[DOWNLOAD] "Hull v. Adams Et Al." by Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Hull v. Adams Et Al.
- Author : Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
- Release Date : January 24, 1934
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 61 KB
Description
RUGG, Chief Justice. This is a petition by the executor of the will of Anna E. Adams for instructions as to the meaning of a paragraph in that will. It is stated in the report that all persons interested are of full age and have waived notice and that there are no persons not ascertained or not in being who are or may become interested in the estate. The case was submitted without testimony upon a stipulation and agreed facts, and without decision was reported for our determination. The will of the testatrix, after directing the payment of her debts and funeral expenses, contained these words: 'I give and bequeath to my brother David D. Steenburg Ten Thousand Dollars, the use of same and as much of the principal as is necessary for his support, care and comfort. The balance of my estate to be divided in three parts as herein mentioned.' Then follow the descriptions of the three persons who 'are to share equally alike of the balance of my estate.' An executor was named 'without bonds.' The will was dated in January, 1932. It contains no provision for the appointment of a trustee of the fund of $10,000. The size of the estate of the testatrix does not appear. There is no indication how much, if at all, it exceeded $10,000. The brother, David D. Steenburg, died in this commonwealth in August, 1932. He left an instrument purporting to be a will disposing of all of his property, which has not yet been allowed. A special administrator of his estate has been appointed, who is a party to these proceedings. After the allowance of the will of the testatrix, Michael L. Monahan was appointed a trustee of the fund given for the benefit of David D. Steenburg. He received that fund and a substantial part of it remains unexpended. The record does not state with positive assertion who now has possession of the balance of the legacy left for the benefit of David D. Steenburg. No question has been raised as to parties, form or procedure. The case has been argued solely as to the answer which ought to be made to the request for instructions as to Disposition of the unexpended balance of the legacy of $10,000 left at the death of David D. Steenburg. Nevertheless, notice ought to be taken of the extreme informality of the procedure. In some aspects it might affect the power of the court to decide the question sought to be raised.