State Street Trust Company & another, trustees, vs. Georgianna T. Sampson & others

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court1917-11-27

228 Mass. 411

Summary · law.co

Holding. The phrase "my right heirs at law" in the will means the testator's blood relatives, specifically his children and the issue of deceased children, as determined at the time of the testator's death in 1880, not at the time of any subsequent distribution. The decree was entered accordingly.

State Street Trust Company sought instructions from the court regarding how to distribute a trust fund established under Samuel A. Walker's will from 1880. The will provided that if any of the testator's children died without leaving descendants, their share should pass to the testator's "right heirs at law." One daughter died in 1915 without issue, triggering the need to determine both the meaning of "right heirs at law" and the point in time when those heirs should be identified.

The court concluded that "right heirs at law" refers only to blood relatives—specifically, the testator's children and descendants of any deceased children who were alive when the testator himself died in 1880. The court rejected the argument that heirs should be determined at a later date (such as when the daughter died in 1915) and instead applied the established rule that when a will references a testator's heirs without language clearly indicating otherwise, those heirs are identified as of the testator's death. The court noted that the testator knew how to specify a different time for determining beneficiaries when he intended to do so, as shown in another provision of the same will.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Meaning of "right heirs at law" in a testamentary trust provision
Time for ascertaining heirs when distributing a trust share
Interpretation of testamentary language regarding future distribution events

Procedural posture

The trustees filed a bill seeking instructions from the court on the proper interpretation and application of the testator's will regarding distribution of a trust share upon a daughter's death without issue.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Rugg, C. J.

This is a bill for instructions as to the disposition of a fund held by trustees under the will of Samuel A. Walker, who died in 1880. By the fourteenth article of that will the residuum of the estate was given to trustees for the benefit of children of the testator and the issue of a deceased daughter. The estate was to be divided into equal shares, one for the benefit of each surviving child and one for the issue of each deceased child taking by right of representation. The estate accordingly was divided into nine shares. The will contained specific directions as to the distribution of the income of the several shares held for the benefit of the children, which are not material in this connection. The clause in the will now operative, as, to the meaning of which instructions are sought, is in these words: “Upon the decease of either of said sons or daughters, leaving issue, then said Trustees shall pay over and convey the whole of the trust share and estate of such deceased son or daughter, to the child or children of him or her so dying, absolutely, the issue of any deceased child to take its parent share. And upon the decease of either of said sons or daughters leaving no issue then said Trustees shall pay over and convey the whole of the trust share and estate of such deceased son or daughter to my right heirs at law.”

One of the daughters of the testator deceased in 1915, leaving no issue. The questions to be determined are, first, the meaning of the words “my right heirs at law,” and, second, the time as of which such heirs are to be ascertained.

1. Whatever may be the signification of the words “right heirs at law” under other circumstances, (as to which see Peabody v. Cook, 201 Mass. 218, and cases cited, Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Blanchard, 196 Mass. 35, 40, and cases collected in Note, 16 Ann. Cas. 298, 299,) plainly in the case at bar they can mean only those heirs at law who are heirs by blood. Whatever may be the time as of which such heirs are to be ascertained, they are in any event children and the issue of deceased children of the testator.

2. It is the general rule that a bequest or devise to the heirs or the heirs at law of a testator is to be construed as referring to those who are such at the time of the death of the testator, unless a different intent is plainly manifested by the will. That was settled by Abbott v. Bradstreet, 3 Allen, 587, and has been followed consistently since that decision. There are many cases. The following are only illustrative of a large class: Jewett v. Jewett, 200 Mass. 310; Welch v. Blanchard, 208 Mass. 523; Blume v. Kimball, 222 Mass. 412. That rule is founded on the natural meaning of the words. Speaking in a popular as well as in the strictly accurate sense, the word “ heirs ” means those persons who inherit the property of a person at the time of his death. Whall v. Converse, 146 Mass. 345.

There are no words in the present will which disclose a different design. On the contrary, it is apparent from the terms of article thirteen that the testator knew how to express a purpose to make his benefaction of advantage to those living at a future time. It there is provided that a trust fund is to be distributed at the decease of his wife among his “children, then living, and to the issue of any deceased child ... by right of representation.” The word “then” in that context refers unmistakably to the death of the wife as the date for ascertaining the beneficiaries. The same word in the clause now under consideration refers to the time for distribution and not to the time for ascertaining who might be the hypothetical heirs of the testator. The case at bar is indistinguishable from Dove v. Torr, 128 Mass. 38, and the numerous cases which have followed it.

It is not necessary to review decisions where the words of the testator have manifested a purpose to distribute his estate among an artificial class of persons, who would have been his heirs if he had died at a time later than his actual decease. They all are plainly distinguishable. The principles which govern the case at bar are fully discussed in the authorities already cited and need not be repeated. The petitioners are instructed that the words “right heirs at law” of the testator used in the sentence quoted from clause fourteen, mean those sons and daughters of the testator and the issue of any deceased child living at the decease of the testator.

Decree accordingly.