Benjamin Tarver, Appellant v. Samuel Tarver, Charlotte Tarver and Patience Gibson
Decision Date | 01 January 1835 |
Citation | 9 L.Ed. 91,9 Pet. 174,34 U.S. 174 |
Parties | BENJAMIN J. TARVER, APPELLANT v. SAMUEL B. TARVER, CHARLOTTE TARVER AND PATIENCE GIBSON |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the district court of the United States for the southern district of Alabama.
The appellees, citizens of the state of Georgia, filed their bill in the district court of the United States for the southern district of Alabama against the appellant, Mason Gilliam, and John Gilliam, her son, stating that they and the defendants were the heirs at law of Richard Tarver, who died in the year 1827; that the deceased in 1819 made a will, which they assert to be a conditional will, and which they exhibit; which they also state was not considered as a will by Richard Tarver at the time of his death. That the principal devisee in that will, Benjamin Tarver, one of the defendants, has proved the will in Dallas county, by proving the handwriting of two of the subscribing witnesses, who were dead; the other being out of the state; and that the probate thereof is void; that the said Benjamin has taken possession of all the deceased's lands and effects; and they pray an account of the real and personal estate of the testator, and the time at which it was acquired; and 'that the will may be cancelled, and the property of the deceased be distributed according to the laws of Alabama.'
The copy of the will and of the probate annexed to the will, were as follows.
'Given under my hand this 3d May 1819.
'RICHARD TARVER, [L. S.].
'Test: W. Lyman, William Booker, William H. Carter.
'Witnesses: D. C. Patterson, William F. Hay.
'JOSEPH SCOTT.
'Sworn to, and subscribed before me, this 12th day of November 1827.
'JAMES SUFFOLD.
'13th November, H. VANDYKE, Clerk, recorded.'
The answers of the defendant in the district court, declare that Richard Tarver made his last will and testament, as stated in the complainant's bill, but deny that there was a condition annexed thereto. The defendant states that the testator and himself lived together and employed their capital together, and for their joint benefit, with an express agreement, that the survivor should have the whole, which was the joint property of both. At the time the testator executed the will referred to in the bill of the complainant, he executed a will substantially similar in all respects to that executed by Richard Tarver. The answers assert that the probate of the will is in full form and was regular, and that there is no sufficient cause shown in the bill for the exercise of equitable powers by the court.
The district court gave a decree in favour of the complainants, on the ground that the will of Richard Tarver had not been admitted to probate by the proper orphan's court; and of course that it did not appear to the court that he made a will. And also that this proceeding was instituted to set aside the will of Richard Tarver, and no title which the respondent might have to the property of Richard Tarver, can be set up in the case, except such as may be derived from the will. The defendants appealed to this court.
The case was argued by Mr Key, for the appellants; and by Mr Gamble and Mr Wilde, for the appellees.
This case comes up on appeal from the district court of the United States for the southern district of Alabama.
The pleadings are very inartificially drawn, and do not, probably, present the case in such a manner as to enable the court to dispose of all the questions intended to be brought under consideration.
The bill sets out that Richard Tarver, late of the county of Dallas, and state of Alabama, departed this life, in that county, in the year 1827, leaving at the time of his death a large real and personal estate, and leaving three sisters and the defendant, Benjamin Tarver, his sole heirs at law. That the said Richard Tarver, in the year 1819, being a citizen of Georgia, and possessed of a large estate in lands, made a conditional will, in which he recites that being about to take a long journey, and knowing the uncertainty of life, he deemed it advisable to make a will; and thereby declared that he left all his estate, real and personal, to his brother Benjamin Tarver. And making some small provision for his sister Mason Gilliam, and her son John, all which will more fully appear by a copy of the supposed will attached to the bill, and which is prayed to be considered as a part thereof. The bill alleges that the said Richard Tarver performed the journey, and returned safe. Some statements are then made with respect to the property of the deceased; and the bill alleges that he and the defendant, Benjamin J. Tarver, lived together, and employed their capital, of every description, jointly. That Benjamin, on the decease of his brother, took possession of all his estate. That the said supposed will purports to be attested by sundry persons as witnesses; the survivor of whom resides in the state of Georgia. That the said Benjamin carried the supposed will before the county court of Dallas county; and upon the proof of the handwriting of two of the subscribing witnesses, who are dead, the other still living in the state of Georgia, the will was admitted to probate, and the bill alleges that such probate is void. The bill then prays, that the will may be cancelled, and the estate distributed according to the laws of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wahl v. Franz
...of the supreme court of the United States and of the circuit courts (In re Broderick's Will, 21 Wall. 503, 22 L.Ed. 599; Tarver v. Tarver, 9 Pet. 174, 9 L.Ed. 91; Fouvergne v. City of New Orleans, 18 How. 470, L.Ed. 399; Ellis v. Davis, 109 U.S. 485, 3 Sup.Ct. 327, 27 L.Ed. 1006; Ball v. To......
-
Hale v. Coffin
... ... It has ... been also held, ever since Tarver v. Tarver, 9 Pet ... 174, 9 L.Ed. 91, that the ... shares. Kennedy v. Gibson, 8 Wall. 498, 505, 19 ... L.Ed. 476, and ... ...
-
Thompson v. Nichols
... ... of the federal courts, among others Tarver v ... Tarver, 9 Pet. 174, 9 L.Ed. 91, ... In ... Thompson, Appellant, 116 Me. 473, 102 A. 303, Mr. Chief ... Justice ... ...
-
Watkins v. Eaton
...of Columbia, have no probate jurisdiction strictly as such. Fouvergne v. City of New Orleans, 18 How. 470, 15 L.Ed. 399; Tarver v. Tarver, 9 Pet. 174, 9 L.Ed. 91; v. McAuley, 149 U.S. 608, 13 Sup.Ct. 906, 37 L.Ed. 867; Farrell v. O'Brien, 199 U.S. 89, 25 Sup.Ct. 727, 50 L.Ed. 101. In Farrel......