Stone v. Stone
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Sauk county: James O’Neill, Judge. Construction of will. On November 16, 1912, Fidelia M. Waterbury executed a will, which, omitting the signature, attestation clause, and clause appointing the executor, is as follows: “Know all men by these presents that I, Fidelia M. Waterbury of the village of Prairie du Sac in the county of Sauk and state of Wisconsin, being of sound mind and memory and mindful'of the uncertainty of human…
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Sauk county: James O’Neill, Judge. Construction of will. On November 16, 1912, Fidelia M. Waterbury executed a will, which, omitting the signature, attestation clause, and clause appointing the executor, is as follows: “Know all men by these presents that I, Fidelia M. Waterbury of the village of Prairie du Sac in the county of Sauk and state of Wisconsin, being of sound mind and memory and mindful'of the uncertainty of human life, do make and' publish and declare this my last will and testament in manner following, to wit: “First. I give,…
1DissentKerwiN, J.
I cannot agree with the majority of the court in this case. The residuary clause of the will is clear and specific. It divides the residue of the estate into five equal parts or shares and one of such shares is devised and bequeathed to Martha M. Ried.
The residuary clause does not give the residue to the legatees as a class or as joint tenants. The terms of the residuary clause are clear and unmistakable that one fifth was given absolutely to Martha M. Ried, and, she having predeceased the testatrix, the bequest to her lapsed and became intestate property.
Of course, if there were anything in…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Manier v. PhelpsNew York Supreme Court · 1884
- Will of AllisWisconsin Supreme Court · 1916