Bayless v. Bayless

• Decision Date: 30 September 1867
• Citation: 44 Tenn. 359
• Parties: Sarah Bayless v. Bayless, Ex'r, et als.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

44 Tenn. 359

Sarah Bayless

v.Bayless, Ex'r, et als.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

September Term, 1867.

FROM GREENE.

At the November Term, 1866, upon exception to the report of Commissioners, assigning Mrs. Bayless her year's support, there was a decree pronounced in her favor; from which the executors appealed. Chancellor SETH J. W. LUCKEY, presiding.

R. M. BURTON and WILLIAM MCFARLAND, for Complainant.

JAMES W. DEADERICK, for Respondent.

MILLIGAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case stands upon exceptions to the Master's report, which involve the construction of the Act of Assembly, providing for a “year's support” to widows and their families, after the death of their husbands.

The complainant dissented from her husband's Will; and, upon her application, Commissioners were regularly appointed to set apart so much of the personal estate of her husband, as might be necessary for the support of herself and family for one year after the death of the testator. The Commissioners qualified, and proceeded to assign her one hundred dollars in money, and various other articles of the personal estate of the testator, some of which were not “on hands” at the time of the assignment. The value of the specific articles assigned to her, and not delivered, because they were not “on hands,” including a horse purchased by the widow, at the executor's sale, which she claims under the exemption laws, is stated by the Master at $309.74. The executor excepted to this item in the report, which was overruled by the Chancellor, and the report confirmed; from which the defendants prosecute an appeal in error to this Court.

Two questions are presented in the record for our determination:

1st, Whether the widow of an intestate husband is entitled to charge the estate of her deceased husband with the value of all the various articles of personal property enumerated in the Code, secs. 2107-2110, inclusive, as exempt from execution; or, whether she is entitled to such articles only, in specie, as are “on hands” at her husband's death?

2d, Whether or not, she is entitled to an allowance out of the husband's estate, for the value of such articles as may be designated in the Commissioner's report, assigning her a year's support, which were not “on hands” at the death of her husband?

1. In answer to the first inquiry, it is, perhaps, proper to say, that, by the Statute, (Code, sec. 2288,) as well as the uniform course of decisions in this State, a widow when she dissents from, and rejects, the bequests of her husband's Will, is at once let into all the rights that the law would have conferred upon her, in case of the intestacy of her husband: Armstrong's Administrator vs. Park's Devisees, 9 Hum., 195.

The Act exempting certain articles of property from execution, (Code, 2107,) declares they shall be exempt from seizure or attachment in the hands of heads of families; and section 2288, extends the benefit of this exemption, in terms, to widows, and vests the title to such property in her, without regard to the size or solvency of the estate of the deceased, for herself, and in trust for the benefit of the children of the deceased, or of the widow, or of both; and declares it shall not go to the executor or administrator.

On the death of the intestate or dissent of the widow, the title, by operation of law, instantly vests in the widow. The personal representatives have no control or dominion over it, unless, perhaps, as this Court has said, in the case of ...