Leavitt v. Wolcott (Unknown Court, 1883)

Outcome

Appellate court reversed the superior court and reinstated the industrial commissioner's denial of workers' compensation benefits to the widow of an employee killed during a labor strike, finding sufficient evidence that the deceased was the aggressor and thus the injury did not arise out of his employment.

Excerpt

Appeal from judgment of the special term construing the will of Gardiner H. Wolcott. The following is the opinion of the special term : Van Voest, J.— The last will and testament of Gardiner H. Wolcott is presented for construction. The provisions thereof, concerning which questions have arisen, may be shortly stated. Deducting from his property certain legacies and specific gifts, the testator provides that one-half the.legal interest from his estate, which he directed should be converted into bonds and mortgages, should be paid' to his father during life, and that the other half of the interest should be paid to Mrs. Charlotte Varían during her life- On the death of his father, the testator directed that his share of the interest should be- divided between his brother Frederick and his sisters Elizabeth and Alice, share and share alike, for life. And that upon the death of Mrs. Varían her share of the income should, in like- maimer, be divided between the same, brother and sisters for life*» The will then provides that “at the death of the above named parties — my father, Mrs;. Charlotte Varían, my brother Frederick and sisters Elizabeth and Alice — I wish the entire estate, held in trust by my hereinafter named trustees and executors, to be paid to my dear nephew, Huntington Wolcott Merchant, if of age; if at such time he should be a-minor, the property will be held in trust for him until he arrives at his majority.” Taken as a whole, this disposition made by the testator of his estate transgresses the statutes against perpetuities, as it suspends the power of alienation beyond two lives in being at the testator’s death. But I apprehend that the invalid portion may be dropped, and that the residue may, without violence, be allowed to stand. I am persuaded that the several bequests of income are independent. The trust in favor of the father of the testator and Mrs. Yarian is one; that in favor of the brother and

What This Ruling Means

**Leavitt v. Wolcott (1883): Will Construction Case** This 1883 case involved a dispute over how to interpret the will of Gardiner H. Wolcott. The will contained provisions about how his estate should be distributed, but some parts of these provisions violated laws about how long property can be tied up in trusts (called "perpetuities" rules). The people involved in the case disagreed about whether the entire will was invalid or if only the problematic parts should be thrown out. The court decided that the invalid portions of the will that violated perpetuities laws could be removed while keeping the rest of the will intact. This meant that most of Wolcott's estate could still be distributed according to his wishes, even though some specific provisions had to be eliminated. The case was sent back to a lower court for further proceedings. For workers today, this case illustrates an important principle: when legal documents contain both valid and invalid provisions, courts will often try to preserve what they can rather than throwing out the entire document. This approach, called "severability," can apply to employment contracts and workplace policies, potentially protecting workers' rights even when some contract terms are found to be illegal.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Leavitt v. Wolcott

Case Details

Related Laws

Outcome

Excerpt

What This Ruling Means

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?