In re Mills’ Will, 297 N.Y. 310 (1948)
The interpretation of terms like “domestic servant” in a will depends on the testator’s intent, gleaned from the context of the will and the circumstances of the testator’s life and the employee’s service.
Summary
This case concerns the interpretation of the term “domestic servant” in a will. The plaintiff, a chauffeur employed by the testator, Ogden Mills, sought to recover a bequest designated for “every domestic servant” who had been employed for seven years or more. The lower courts denied the claim, interpreting the phrase to apply only to house servants. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that based on the testator’s intent and the nature of the chauffeur’s duties, the chauffeur should be considered a domestic servant for the purpose of the will’s bequest. The Court emphasized examining the testator’s circumstances to ascertain the intended meaning of the words in the will.
Facts
The plaintiff was employed as a chauffeur by the testator, Ogden L. Mills, from 1929 until Mills’ death in 1937.
Mills’ will bequeathed $2,500 to “every domestic servant not herein named who is in my employ at the time of my decease and who at that time has been in my employ continuously for seven (7) years or more.”
The testator maintained three homes and employed a large staff, including house servants, chauffeurs, gardeners, and farm laborers.
The plaintiff previously worked as the personal chauffeur for the testator’s father and then for the testator’s wife.
The plaintiff had quarters in the testator’s garage in New York City and a room in the servants’ quarters at the testator’s Woodbury, Long Island home.
The plaintiff’s duties included driving family members and guests, delivering packages and notes, and being available at all times as directed by the testator’s wife.
Procedural History
The plaintiff sued to recover the $2,500 bequest, arguing he qualified as a “domestic servant.”
The lower courts ruled against the plaintiff, interpreting “domestic servant” narrowly to exclude chauffeurs.
The New York Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts’ judgments.
Issue(s)
Whether the testator intended the term “domestic servant” in his will to include a chauffeur who served the convenience of the family and lived in the household for a significant portion of the year.
Holding
Yes, because based on the circumstances of the testator and the plaintiff’s employment, the testator intended to include the plaintiff as a “domestic servant” for the purposes of the will’s bequest.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that the term “domestic servant” is not a technical term with a rigid meaning but should be interpreted based on the testator’s intent.
The court emphasized that when interpreting wills, courts must “endeavor to place ourselves, so far as we can, in the position of the testator and from that viewpoint seek the meaning which was in the mind of the testator when he used these words.”
The Court considered the testator’s background as a wealthy and legally trained individual who made careful provisions for his employees, suggesting a deliberate intent.
The court noted the plaintiff’s duties directly ministered to the convenience of the family and guests, he was subject to the directions of the testator and his wife, and he lived in the testator’s home for a significant part of the year.
The Court distinguished the plaintiff’s situation from those who might serve the family indirectly or have fixed hours, stating, “We express no opinion that others who did not live in the house, who served only indirectly the comfort and convenience of the family during the hours for which they were employed, who were not subject to the constant direction of the head of the household or a member of the family, would likewise share such benefit.” This highlights that the key factor was the integration of the chauffeur into the household and the direct service provided to the family’s convenience.