Estate of Jeffreys
Before: Hall
Synopsis
Will—Bequest of Books and Papers—Bank-Books Excluded.—• Where a testator leaves among his effects a large number of law and other ordinary books, a bequest of “all my books and papers” will not be construed to include bank-books or the moneys on deposit represented thereby, especially where such an interpretation would render of no effect other provisions of the will.
HALL, J.
This is an appeal by William M. Abbott from a decree of distribution, and the only question involved is as to the proper construction of the will of Albert Jeffreys, deceased.
[525]
The will is holographic and is as follows:—
“My will. April 10th, 1902. I owe William M. Abbott $600 which I wish paid.
“To the Rev. M. D. Connolly I give the sum of $1,000.
“To William M. Abbott I give all my books and papers.
“To Eugenie M. St. Paul I give the rest and residue of my estate of every kind and nature.
[Then follows a statement naming two persons to whom he leaves nothing, a provision as to persons who may claim to be heirs, the appointment of executors, a revocation of former wills, waiver of bonds, and a provision for sale of real estate without order of court.]
“Albert Jeffreys.”
The appellant contends that under the clause “To William M. Abbott I give all my books and papers” there passed to him fourteen certain bank-books, and in consequence the moneys on deposit represented by such books. The court below ordered distribution of a large number of books, consisting mostly of law-books, a promissory note, and a certificate for one hundred and forty-three shares of stock to appellant ; one thousand dollars to Rev. Connolly; and the residue of the estate, consisting of an interest in four parcels of land, one typewriter, and $1,661.97, to Eugenie M. Roberts, described in the will as Eugenie M. St. Paul, but since married to Roberts.
The money—to wit, the $2,661.97—thus distributed was what was left of the deposits represented by the bank-books. At the death of the testator the fourteen bank-books represented deposits in various banks to the credit of testator, aggregating upwards of eighty-seven hundred dollars. If the contention of appellant be correct this entire sum of money passed to him, and should not have been charged with the payment either of expenses of administration, debts, or the legacy to Connolly, until the property given to the residuary legatee had been exhausted. (Civ. Code, secs. 1359, 1360.)
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)