Hunt v. Kingston — 51 N.Y. St. Rep. 505

Majority

p. 505

John T. Hunt, Pl’ff, v. Alice Kingston et al., Def’ts.

(New York Common Pleas, Special Term,

Filed April 1, 1893.)

Headnote

Descent — Collateral relatives.

The real estate of a person dying intestate and leaving no relatives nearer in degree than the descendant of a granduncle, grandaunts and descendants of grandaunts, passes to such descendant of the granduncle to the exclusion of grandaunts and their descendants.

Motion to confirm the referee’s report in proceedings relative to surplus moneys arising on the sale of mortgaged premises.

The matter was referred to Richard M. Henry, Esq., referee, who, among other things, found as findings of fact: “ Third. That John J. Bradley, in his lifetime, was the owner in fee of the premises foreclosed in this action; and on his death, in August, 1891, left him surviving the following relatives: Alice Kingston and Catherine Smith, grandaunts, and who were the sisters of John J. Bradley’s paternal grandmother; also, Edward J. McGrough (sometimes called Edward McGrough), the son of Patrick McGrough, a granduncle who was a brother of John J. Bradley’s paternal grandmother also, James McCusker (sometimes called McCloskey), Mary Cavanaugh (or Cavanagh), and Sarah Ann Finnan, children of Rose McCusker, a grandaunt, who was a sister of John J. Bradley’s paternal grandmother. That said Sarah Ann Finnan died leaving her surviving her husband, Hugh Finnan, and five children, Lawrence Finnan, James Finnan,

p. 506

Mary Ann Finnan, Rose Finnan (wife of William J. Godfrey), and Julia Finnan; also, Margaret Healy and Mary Colby, the daughters of Margaret Trainor, a grandaunt who was a sister of John J. Bradley’s paternal grandmother; and, also, James O’Neill, John O’Neill and Edward O’Neill, the sons of Ann O’Neill, a grandaunt, who was a sister of John J. Bradley’s paternal grandmother. That all the said grandaunts of the deceased John- J. Bradley, -except Alice Kingston and Catherine Smith, are dead, and that the said granduncle, Patrick McGough, is dead.

“ Fourth. That there are no other living .relatives of the said John J. Bradley, deceased, than those above referred, to.

“ Fifth. That the said Edward J. McGough was the only son ■of Patrick McGough, who was the only son of Edward Mc-Gough, father of the paternal grandmother .of the said John J. Bradley, deceased.

“ Sixth. That the said John J. Bradley was unmarried, and died, leaving him surviving no child or adopted child or children, and no descendant of any child or adopted child; no brother or sister, and no descendant of any brother or sister; no father, no mother, no uncle or aunt, and no descendant of any uncle or aunt, and ho relatives except as above set forth.”

And as conclusions of law:

ll I. That said Edward J. McGough (otherwise called Edward McGough) is the only heir at law of the said John J. Bradley, ■deceased, entitled to inherit the said surplus money.

“ II. That there is due and owing to said Edward J. McGough (otherwise called Edward McGough), one of the claimants to the surplus money in this action, the whole amount of the said surplus, viz. : the sum of $2,214.43, less the costs and expenses of this reference.”

Exceptions to the report of the said referee were filed by the guardian ad litem, for the infant defendants to- the fourth finding ■of fact and the first and second conclusions of law. The exception to the fourth finding of fact was withdrawn before" argument •on the exceptions was heard. The referee’s report is accompanied by an opinion, wherein he holds that under the circumstances the inheritance shall descend according to the course of the common law, and that Edward J. McGough, the sole heir at law of Patrick McGough, granduncle of the deceased, takes the whole inheritance or surplus money to the exclusion of his surviving grandaunts and the descendants of deceased grandaunts.

The other material facts are stated in the opinion.

Henry A. Gumbleton, for the defendants Alice Kingston and others; Johnston & Johnston, for Lewis Johnston, guardian ad litem for the infant defendants.

The only relatives.whom the intestate left him ■surviving are collaterals; and they are so remote that the inheritance descends according to the course of the common law, R. S., title Y. part 2, chap. 2, § 16; 4 R. S. (Banks Bros.), 8th ed., p. "2466; 4 Kent’s Com., 13th ed., 411. The principal question presented for solution is whether the second general rule or canon

p. 507

of the common law, that male issue shall be admitted before the female, still applies to a remote case of collateral kinship in this state. It is claimed on behalf of the infant defendants who are the descendants of deceased grandaunts of the intestate, that this rule or canon does not prevail in the United States; and the editors’ footnotes to Chase’s Blackstone’s Com., 385, 397; Williams on Beal Property, 2 Am. ed., 106; 3 Washburn on Beal Property, 5th ed., 12, are cited in support of this contention. The learned editors do not, however, refer us to any statute or other authority, and these notes, therefore, are practically of no value. Although the common law rule that males shall be admitted before females has been superseded in certain cases in this state, yet it still obtains in cases of remote collateral kinship, 4 Kent’s Com., 13 ed., 411, of which the case under consideration presents a remarkable example. It is fair to presume, under the circumstances, that the remarks of the editors in question were intended to apply only to such cases where the rule giving a preference of males has been superseded by express legislative enactment, and that they did not have in view a case where the intestate left him surviving only the issue of a granduncle, grandaunts, and the issue of a deceased grandaunt. A careful examination of the Bevised Statutes relative to the descent of real property shows that the rule referred to has been superseded only in cases where the right to succeed to the inheritance is expressly given by statute. But the innovation so far as it relates to collateral kinship has not been carried farther than to the descendants of brothers’ and sisters’ children to the remotest degree; to the brothers and sisters of the father of the intestate, and their descendants, and then to the brothers and sisters of the mother of the intestate, and their descendants; or to the brothers and sisters of both father and mother of the intestate, and their descendants, according to the various ways in which the estate may have been acquired, 4 B. S., Banks Bros., 8th ed., 2463 to 2467; 4 Kent’s Com., 13th ed., 411. The rights of greatuncles and greataunts and their descendants are laid down by Bemsen in his very handy work on Intestates’ Succession in New York, in the following language : “Great-uncles and greataunts inherit no portion of the real estate of a deceased if such deceased leaves any descendant, parent, brother, sister, descendant of a brother or sister, uncle, aunt, or descendant of an uncle or aunt. If the deceased leaves a widow, the real estate is taken subject to her rights. If the deceased leaves a husband, to whom a child was born alive, the real estate is taken subject to the husband’s right .of curtesy. Where greatuncles and aunts are not excluded as above, they inherit according to the course of the common law. The common law rules or canons of descent, as given by Sir William Blackstone in the second book of his Commentaries, are .as follows:

“ I. The first rule is, that inheritances shall lineally descend to the issue of the person who last died actually seized, in infinitum ; but shall never lineally ascend.

“ II. A second general rule or canon is, that the male issue shall be admitted before the female.

p. 508

“III. A third rule or canon of descent is this: that where there are two or more males, in equal degree, the eldest only shall inherit; but the females all together.

“ IY. A fourth rule or canon of descent is this: that the lineal descendants, in infinitum, of any person deceased shall represent their ancestor; that is, shall stand in the same place as the person himself would have done had he been living.

“ Y. A fifth rule is, that on failure of the lineal descendants, or issue of the person last seized, the inheritance shall descend to his collateral' relations, being of the blood of the first purchaser subject to the three preceding rules.

“ YI. A sixth rule or canon therefore is, that the collateral heir of the person last seized must be his next collateral kinsman of the whole blood.

“VIL The seventh and last rule or canon is that in collateral inheritances the male stocks shall be preferred to the female, that is, kindred derived from the blood of the male ancestors, however remote, shall be admitted before those from the blood of the female, however near, unless where the lands have in fact descended from a female.” Remsen’s Intestate Succession, 2nd ed., 100-102. 1

Chancellor Kent, in referring to these peculiar features of our law of descents, says : “ It is a matter of some surprise that the revised statutes of New York did not proceed, and in cases not provided for follow the example of the law of descents in most of the states of the union, and direct the inheritance to the next collateral kindred, to be ascertained, as in the statute of distribution of the personal estate of intestates, by the rules of the civil law. Instead of that, we have retained in New York, in these remote cases, the solitary example of the application of the stern1 doctrine and rules of the common law.” 4 Kent’s Com., 13th ed., 411. And the learned commentator also furnishes us with the reasons why they have not been altered, in these words : “The claims of such remote collaterals are not likely to occur very often; and as the stream of the natural affections, so remote from the object, must flow cool and languid, natural sentiments and feelings have very little concern with the question.” id. 411.

Inasmuch as the common law rules or canons of descent still apply in cases where granduncles and grandaunts and their descendants inherit from the intestate, it follows that the referee was correct in his conclusions that Patrick MeGough under rule two takes the whole of the inheritance to the exclusion of his sisters and their descendants; and also, that Patrick MeGrough being dead leaving Edward J. MeGrough his sole heir at law, the said Edward J. McGough, under rule four, takes the whole inheritance or surplus money to the exclusion of the decedent’s surviving grandaunts and the descendants of the decedent’s deceased grandaunts.

The referee’s report is, therefore, confirmed.