In Re the Estate of Tompkins

California Supreme Court Mar 11, 1901 No. S.F. No. 1742.Published

Before: Harrison

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a prior instrument releasing a debt does not override a subsequent testamentary provision directing that the same amounts be deducted from the beneficiaries' distributive shares as advancements. The will's clear language regarding the deduction of loans must be enforced regardless of prior extrinsic agreements.

Issues

Whether a prior release of debt is admissible to contradict a testamentary direction to deduct loans from a beneficiary's share.
Whether a testatrix's testamentary intent to treat loans as advancements is binding even if the underlying debt was previously released.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The will must be interpreted by the language which she has used therein, and cannot be affected by an instrument made by her several years previous, and to which she makes no reference.”

“It is incompetent to show by any extrinsic evidence that the testator has by his own mistake, or that of some other person, given a legacy of less value or of a different character from that which he in fact actually meant to give.”

“The testatrix must have intended that this clause in her will should have some effect in the distribution of her estate, and the only purpose deducible from its language is, that she intended thereby that the shares of the appellants should be diminished”

Synopsis

APPEAL from a decree of the Superior Court of Alameda County distributing the estate of a deceased person. John Ellsworth, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

HARRISON,J.

—Appeal from the decree of final distribu-, tion.

In the ninth paragraph of her will, executed in 1892, the testatrix disposed of. the residue of her estate to her six children (naming them), share and share alike, and at the close of this paragraph made the following statement: —

“ I declare that I have heretofore loaned to my son Albert Tompkins the sum and amount of four thousand dollars; to my son Ira Tompkins the sum and amount of four thousand dollars; and to my son William C. Tompkins the sum and amount of one thousand dollars,—upon all of which amounts I have and do remit interest; but I hereby will and direct that the respective amounts aforesaid, or whatever may be yet owing and unpaid by my said sons to me at the time of my death, be respectively deducted from the respective distributive portions to which they would otherwise be entitled, and my estate have due credit therefor.”

William C. Tompkins, named therein, died before the testatrix.

Upon the hearing of the application for distribution, the attorney for the above-named Albert and Ira Tompkins offered in their behalf the following instrument, which had been received by them from the testatrix in 1886: —

“My dear Sons, Albert and Ira,

— As I understand it, the question you now submit to me is one of honor, more than law. Therefore I waive all technicalities, and undertake to answer it upon the strict rules of equity.

“ It is and always has been my purpose and desire to have the children share alike in the property. I have concluded, after 'carefully reviewing the matter, that inasmuch as the seven thousand dollars taken from the avails of the North Troy property in 1873, and at the time of your father’s death charged to Tompkins Brothers, was used, together with your efforts to secure to all the heirs father’s life insurance, and my title to said real estate, that it should be charged to all the heirs .jointly, instead of being'assumed by you two alone.

“ And inasmuch as I gave to each of the other children one

[175]

In Re the Estate of Tompkins

AI Brief

Synopsis

HARRISON,J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief