FERRER ET AL. v. PYNE ET AL, N.Y., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

W.P. Putney for appellants. F.R. Coudert for respondents.

Judges

George F. Danforth

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This case involves the construction of the will of Pedro Ferrer of Landa, who was the father of five children: Irene, Isabella, Ana (also called Anita), Joseph, and Henry. Irene and Isabella had died leaving children, while Henry was alive. The will made specific bequests to Anita, the children of Irene, Henry, and Joseph, and included a residuary clause to divide any remaining estate equally among Anita, the children of Irene, the son of Isabel, and Henry. The will was admitted to probate, and after paying all bequests and expenses, a remainder of $55,108.29 was held by the executors. The surrogate court held that the remainder should be distributed per capita among all named beneficiaries, meaning each child of Irene received an individual share equal to a living child of the testator, dividing the estate into eight shares. The other beneficiaries contended the distribution should be per stirpes, so that the children of Irene together would receive only one share. The Supreme Court modified the surrogate’s decree to the per stirpes distribution, and the correctness of this decision was the sole question on appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the residuary clause of the will should be construed to distribute the remainder per capita (equally to all individual beneficiaries) or per stirpes (by representation, so that descendants of a deceased child collectively receive one share).
Whether the children of Irene are to take as a class (per stirpes) or as individuals (per capita) under the will’s language.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Blackler v. Webb, 2 P. Wms. 383	Establishes that where gifts are made to persons standing in the same relation and to the children of one, each individual takes an equal share per capita.	The court recognized this rule but noted it conflicts with the testator’s apparent intent and natural disposition.
Dowding v. Smith, 3 Beavan, 541	Supports the principle that children of a deceased relative take shares equal to those of living relatives.	The court cited this to illustrate the traditional rule, but found it inapplicable given the will’s context.
Lenden v. Blackmore, 10 Simonds, 626	Another English case supporting per capita distribution among siblings and their children.	Referenced as part of the authority for the traditional rule, which the court ultimately declined to apply strictly.
Minter's Appeal, 40 Penn. 111	Represents modern judicial reluctance or rejection of the strict per capita rule in favor of equitable interpretation.	Used to show that some courts protest or reject the traditional rule, supporting flexible interpretation.
Raymond v. Hillhouse, 19 Alb. L.J. 523 (Conn.)	Demonstrates courts’ willingness to reject strict per capita distribution in favor of intent-based constructions.	Supports the court’s approach to look for the testator’s intent rather than blindly apply the traditional rule.
Clark v. Lynch, 46 Barb. 69	Shows that the per capita rule yields to indications of a different intention in the will’s context.	Supports the court’s conclusion that the children of Irene take as a class.
Collins v. Hoxie, 9 Paige, 81	Reinforces the principle that context and intent govern distribution over strict rules.	Used to justify the court’s interpretation favoring per stirpes distribution.
Brett v. Horton, 5 Jurist, 696	Another authority emphasizing intent over rigid application of distribution rules.	Supports the court’s reasoning to prioritize testator’s intent.
Lockhart v. Lockhart, 3 Jones' Eq. (N. Car.), 205	Confirms that the per capita rule is subject to exceptions based on will context.	Supports the court’s flexible approach.
Balcolm v. Haynes, 96 Mass. 204	Affirms the principle that the per capita rule yields to a clear contrary intent.	Used to buttress the court’s conclusion that the children of Irene are to take as a class.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged the traditional rule that where a gift is made to a person and to the children of another person standing in the same relation, the shares are divided per capita among all individuals. However, the court found that applying this rule strictly would conflict with the testator’s apparent intent and the natural disposition of mankind. The testator explicitly named his living children and referred to the children of deceased daughters as a class, suggesting he intended the children of Irene to stand in her place and receive collectively what she would have received if alive. The court found that the residuary clause’s language, when read in the context of the entire will, indicated the children of Irene were to take as a class rather than individually. This interpretation aligns with equitable principles and the statutory scheme of estate distribution. Accordingly, the court affirmed the Supreme Court’s order modifying the surrogate’s decision to distribute the remainder per stirpes rather than per capita.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final decision was to affirm the Supreme Court’s order. The core ruling is that the residuary estate should be distributed per stirpes, meaning the children of Irene collectively receive one share rather than each receiving an individual share.

The direct effect is to modify the distribution of the remainder of the estate in accordance with the testator’s intent as interpreted by the court. No new precedent was set; rather, the court applied established principles of will construction emphasizing intent and context over rigid application of traditional distribution rules.

Show full summary ...

MARIA DORADO Y FERRER et al., by Guardian, Appellants, v. PERCY H. PYNE et al., Executors, etc., Respondents.

DANFORTH, J.

There is a single point in this appeal. It involves the construction of the will of Pedro Ferrer of Landa, and is presented upon the following facts:

The testator was the father of five children, Irene, Isabella, Ana or Anita (who married Don Candido Ainz), Joseph, and Henry. Irene married and died, leaving five children; Isabella married and died, leaving one child. Henry is a physician. The will, among others, contains bequests in these words: "To my dear daughter Anita, wife of Candido Ainz, the sum of $50,000, to be invested in her name in some good security, she having the benefit of the interest thereof, but not the capital; and after her death she can will the amount either to her husband or the children of Irene, and no other." To the children of Irene, $50,000. To Henry, the doctor, $25,000. To Joseph Ferrer, of Preval, for, etc., $5. After some other directions, follow these words: "If, after realizing all my investments, and paid all my bequests, there shall be a remainder after paying all expenses, commissions, etc., I wish the same to be divided equally between Anita, the children of Irene, the son of Isabel, and Henry, the doctor." The will was admitted to probate, and upon subsequent proceedings before the surrogate, it appeared that there remained in the hands of the executors the sum of $55,108.29, liable to distribution under the residuary clause of the will above cited. The surrogate held that it should be distributed per capita, and not per stirpes, that each child of the testator only took a share equal to one of the children of Irene, thus dividing the whole into eight shares, of which each child of Irene should receive one. The other beneficiaries contending that the distribution should be per stirpes, and not per capita, and that the children of Irene, as constituting a class, should together receive but one share, appealed to the Supreme Court, where their contention was sustained, and the decree of the surrogate modified accordingly. The correctness of this decision is the only question upon this appeal. In Powell on Devises (vol. 2, p. 331), it is said that where a gift is made to a person described as standing in a certain relation to the testator, and to the children of another person standing in the same relation, as to my brother A., and the children of my brother B., A. only takes a share equal to one of the children of B., and this position is abundantly sustained by the authority of English cases ( Blackler v. Webb, 2 P. Wms. 383; Dowding v. Smith, 3 Beavan, 541; Lenden v. Blackmore, 10 Simonds, 626, among others), and to some extent by the courts of this country. Yet if the case stood upon the words of the residuary clause alone, we should find great difficulty in confirming, by the sanction of this court, a construction opposed to the apparent meaning of the language used by the testator, and at variance with the natural disposition of mankind. We find the testator calling to mind his children, their names, their relations to others by marriage, the death of some, and with these incidents before him making a distribution of his estate. The living children are named by him, while the children of the daughters who are dead are spoken of not by name, but "as the son of Isabel," or "the children of Irene," evidently giving to them the place as recipients of his bounty which Isabel or Irene, if living, would have filled. He designates the children of Irene as a class, and not as individuals, remembers them not in their own persons, but as representatives of their parent, and substitutes them in her place. We are unable to discover any intent to bestow upon them any greater or more numerous marks of his affection than their parent would, if living, have received. The rule referred to has, in modern times, been applied with reluctance, by some courts, because it had become a rule of property, and by others out of deference to its supposed authority; but in many, if not in all cases, with open protest, while by others it has been wholly rejected. ( Minter's Appeal 40 Penn. 111; Raymond v. Hillhouse [Conn.], 19 Alb. L.J. 523.) It is, however, not necessary for us to go to that extent, because wherever the rule is adopted it is also held that it is to be governed by the context, and as is said will yield "to a very faint glimpse of a different intention." (2 Jarman on Wills [1st Am. ed.] 111; marg. 112; Clark v. Lynch, 46 Barb. 69; Collins v. Hoxie, 9 Paige, 81; Brett v. Horton, 5 Jurist, 696; Roper on Legacies, 159; Lockhart v. Lockhart, 3 Jones' Eq. [N. Car.], 205; Balcolm v. Haynes, 96 Mass. 204). If, therefore, from any portion of the will an intention can be discovered that the children of the deceased daughter are to take as a class, and not as individuals, that intention must prevail, notwithstanding the rule of construction to which we have adverted. It may, we think, be found in the preceding clause of the will, and is fairly to be deduced from the words, "To the children of Irene $50,000." This is plainly a bequest to those persons as a class, in their representative capacity, and the sum named goes to them as a body, and when we find the same language used in respect to the same persons, in the residuary clause, "the children of Irene," as recipients of a share of a single sum, the surplus, we conclude that the testator used the words in the last clause with the same signification, and to the same intent as in the first. This construction also assimilates the directions of the will to the provisions of the statute regulating the distribution of estates, and accords with the general justice of the law.

We think, therefore, that the order of the Supreme Court was correct, and should be affirmed.

All concur.

Order affirmed.

FERRER ET AL. v. PYNE ET AL