Danikl, Judge, after stating the case as above, proceeded as follows: In the construction of wills, the intention of the testator is to govern, if such intention do not contravene any rule of law. And to ascertain that intention, the court may look through the whole will. Taking these rules for our guide, we cannot fail to see that it was the intention of the testatrix, that the words u pay five hundred” were to pay five hundred dollars. All the money legacies in the will, which are both before and after the clause, in question, are expressed in dollars. In the said clause, the testratrix directs her executors-to pay the said sum to the plaintiffs.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Sessoms v. Sessoms. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 5 opinions
SESSOMS v. SESSOMS,22 N.C. 453(1839)
ALONZO P. SESSOMS ET AL. v. ELISHA SESSOMS, EXECUTOR OF
CELIA FREEMAN, ET AL.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Where a testator, after giving several pecuniary legacies in "dollars," proceeded as follows: "Item. I likewise leave all my lands and plantation to be sold by my executors, and pay five hundred to my brother N. S.'s children, to be equally divided, to them and their heirs forever. Item I give and bequeath E. S. One thousand dollars, to him and his heirs forever. Item. And also all the residue of my estate to be sold by my executors, and all my just debts to be paid — those legacies to be paid off which I have already given away, and the balance, if any, to be equally divided between E. S." and others: It was held, that the words "five hundred" meant five hundred dollars, and was a legacy of that sum to the children of N.S.; and that the legacy was a general one.
THE plaintiffs, who were the children of Nathan Sessoms, filed their bill to recover a legacy of $500, which they alleged that they were entitled to receive under the will of Celia Freeman. The objections on the part of the defendants were, first, that no such legacy was given by the will; but, secondly, that if there were such a legacy, it was a specific legacy, or a legacy payable out of the land only; and that the fund out of which it was intended to be raised had failed in consequence of the will's having been attested by one witness only; and that the power intended to be given to the executors to sell the land and pay the $500 out of the proceeds was not good in law, for the want of two witnesses to the will. Celia Freeman, the testatrix, in the first and second pages of her will, gave several specific and pecuniary legacies. The sums in all the money legacies were mentioned in dollars. Then came the following clauses: "Item: I likewise leave all my lands and plantation to be sold by my executors, but one acre to include graves, and pay five hundred to my brother Nathan Sessom's children, to be equally divided, to them and their heirs forever. Item: I give and bequeath Elisha Sessoms the sum of one thousand dollars, to him and his heirs forever. Item: And also the residue of my estate to be sold by my executors, and all my just debts to be paid — those legacies to be paid off, which I have already given away; and the balance, if any, to be equally divided between Elisha Sessoms" and others. (454)
A. Moore for plaintiffs.
Iredell for defendants.
DANIEL, J., after stating the case:
In the construction of wills the intention of the testator is to govern, if such intention do not contravene any rule of law. And to ascertain that intention the Court may look through the whole will. Taking these rules for our guide, we cannotPage 368fail to see that it was the intention of the testatrix that the words "pay five hundred" were to pay five hundred dollars. All the money legacies in the will, which are both before and after the clause in question, are expressed in dollars. In the said clause the testatrix directs her executors to pay the said sum to the plaintiffs. It is therefore a legacy. A legacy is defined to be "some particular thing or things given or left, either by a testator in his testament, wherein an executor is appointed, to be paid or performed by his executor, or by an intestate in a codicil, or last will, wherein no executor is appointed, to be paid or performed by an administrator." Williams on Exrs., 694; Godolph, Pt. 3, ch. 1, sec. 1.
Secondly. Is the legacy a general legacy? We think it is. The testatrix intended to convert her lands out and out, and add the purchase money to her personal estate. Now, whatever force there may be in the argument that as the power to the executors to sell the land is in the same clause in which she directs her executors to pay the plaintiffs the $500, this is tantamount to declaring that the executors are to pay the said sum out of the purchase money, we need not inquire, for her declaration in the residuary clause of the will, "those legacies paid off which I have already given away," show a plain intention on her part that the plaintiffs should have the sum as a general legacy.
We are of the opinion that the executors must account, and if the personal estate not specifically given away be insufficient to pay all the general legacies, then they must abate in proportion.
PER CURIAM. Decree accordingly.
Cited: Dew v. Barnes,54 N.C. 151; Howerton v. Henderson,88 N.C. 601; Crouse v. Barham,174 N.C. 462.
(455)