. Abbe, 258 Mass. 427, 429 (1927); Bradlee v. Converse, 318 Mass. 117, 120 (1945); Bank of New England, N.A. v. McKennan, 19 Mass. App. Ct. at 689. The intent is to be ascertained from a study of the instrument as a whole in light of the circumstances attending its execution.

  3. In re Woodworth Trust

    196 Mich. App. 326 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 23 times

    Although unable to locate a Michigan case directly on point, our conclusion is bolstered by the decisions of various jurisdictions indicating the phrase "in equal shares by right of representation" calls for distribution per stirpes with equality among the stirpes. Kelly v Mercantile-Safe Deposit Trust Co, 262 Md. 626, 630; 278 A.2d 584 (1971); In re Herrington Estate, 97 N.H. 184, 186; 84 A.2d 173 (1951); Bradlee v Converse, 318 Mass. 117, 119; 60 N.E.2d 345 (1945); In re Pistor, 53 N.J. Super. 139; 146 A.2d 685 (1958), aff'd 30 N.J. 589 (1959). Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

  4. Dewire v. Haveles

    404 Mass. 274 (Mass. 1989)   Cited 3 times

    In such a case, the stirpes are normally placed at one generation before the takers. See Bradlee v. Converse, 318 Mass. 117, 120 (1945) We deal briefly with one other point. No language in the will gives discretion to the trustee to distribute principal during the term of the class gift of income.

  5. In re Estate of Tjaden

    402 N.W.2d 288 (Neb. 1987)   Cited 7 times

    "By right of representation" means a devisee is entitled to take or receive a share of an estate on a "per stirpes" basis. See, Siders v. Siders, 169 Mass. 523, 48 N.E. 277 (1897); Bradlee v. Converse, 318 Mass. 117, 60 N.E.2d 345 (1945); Hungerpiller et al. v. Keller et al., 192 S.C. 329, 6 S.E.2d 741 (1940). G. Thompson, The Law of Wills 317 at 476 (3d ed. 1947) states: "A distribution per stirpes is one in which the beneficiaries take proportionate shares of the share of the ancestor through whom they claim as his [or her] representative.

  6. Theopold v. Sears

    258 N.E.2d 559 (Mass. 1970)   Cited 1 times

    The assets were to be distributed to the "issue . . . in equal shares according to the stocks" or per stirpes. See Bradlee v. Converse, 318 Mass. 117, 119; Agricultural Natl. Bank v. Miller, 316 Mass. 288. The fact that the testator designated "the sons of . . . [his] half brothers as the original stocks" does not preclude them from taking under the will. Considering the circumstances it may be inferred that it would have been impracticable for the testator to have designated his half brothers as stipital progenitors, since all were in their sixties, and that he as a matter of convenience and fairness named the then living sons of his half brothers as stocks.

  7. Chapin v. Patterson

    231 N.E.2d 566 (Mass. 1967)   Cited 1 times

    See also Restatement: Property, §§ 300, 301; Page 360 Powell, Real Property, § 368. There is no adequate indication of an intention that distribution be made per stirpes among the issue of B, C, and D, living at the death of the last survivor (with the stirpes or stocks to be found in B, C, and D) such as existed in Bradlee v. Converse, 318 Mass. 117, 119-120. See Walker v. Walker, 326 Mass. 397, 400-401.

  8. B.M.C. Durfee Trust Co. v. Franzheim

    349 Mass. 335 (Mass. 1965)   Cited 3 times
    Applying Rhode Island law

    Read in the light of the circumstance that the testator's sisters, when the will was executed, were of an age at which neither of them was likely to have further issue, we think it more probable that the testator's ambiguous provision was intended to designate his sister's children whom he knew (or at least such of them as died leaving issue) as the original stocks for the purposes of such division. We regard as distinguishable the more complete provisions dealt with in Bradlee v. Converse, 318 Mass. 117, 118-120 (where the will contained explicit language in effect directing a division per stirpes "with equality among the stirpes," and where this court decided that the stocks could be found "among the ancestors of the takers instead of among the takers themselves"; see note, 25 B.U.L. Rev. 299). The present case seems to us (in respect of determining whether the sisters or their issue were to constitute the original stocks) more like B.M.C. Durfee Trust Co. v. Borden, 329 Mass. 461, 462.

  9. Cole v. Bailey

    146 A.2d 14 (Md. 1958)   Cited 12 times
    In Cole v. Bailey, 218 Md. 177, 146 A.2d 14 (1958), a will specified that a trust should be divided between the testator's nephews, nieces, and sister "share and share alike per representation."

    In other states there are many cases in which either the words "per stirpes" or the words "by representation", even when used in juxtaposition with the words "equally" or "share and share alike", have been held to call for distribution by families with equality among the takers of each family, rather than a per capita distribution, whether or not the takers were descendants of the testator or of others.Siders v. Siders (Mass.), 48 N.E. 277; Bradlee v. Converse (Mass.), 60 N.E.2d 345; MacGregor v. Roux (Ga.), 32 S.E.2d 289; O'Reilly v. Jackson (Mo.), 269 S.W.2d 631; Lockwood's Appeal (Conn.), 10 A. 517; In re Healy's Estate (Cal.), 168 P. 124; Rehm v. Core (Ohio), 82 N.E.2d 864; In re Marshall's Estate (Pa.), 103 A.2d 420; In re Corr's Estate (Pa.), 12 A.2d 76; In re Diefenbacher's Estate, 300 N.Y. Supp. 370; In re Hickey's Estate, 73 N.Y.S.2d 508; see cases collected in 13 A.L.R.2d 1023 at 1076, et seq. In Siders v. Siders, the residue was left to nephews and nieces by right of representation.

  10. Welch v. Phinney

    150 N.E.2d 723 (Mass. 1958)   Cited 8 times

    Ct.); Casner, Estate Planning (2d ed.) 426. Compare Mercantile Trust Savings Bank v. Rogers, 5 Ill. App.2d 162, 169, app. den. 10 Ill. App.2d v; Matter of Farmers' Loan Trust Co. 213 N.Y. 168, 173-177; Central Hanover Bank Trust Co. v. Pell, 268 N.Y. 354, 358-362. Compare also Bradlee v. Converse, 318 Mass. 117, 119-120, where a per stirpes distribution was involved. There appears to be no Massachusetts case construing a limitation precisely like that found in article Sixth. Where, however, a will or trust instrument has explicitly provided, as does article Sixth, for a per capita distribution, the Massachusetts cases have given effect to that direction and have assumed that the testator or donor knew the meaning of the terms which he was using.