Carter v. The Montreal Trust Co. and Goldstein

Carter v. The Montreal Trust Co. and Goldstein

The $25,000 corpus was not effectively disposed of by clause 5 and therefore formed part of the residuary estate under clause 15; in the absence of issue the residuary bequest vested in the widow (subject only to the inoperative remarriage forfeiture), so the sum passed to the widow and then to her estate; appeal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
(1921) 63 SCR 207
Parties
Appellants: Dame Eliza Carter and others (heirs-at-law, mis-en-cause); Defendants (executors/trustees): The Montreal Trust Co. and Others; Respondent (executor of Mrs. Carter): Maxwell Goldstein; Deceased/testator: Christopher Benfield Carter (deceased)
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 December 1921
Procedural Posture
Appeal Wills and Estates / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of King's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of King's Bench affirmed.
Legal Topics
Residuary Bequest, Intestacy, Will Interpretation, Conditional Defeasible Gifts, Remarriage Forfeiture
Source Language
english
Estates Wills Succession Law Civil Procedure Residuary Bequest Intestacy Will Interpretation Conditional Defeasible Gifts +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dame Eliza Carter and others (heirs-at-law, mis-en-cause)

Appellants

The Montreal Trust Co. and Others

Defendants (executors/trustees)

Maxwell Goldstein

Respondent (executor of Mrs. Carter)

Christopher Benfield Carter (deceased)

Deceased/testator

Procedural Posture

Appeal Wills and Estates / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of King's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the $25,000 formed part of the residuary estate passing to the widow or devolved to heirs as on intestacy
  2. 2 Construction of clauses 5 and 15 of the will and meaning of phrase 'revert to my estate'
  3. 3 Effect of the remarriage forfeiture condition on the corpus

Ratio Decidendi

The $25,000 corpus was not effectively disposed of by clause 5 and therefore formed part of the residuary estate under clause 15; in the absence of issue the residuary bequest vested in the widow (subject only to the inoperative remarriage forfeiture), so the sum passed to the widow and then to her estate; appeal dismissed and judgment below affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of King's Bench affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of Court of King's Bench (Q.R. 31 K.B. 157) affirmed; $25,000 declared part of the residuary estate of C.B. Carter and held to have passed to his widow and her estate (to respondent as executor)