By the residuary clause in the decedent’s will, the residue of the estate, after numerous specific legacies were given to her relatives and friеnds, was divided into thirteen shares, these shares to be distributed among various persons, some to have one-half share, others to have one sharе, and still others to have two shares. One share was given to Eva Teed Sherwood who died August 24, 1943, prior to the death of the decedent. This legatee was a cousin of the decedent, and hence her legacy is not saved from lapsing by virtue of section 29 of the Decedent Estate Law. The question presented is whether this one thirteenth of the residuary passes to the estate of the deceased legatee or to the other legatees, or whether the decedent died intestate as to this share.
This question does not present a serious problem. It has been consistently held from the earliest reported cases that when a portion of a residuary legacy lapses through death of the legatee, or otherwisе, that portion goes to the next of kin of the decedent. (See Wright v. Wright,
No injustice is thereby done to the other residuary legatees. They receive the gifts which the decedent intended them to have. The. codicil which was also made prior to the death of Eva Sherwood does not affect the provisions of the residuary clause.
It is suggested that this lapsed legacy must be applied to the payment of debts and administration expensеs before applying other property specifically devised or bequeathed to the payment of such charges. (See Matter of Campbell,
The other question arisеs as to whether the decedent’s automobile is bequeathed under the thirty-fourth clause of her will giving to seven named persons “ the residue of my househоld goods and personal effects.”
The word “ effects ” is a very general term. It denotes property in a more extensive sense than “ goods ”, It may include every kind of personal property including choses in action, and in a particular case may include real estate.
In this will, the word “ effects ” is qualified by the word “ personal ”, as well аs being limited by the other provisions in the will. The meaning of the expression “ personal effects ” has occasioned considerable difficulty. It has bеen construed as meaning only those articles which have an intimate relation to the person, such as clothing, jewelry, toilet articles (see Welman vs. Neufville, executor, et al.,
When disassociated from other provisions in the will, the expression “ persоnal effects ” clearly includes an automobile owned and used by a testator at the time of his death (see Matter of Jones,
The expression “ household goods ” may narrowly be construed as applying only to articles in the house as distinguished from those in a garage or other outbuilding, but this narrow interpretation has not always prevailed, and an automobile keрt in a detached garage has been held to be “ household goods ” (In Re Mitchell’s Will, 38 N. Y. S. 2d 673). Similarly, a will giving ‘ ‘ my house [homestead] * * * and contents of all binds ”, has been interpreted as including an automobile and tools which were kept in a stable which was'situated on the testator’s homestead premises (Cowan v. Cowan, 90 N. H. 198).
In all of the above cases, the .clause in question did not bring into application the rule of ejusdem generis. In those cases, the other provisions of the will were not such as to bring in operation this doctrinе, whereby an expression of general application is limited by other language tending to give a narrower meaning.
In the will now under consideration, there are thirty-three preceding clauses which may not be ignored in the interpretation of the thirty-fourth clause. In clause fourth, a brooch is givеn; in the fifth a ring, wearing apparel and a rug--; in the sixth a wrist watch and purse; in the seventh diamond rings; in the eighth a cedar chest; in the ninth a necklace, a stiсk pin, a shawl, a clock and a. rug; in the tenth a bracelet; in the eleventh a bureau, a mirror, a book and a picture; in the twelfth a brooch and a rug; in the thirteenth silver teaspoons and a rug; in the fourteenth four chairs; in the fifteenth a brooch, a living-room suite and a picture; in the sixteenth beаds, earrings, teaspoons and a rug; in the seventeenth teaspoons; in the eighteenth a ring and a rug, a chair and teaspoons; in the nineteenth а watch with chain and stick pins; in the twentieth books, bookcase and radio; in the twenty-first a table and rug; in the twenty-second a brass elephant, base аnd stand; in the twenty-third a rug; in the twenty-fourth a rug; in the twenty-fifth a glass basket and cash; in the twenty-sixth a ring; in the twenty-seventh a rug and cash; in the twenty-eighth a rug, a painting and cash; in the twenty-ninth a picture and cash; in the thirtieth a rug; in the thirty-first three rugs and cash; in the thirty-second a rug, a vase and a cameo brooch; in the thirty-third, to five persons, thе remainder of the rugs with rug pads.
After having laboriously distributed among many persons carefully selected items of household goods and personal effеcts, the testatrix reached the thirty-fourth clause, and to several different persons gave “ the residue of my household goods and personal effects.”
The court is irresistibly drawn to the conclusion that the household goods and personal effects which the testatrix had in mind when she reached thе thirty-fourth clause were in the same class as those particularly itemized in the preceding clauses. We conclude that she did not intend to includе the automobile in the thirty-fourth clause. In numerous decisions, expressions such as “ personal effects ” and “ household goods ” have receivеd a wider or narrower interpretation, by
It appears from the records of this court that many of the personal effects specifically itemized are of comparatively slight value, while the automobile in question has been sold for $1,600. The testatrix could not expect seven persons widely separated to enjoy jointly one automobile. One machine cannot be divided among seven persons, and the residue of household goods and personal effects, is not sufficiently valuable so that the automobile might be allotted to one person and still make a proportionate distribution to the other six.
The proceedings are adjourned to September 10, 1945, at which time a decree may be settled in accordance with this opinion.