Barber's ex'R v. Baldwin, et al. - Barber, et al. v. Newman, et al
Decision Date | 01 June 1910 |
Citation | 138 Ky. 710 |
Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Parties | Barber's Exr v. Baldwin, &c. — Barber, &c. v. Newman, &c. |
Appeals from Nelson Circuit Court.
Judgment for defendants and plaintiffs appeal. — Affirmed.
EDELEN & DAVIS, FAIRLEIGH, STRAUS & FAIRLEIGH, WILLIAM McCHORD and NAT. W. HALSTEAD for appellants.
JOHN A. FULTON, KELLY & CHERRY and E. E. McKAY for appellees.
In 1893 P. S. Barber died intestate, a resident of Nelson county, Ky. He left a large estate, variously estimated at from $360,000 to $450,000. His property consisted in the main of real estate located in Nelson county and Louisville, Ky., Chicago, Ill., Bullitt county, Ky., and in the states of Tennessee and Mississippi. He left surviving him a wife, Cecilia Barber, and two children — a son, John R. Barber, and a daughter, Amelia L. Baldwin. Shortly after his death, an agreement was made and entered into between his wife and children, whereby each took a one-third interest in the estate of P. S. Barber, deceased. This agreement was evidenced by a writing signed by the three, and, in pursuance of said agreement, the lands and personal estate owned by P. S. Barber were divided. They interchanged deeds among themselves, so that each was given an absolute title to that portion of the property which fell to him or her. In this division the valuation which they placed upon the property for the purpose of equalizing it among themselves was $120,000 per share. In May, 1908, Cecilia Barber died, testate. Her will was probated in the county court in due time, and her daughter, Amelia L. Baldwin, prosecuted an appeal from the order of the Nelson county court probating said will, and sought to have the will canceled and set aside on the ground that her mother did not have sufficient mentality to make same, and that she was unduly influenced in the execution thereof. Shortly after this contest was instituted, Mrs. Baldwin died, and the suit was revived in the name of her children and heirs at law. Her husband had died a short while before her mother. This will was executed in 1897, at which time the testatrix, Mrs. Cecilia Barber, was 78 years old. By this will, as originally drawn, she attempted to dispose of her entire estate, which at that time was, by her counsel, estimated to be of the value of at least $135,000. Of this sum she gave to churches and charities $5,800, to the family of her daughter, Mrs. Baldwin, $26,000, to the family of John R. Barber, $53,000, and to various friends, $9,500. She provided that, if any of the children of her daughter, Mrs. Baldwin, died before the testatrix, the share or interest of such one should become a part of her residuary estate, all of which she devised to her son John R. Barber and his family, ratably according to the interest which she had given them in her estate. A son of Mrs. Baldwin, Lee Baldwin, to whom she had given $15,000, died before his grandmother, and this $15,000 therefore passed into the residuary fund. Several minor changes were made in her will by codicils which were executed at various times between the execution of this will in 1897 and her death in 1908, but the codicils in the main relate to minor changes, and do not materially change the main purpose of the testatrix as expressed in the will as originally drawn. Under it, at the date of her death, the children of her daughter received something like $11,000, and her son and his children and grandchildren received the balance, amounting to more than $100,000, after the special bequests to friends, churches, and charities had been satisfied. It is of this gross inequality that Mrs. Baldwin complained. It appears from the record that shortly after her husband's death Mrs. Barber had executed a will in which she disposed of her estate along practically the same lines as she did in the will under consideration. This first will was executed in 1894. Two codicils were drawn to it, and when, in 1897, she desired to make still further changes in her will, after consulting with her attorney, she directed the will in contest drawn.
The following is the will in question with the various codicils thereto:
To continue reading
Request your trial