## Facts

- James Wilson died in 1918, survived by five siblings: Martha B. Wilson, Mary E. Wilson, Samuel H. Wilson, Margaret W. Irvine, and Henry Wilson.
- Wilson’s will placed his residuary “real and mixed” estate (and proceeds from any sale) in a testamentary trust naming Security Trust Company as trustee.
- The will provided that trust benefits were to be paid to Martha and Mary (both unmarried) “during their joint lives and during the lifetime of the survivor of them.”
- The will further provided that if Margaret W. Irvine became a widow, she would “share equally” with Martha and Mary in the trust benefits.
- For the remainder, the will stated that upon the death of Martha and Mary and the survivor, the trust property and any unexpended income “shall be equally divided among my brothers and sisters, share and share alike, their heirs and assigns forever, the issue of any deceased brother or sister to take his or her parent’s share.”
- Martha died in 1928; Mary died in 1951, ending the trust.
- By the time the trust terminated, none of Wilson’s siblings were alive; Martha, Mary, and Margaret died without children.
- Samuel died leaving three children (and a daughter-in-law was also named among the defendants); the executors and beneficiaries of the siblings’ estates were also made parties.
- The trustee petitioned the Delaware Court of Chancery for instructions on how to distribute the trust remainder.

## Issues

1. Did the remainder gift to Wilson’s “brothers and sisters” vest at Wilson’s death, or only at the trust’s termination (the death of the last life tenant)?
2. If the remainder vested at Wilson’s death, were the life-tenant sisters (Martha and Mary) included in the class of “brothers and sisters” entitled to share in the remainder?
3. If a sibling died before distribution without children, did that sibling’s share fail and shift to others, or pass through the sibling’s estate?

## Decision

- The court held the remainder interests in the residuary estate vested at Wilson’s death, with enjoyment postponed until the trust terminated.
- The court held Martha and Mary were not excluded from the class gift and could share as members of the class “my brothers and sisters.”
- The court held each sibling’s remainder share was vested subject to being displaced only if that sibling died leaving issue; siblings who died without issue kept vested shares that passed through their estates.

## Legal Principles

- Delaware law favors vesting at the testator’s death unless the will clearly makes the gift depend on a later, uncertain event.
- Language directing distribution “upon” the death of a life tenant generally sets the time of possession and payment, not the time when the remainder interest comes into existence.
- In Delaware, a life tenant who is also a member of a remainder class is included in the class unless the will clearly shows a contrary intent.
- A direction that “the issue of any deceased [class member]” take the parent’s share is commonly read as substitutional: the parent’s share is vested, but is displaced if the parent dies leaving issue before distribution.
- If the divesting condition does not occur (because the class member dies without issue), the vested share remains part of that member’s estate and passes under that member’s will or by intestacy.

## Conclusion

The Court of Chancery construed Wilson’s will to give each sibling a vested remainder at Wilson’s death, to include the life-tenant sisters within the “brothers and sisters” class, and to treat the “issue” clause as a substitution only when a sibling died leaving children—so childless siblings’ shares did not fail but passed through their estates at the trust’s termination.


Security Trust Co. v. Irvine, 93 A.2d 528 (1953)