Legatee in United States
Legatee Definition
The person to whom a legacy is given. One who is bequeathed a legacy (in U.S. law). See other entries related to legacy.
Meaning in the Past
Important Note: this is an extension/continuation on the entry on Legatee in the American legal dictionary of this Project. Legacies to legal personal representatives or to personal representatives. 1. Where there is nothing on the face of the will to manifest a different intention, the legal construction of the words “personal representatives,” or “legal personal representatives,” is executors or administrators of the person described. 6 Ves. 402; 6 Mead. 159. A legacy limited to the personal or legal personal representatives of A, unexplained by anything in the will, will entitle A’s executors or administrators to it, not as representing A or as part of his estate or liable to his debts, but in their own right as personae named by the law. 2 Mad. 155.
Designation of personal or legal personal representatives
In the following cases the executors or administrators were held to be entitled under the designation of personal or legal personal representatives. 3 Ves. 486; Anstr. 128.
Details
The next of kin and not the executors or administrators, were, in the following cases, held to be entitled under the same designation. 3 Bro. C. C. 224, approved by Lord Rosslyn in 3 Ves. 486; 3 Ves. 146; 19 Ves. 404.
Other Aspects
The same words were held to mean children, grandchildren, etc. to the exclusion of those people who technically answer the description of “personal representatives.” 3 Ves. 383.
More Information
A husband or wife may take as such, if there is a manifest intention in the will that they should and if either be clothed with the character of executor or administrator of the other, the prima facie legal title attaches to the office, which will prevail, unless an intention to the contrary be expressed or clearly apparent in the instrument. See 14 Ves. 382; 18 Ves. 49; 3 Ves. 231; 2 Ves. sen. 84; 3 Atk. 758; 1 Rop. Husb. and Wife, 326; 2 Rop. Husb. and. Wife, 64.
Other Issues
The construction of bequests when limited to executors and administrators. 1. Where personal estate is given to B, his executors and administrators, the law transfers to B the absolute interest in the legacy. 15 Ves. 537; 2 Mad. 155.
More
If no interest were given to B and the bequest were to his executors and administrators, it should seem that the individual answering the description would be beneficially entitled as personal designatae, in analogy to the devise of real estate (or real property) to the heir of B, without a earlier limitation to B, whose heir would take by buy in his own right and not by force of the word “heir” considered as a term of limitation. 2 Mad. 155. See 8 Comyn’s Digest (A digest of the laws of England, 1822) Devise of Personal Property, xxxvi.
More
Legacies to descendants. 1. A legacy to the descendants of A, will comprehend all his children, grandchildren, etc.; and if the will direct the bequest to be divided equally among them, they are entitled to the fund per capita. Ambl. 97; 3 Bro. C. C. 369.
More
Legacies to a family. 1. The word family, when applied to personal property, is synonymous with “kindred,” or “relations;” see 9 Ves. 323. This being the ordinary acceptation of the word family, it may however be confined to particular relations by the context of the will; or the term may be enlarged by it, so that the expression may, in some cases, mean children or next of kin and in others may even include relations by marriage. See 8 Ves. 604; Dy. 333; 5 Ves. 166; Hob. 33; Coop. 122; 5 M. & S. 126; 17 Ves. 263; 1 Taunt. 266; 14 Ves. 488; 9 Ves. 319; 3 Meriv. 689.
More
Legacies to servants. 1. To entitle himself to a bequest “to servants,” the relation of master and servant must have arisen out of a contract by which the claimant must have formed an engagement which entitled the master to the service of the individual during the whole period or each and every part of the time for which he contracted to, serve. 12 Ves. 114; 2 Vern. 546.
More
To claim as a servant, the legatee must in general be in the actual service of the testator at the time of his death. Still a servant may be considered by a testator as continuing in his employment and be intended to take under the bequest, although he quitted the testator’s house earlier to his death, so as to answer the description in the instrument; and to establish which fact declarations of the testator upon the subject cannot be rejected; but testimony that the testator meant a servant despite his having left the testator’s service, to take a legacy bequeathed only to servants in his employment at his death, cannot be received as in direct opposition to the will. 16 Ves. 486, 489.
More
The different periods of time at which people answering the descriptions of next of kin, family relations, issue, heirs, descendants and personal representatives, (to whom legacies are given by those terms generally and without discrimination,) were needd to be in esse, for the purpose of participating in the legatory fund. 1. When the will expresses or clearly shows that a testator in bequeathing to the relations, etc. of a deceased individual, referred to such of them as were in existence when the will was made, they only will be entitled; as if the bequest was, “I give 1000 to the descendants of the late A B, now living,” those descendants only in esse at the date of the will can claim the legacy. Ambl. 397.
More
But, in general, a will begins to speak at the death of the testator and consequently, in ordinary cases, relations, next of kin, issue, descendants, etc., living at that period will alone divide the property bequeathed to them by those words. See 1 Ball &. Beat. 459; 1 Bro. C. C. 532; 3 Bro. C. C. 224; 5 Ves. 399; 1 Jac. & Walk, 388, n.; 3 Meriv. 689; 5 Binn. 607; 2 Murph. 178.
More
If a testator express or his intention or appear from his will, that a bequest to his relations, etc., living at the death of a person or upon the happening of any other event, should take the fund, his next of kin only in existence at the period described, will be entitled, in exclusion of the representatives of such of them as happened to be then dead. 3 Ves. 486; 9 Ves. 325; 1 Atk. 469; 15 Ves. 27; 4 Vin. Abr. 485, pl. 16; 8 Ves. 38; 5 Binn. 606; see 6 Munf. 47.
More
When the fund given to legatees, by the description of “family,” “relations” “next in kin,” etc., is to be divided among them either per capita or per stirpes or both per stirpes et capita. 1. Where the testator gives a legacy to his relations generally, if his next of kin be related to him in equal degree, as brothers, there being no children of a deceased brother, the brothers will divide the fund among them in equal shares or per capita; each being entitled in his own right to an equal share. So it would be if all the brothers had died before the testator, one leaving two children, another three, etc., all the nephews and nieces would take in equal shares, per capita, in their own rights and not as representing their parents; because they are sole next of kin and related to the testator in equal degree. Pre. Ch. 54; and see 1 P. Wms. 595; 1 Atk. 454; 3 P. Wms. 50. But if the testator’s next of kin happen not to be related to him in equal degrees, as a brother and the children of a deceased brother, so as that under the statute the children would take per stirpes as representing their parent, namely, the share he would have taken had he been living; yet if the testator has shown au intention that his next of kin must be entitled to his property in equal shares, i. e. per capita, the distribution by the statute will be superseded. This may happen where the bequest is to relations, next of kin, etc., to be equally divided among them; or by expressions of like import. Forrest. 251; and see 1 Bro. C. C. 33; 8 Sergeant & Rawle’s Pennsylvania Reports (Reports of Cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, by Thomas Sergeant and William Rawle), 43; 11 Sergeant & Rawle’s Pennsylvania Reports (Reports of Cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, by Thomas Sergeant and William Rawle) 103; 1 Murph. 383.
More
Where a bequest is to relations, etc., those people only who are next of kin are entitled and the statute of distributions is adopted, not only to ascertain the people who take, but also the proportions and way in which the property is to be divided; the will being silent upon the subject, if the next of kin of the person described be not related to him in equal degree, those most remote can only claim per stirpes or in right of those who would have been entitled under the statute if they had been living. Hence it appears that taking per stirpes, always supposes an inequality in relation-ship. For example, where a testator bequeaths a legacy to his “relations,” or “next of kin,” and leaves at his death two children and three grandchildren, the children of a deceased child; the grandchildren would take their parents’ share, that is, one-third per stirpes under the statute, as representing their deceased parent. 1 Cox, 235.
More
Where a testator bequeaths personal estate to several people as tenants in common, with a declaration that upon all or any of their deaths before a particular time, their respective shares must be equally divided among the issue or descendants of each of them and they die before the arrival of the period, some leaving children, others grandchildren and great grandchildren and other grandchildren and more remote descendants in such case the issue of each deceased person will take their parents share per stirpes; and such issue, whether children only or children and grandchildren, etc., will divide each parent’s share among them equally per capita. 1 Ves. sen. 196.
More
The effect of a mistake in the names of legatees. 1. Where the name has been mistaken in a will or deed, it will be corrected from the instrument, if the intention appear in the description of the legatee or donee or in other parts of the will or deed. For example, if a testator give a bequest to Thomas second son of his brother John, when in fact John had no son named Thomas and his second son was called William; it was held William was entitled. 19 Ves. 381; Coop. 229; and see Ambl. 175; Co. Litt. 3, a; Finch’s R. 403; 3 Leon, 18. When a bequest is made to a class of individuals, nomin-atim and the name or christian name of one of them is omitted and the name or christian name of another is repeated; if the context of the will sbow that the repetition of the name was error and the name of the person omitted was intended to have been inserted, the mistake will be corrected. As where a testator gave his residuary estate to his six grandchildren, by their christian names. The name of Ann, one of them, was repeated and the name of Elizabeth, another of them, was omitted. The context of the will clearly showed the mistake which had occurred and Elizabeth was admitted to an equal share in the bequest. 1 Bro. C. C. 30; see 2 Cox, 186. And is to cases where parol evidence will be received to prove the mistakes in the names or additions of legatees and to ascertain the proper person, see 3 B. & A. 632 to 642; 6 T. R. 676; 2 P. Wms. 137; 1 Atk. 410: 1 P. Wms. 421; 5 Rep. 68, b; 6 Ves. 42; 7 East, 302; Ambl. 75.
More
The effect of mistakes in the descriptions of legatees and the admission of parol evidence in those cases. 1. Where the description of the legatee is wrong, the error not having been caused by any fraud practiced upon the testator and there is no doubt as to the person who was intended to be described, the mistake will not disappoint the bequest. Hence if a legacy be given to a person by a correct name, but a wrong description or addition, the mistaken description will not vitiate the bequest, but be rejected; for it is a maxim that veritas nominis tollit errorem demonstrationis. Ld. Bac. Max. reg. 25; and see 2 Ves. jr. 589; Ambl. 75; 4 Ves. 808; Plowd. 344; 19 Ves. 400.
More
Wherever a legacy is given to a person under a particular description and character which he himself has falsely assumed; or, where a testator, induced by the false representations of third people to regard the legatee in a relationship which claims his bounty, bequeaths him a legacy according with such supposed relationship and no motive for such bounty can be supposed, the law will not, in either case, allow the legatee to avail himself of the description and therefore, he cannot demand his legacy. See 4 Ves. 802; 4 Bro. C. C. 20.
More
The same principle which has establisbed the admissibility of parol evidence to correct errors in naming legatees, authorizes its allowance to rectify mistakes in the description of them. Ambl. 374; 1 Ves. jr. 266; 1 Meriv. 184.
More
If neither the will nor extrinsic evidence is enough to dispel the ambiguity arising from the attempt to apply the description of the legatee to the person intended by the testator, the legacy must fail from the uncer-tainty of its object. 7 Ves. 508; 6 T. R. 671.
More
The consequences of imperfect descriptions of or reference to legatees, appearing upon the face of wills and when parol evidence is admissible. These cases occur, 1. When a blank is left for the Christian name of the legatee. 2. When the whole name is omitted. 3. When the testator has merely written the initials of the name; and, 4. When legatees have been once accurately described, but in a subsequent reference to one of them, to take an additional bounty, the person intended is doubtful, from ambiguity in the terms.
More
When a blank is left for the Christian name of the legatee, evidence is admissible to delivery the omission. 4 Ves. 680.
More
When the omission consists of the entire name of the legatee, parol evidence cannot be admitted to delivery the blank. 2 Ch. Ca. 51.; 2 Atk. 239; 3 Bro. C.C. 311.
More
When a legatee is described by the initials of his name only, parol evidence may be given to prove his identity. 3 Ves. 148. When a patent ambiguity arises from an imperfect reference to one of two legatees correctly described in a prior part of the will, parol evidence is admitted to show which of them was intended, so that the additional legacy intended for the one will depend upon the removal of the obscurity by a sound interpretation of the whole will. 3 Atk. 257 and see 2 Ves. 217; 2 Eden, 107. See further, upon this subject, Lownd on Leg. ch. 4; 1 Roper on Leg. ch. 2; Comyn’s Digest (A digest of the laws of England, 1822) Chancery, 3 Y; Bac. Abr. h.. t. Vin. Abr. h. t.; Nels. Abr. h. t.; Wharton’s Digest of Pennsylvania Reports Wills, G. P.; Hamm. Dig. 756; Grimké on Exec. ch. 5; Toll. on Executors, ch. 4. [1]
Resources
Notes and References
- Partialy, this information about legatee is based on the Bouvier´s Law Dictionary, 1848 edition. There is a list of terms of the Bouvier´s Law Dictionary, including legatee.
Leave a Reply