Opinion
Eq. No. 2100.
December 29, 1955, Decided
Hinckley, Allen, Salisbury & Parsons, Stuart H. Tucker, Douglas W. Franchot, Providence, for complainant.
William E. Powers, Atty. Gen., Albert J. Hoban, Providence, Adm'r of Charitable Trusts, John R. Cosentino, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Edwin B. Tetlow, Providence, for respondents Isabel Drysdale and Mary D. Lueck.
Tillinghast Colllins & Tanner, Nathaniel S. Thayer, Providence, for respondent Louise Drysdale Andrews.
PER CURIAM.
After our decision in the above case the complainant and the respondents joined in a petition for leave to file a motion for reargument. They claim that at the hearing all parties had assumed, without arguing the point, that the proceeds of a resulting trust, if found by this court to have existed and subsequently to have failed, would pass to the testator's next of kin as described in the residuary clause of the will, and that our opinion in the latter respect is apparently contrary to the law generally governing the distribution of the funds.
In view of our other holdings in the cause, we are of the opinion that the parties should have an opportunity to argue the single issue relating to the proper distribution of such trust funds.
As thus limited the motion for leave to reargue is granted.