Belleville Sav. Bank v. Aneshaensel

• Decision Date: 22 June 1921
• Docket Number: No. 13453.,13453.
• Citation: 131 N.E. 682,298 Ill. 292
• Parties: BELLEVILLE SAV. BANK v. ANESHAENSEL et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

298 Ill. 292

131 N.E. 682

BELLEVILLE SAV. BANK

v.ANESHAENSEL et al.

No. 13453.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 22, 1921.

Bill by the Belleville Savings Bank against Julius Aneshaensel and others. From the decree, defendant Bertha Bang appeals.

Reversed in part and remanded.Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Clair County; George A. Crow, judge.

P. K. Johnson and W. E. Krebs, both of Belleville, for appellant.

L. D. Turner, R. D. W. Holder, and L. R. Osterhaus, all of Belleville, for appellees.

DUNCAN, J.

Fridolin Aneshaensel died testate June 27, 1918, leaving him surviving no widow, his wife, Anna Aneshaensel having died intestate March 21, 1917. Neither of them left surviving any child or descendants of a child. The testator left surviving as his only heirs at law William Aneshaensel, his brother, Charles, Walter and Julius Aneshaensel and Emma Scherrer, children of his deceased brother, Charles Aneshaensel, and Ludwig Schmidt, son of his deceased sister, Barbara Schmidt. Anna Aneshaensel left surviving as her only heirs at law Fridolin Aneshaensel, the testator, August Merk, her brother, eight nieces and nephews including Bertha Bang the appellant, and two grandnieces and a grandnephew, all of whom are the children and grandchildren of her deceased brother, Charles Merk; two nephews and a niece and two grandnephews, children and grandchildren of her deceased sister, Louisa Pithan, and three nephews and two nieces, children of her deceased sister, Bertha Kring. The Belleville Savings Bank was appointed conservator of Fridolin Aneshaensel a year or more before his death but his sanity at the time he made his will is unquestioned. The bank was also appointed administrator with the will annexed after the will of the testator had been probated. The will was executed March 22, 1909, and names his wife, Anna Aneshaensel, and Henry E. Schrader, as executors, the latter of whom qualified as executor and thereafter proceeded with the administration of the estate in lieu of the bank as administrator. After providing for the payment of his debts the testator bequeathed and devised his property, both real and personal, in the following language:

‘Second. I give, devise and bequeath to my beloved wife, Anna Aneshaensel, my residence, being eighty feet off of the west side of lot 135, in the original town of Belleville; also bonds to the amount of $10,000; also my household furniture of every description contained in my said residence; and also my life insurance, $2,000, as her absolute property.

‘Third. I give and devise to my brother, William Aneshaensel, the sum of $200, and to each of his children, named Robert, Emma, Ida and Sophie, $700, which will be paid out of the debt of $3,000 due and owing to me by my said brother, William.

‘Fourth. I give and devise to my nephew Julius, son of my deceased brother, Charles, the sum of $1,000, and I give to each of the other children of my said brother, Charles, named Emma, Charles and Walter, the sum of $700.

‘Fifth. I give and devise to my sister, Barbara Schmidt, in Karlsruhe, Baden, Germany, the sum of $1,000, and if I should survive my sister then the legacy to her shall go to her son, Ludwig. All of the said legacies shall be paid by my executors in the due course of administration of my estate.

‘Sixth. All the rest and remainder of my estate, both real and personal, I give, devise and bequeath to my wife, Anna, for and during the term of her natural life, and after her death one-half of my said estate to the heirs of my said wife, or to her devisees in case she leaves a will, in fee simple. The other one-half of my estate shall be divided into nine equal shares, of which one share shall go to each of the above named children of my brother, William Aneshaensel; one share shall go to each of the four children above named in section 4 of this will, of my brother, Charles Aneshaensel; one share shall go to my sister, Barbara Schmidt, above mentioned (and in case I should survive my said sister her share shall go to her son, Ludwig, in fee simple.)’

The testator died seized and possessed of all the property, both real and personal, mentioned in the will and of other property not therein specifically mentioned. The personal property of which the testator died possessed consisted of cash, bonds, and one promissory note, all of which was valued at more than $57,000. The insurance policy mentioned in the will was issued by the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York and was made payable to Anna Aneshaensel or her children. It was collected from the insurance company by the bank as conservator of the testator, and the proceeds thereof are included as part of the cash assets of the testator's estate. The homestead of the testator described in the will is valued at $5,000. The testator also died seized of three other pieces of real estate valued at $8,500, making a total valuation of the real estate of $13,500.

The Belleville Savings Bank, as former conservator and acting administrator, filed a bill in the circuit court of St. Clair county praying for the construction of the sixth and second clauses of the will. Later, and after he had qualified as executor, Henry E. Schrader, as executor, filed a supplemental bill, in which he alleged, in substance, the material facts above set forth and prayed the same relief and that he might be substituted as complainant in lieu of said administrator. All of the hrirs of the testator aforesaid and the four children of William Aneshaensel, legatees named in the will, and the heirs of Anna Aneshaensel, except the testator were made parties defendant to the bill. All of the heirs and legatees of the testator other than the heirs of Anna Aneshaensel filed answers admitting substantially all of the averments of the amended and supplemental bill, and they also alleged that the heirs of Anna Aneshaensel were not entitled to any portion of the testator's estate either by virtue of clause 2 or clause 6 of the will. Bertha Bang filed her answer, admitting practically all the averments of the bill, but alleging that in the construction of the will it should be held that the specific legacy to Anna Aneshaensel in clause 2 of the will lapsed and became part of the residuary estate, and that under clause 6 (the residuary clause) one-half of the real estate and personal property bequeathed by clause 6 vested in the legatees therein mentioned, viz. Julius, Charles, Emma, Walter, Robert and Ida Aneshaensel and Emma Scherrer, Sophie Buchert and Ludwig Schmidt, and that the other one-half vested in the heirs of Anna Aneshaensel, except the testator. All of the other defendants were adults and made default, and the bill was taken as confessed as against them. Issues were formed by filing replications to the answers.

The court found and decreed in accordance with the contentions of the heirs of the testator, and ordered that all debts and claims, costs of administration, costs and charges in this suit, including solicitors' fees taxed and the legacies mentioned in clauses 3 and 4 of the will, be first paid. Ludwig Schmidt being found to be an alien enemy, his specific legacy in clause 5 of the will and all other moneys found payable to him under the will are to be held subject to the rules of the proper officials of the United States government and paid as directed thereby. It was also decreed that the one-half of the proceeds of the property mentioned in clause 6 of the will be paid one-ninth each to the legatees mentioned in said clause, other than Anna Aneshaensel and her heirs, Ludwig Schmidt's share to be retained as aforesaid, and that all the other property of the testator, including the proceeds of the insurance policy aforesaid, should be distributed as intestate property to the heirs of the testator: To William Aneshaensel, one-third; to Julius, Charles, and Walter Aneshaensel, and Emma Scherrer, each one-twelfth; and to Ludwig Schmidt, for the use of and as directed by the Custodian of Alien Enemy Property, the remaining one-third. The court specifically held that all of the property devised to the wife in clause 2 and one-half of the property described in clause 6 of the will, and willed to the wife during her life and the remainder to her heirs, descended to the heirs of the testator,including the proceedsof the insurance policy. Bertha Bang has brought this appeal.

There is no contest on any question of fact in this case. The first legal question that will be considered arises with reference to the proceeds of the insurance policy which was issued on the life of the testator and made payable to Anna Aneshaensel or her children. The beneficiary in this policy had no children at the time she died. The beneficiary was never changed by the testator, and by the express terms of his will the policy was to be paid to her at his death, therefore the policy at the testator's death was payable to her administrator or legal representatives, as the alternative beneficiaries named in the policy had no existence. Had her administrator collected the policy, the proceeds would have been distributed as other intestate property after the payment of debts and expenses of administration. There was no such administration and no necessity for such, so far as this record shows. The third paragraph of section 1 of our statute on descent (Hurd's Rev. St. 1919, c. 39) provides:

‘When there is a widow or surviving husband, and no child or children, or descendants of a child or children of the intestate, then (after the payment of all just debts) one-half of the real estate and the whole of the personal estate shall descend to such widow or surviving husband as an absolute estate forever, and the other half of the real estate shall descend as in other cases, where there is no child or children or descendants of a child or children.’

The policy of insurance was therefore...