Brickell v. Lightcap

• Decision Date: 09 July 1917
• Docket Number: 19049
• Citation: 76 So. 489,115 Miss. 417
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: BRICKELL ET AL. v. LIGHTCAP ET AL

76 So. 489

115 Miss. 417

BRICKELL ET AL. v. LIGHTCAP ET AL

No. 19049

Supreme Court of Mississippi

July 9, 1917

Division B [Copyrighted Material Omitted]

APPEAL from the chancery court of Yazoo county, HON. O. B. TAYLOR. Chancellor.

Bill by H. H. Brickell and others against H. B. Lightcap and others. From a decree dismissing the original and amended bill plaintiff appeals.

The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Affirmed.

Holmes & Holmes, W. A. Henry, E. L. Brown, Mayes Mayes and J. B. Harris, for appellants.

1. This is a direct attack upon the decree, and not a collateral one, as will be contended by the counsel for appellees, in the extremity of their situation; and the bill answers every purpose, and contains the necessary averments, of a bill of review. McKinney v. Adams, 95 Miss. 832, 50 So. 474; Words and Phrases, pp. 1249, 1250; Barton's Suit in Equity, p. 154.

2. If there be no persons in esse who are the ultimate limitees of this property, as contended for by counsel for appellees and held by the chancellor, then John F. Powell must have been served with process in order to cut off his unborn children, contingent limitees, and the collateral kin of the testator must have been so served in order to cut off their unborn progeny, contingent limitees, under the doctrine of virtual representation. Note, 97 Am. St. Rep. 762; note, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 49; Hale v. Hale, 146 Ill. 227, 33 N.E. 858, 20 L. R. A. 247.

3. If John F. Powell, or the collateral kin of the testator living at his death, be contingent remaindermen, or if John F. Powell, or such kin, be reversioner, or reversioners, of the estate, then he or they must have been served with process. Story's Equity Pleading, section 149; Cannon v. Barry, 59 Miss. 289; Prewett v. Land, 36 Miss. 495; Culley v. Elford, 187 Ala. 165, 65 So. 381; Farr v. Gilreath, 23 S.C. 502.

4. John F. and Virginia Powell, as the mere annuitants, being legatees with a charge upon the property, must have been served with process, and this whether, technically speaking, they had an estate in the lands or not. Cady v. Cady, 67 Miss. 431, 7 So. 216; Knotts v. Bailey, 54 Miss. 235, 28 Am. Rep. 348; Peebles v. Acker, 70 Miss. 359, 12 So. 248; Heatherington v. Lewenberg, 61 Miss. 372; Turner v. Turner, 57 Miss. 775; Perkins v. Bank, 81 Miss. 358, 33 So. 18.

5. As mere legatees with an interest in the income, John F. and Virginia Powell, in equity, have an interest in the land, or a property right in the use devised to them, and must have been served with process. Prewett v. Land, 36 Miss. 495; Leigh v. Harrison, 69 Miss. 923, 11 So. 604, 18 L. R. A. 49; Williams v. Owen, 116 Ind. 71, 18 N.E. 389; Myers v. Cullum, 152 Ind. 700, 51 N.E. 918; Grueber v. Lindenmeier, 42 Minn. 99, 43 N.W. 964; Wellington v. Janvrin, 60 N.H. 174; Currier v. Janvrin, 58 N.H. 374; Stancel v. Calvert, 60 N.C. 104.

6. The trustees took exactly that quantity of interest necessary to the execution of the trust; and the language used will not be restrained or limited so as to invest them with that exact quantity. Arnold v. Railway Co., 58 Tex. Civ. App. 186, 123 S.W. 1162; Allen v. Hughes, 106 Ga. 775, 32 S.E. 927; Luquire v. Lee, 121 Ga. 624, 49 S.E. 834; Johnson v. Cook, 34 Ala. 150; Nelson v. Davis, 35 Ind. 474; Brillhart v. Mish, 99 Md. 447, 58 A. 28; Young v. Bradley, 101 U.S. 782, 25 L.Ed. 1044; Ward v. Bradbury, 18 Beav. 190; Temple v. Ferguson, 110 Tenn. 84, 72 S.W. 455, 100 Am. St. Rep. 791; Clark v. Foster, 110 Miss. 543, 70 So. 583; Hawker v. Hawker, 3 Barn. & Ald. 537; Dean v. Munnally, 36 Miss. 358; Andrews v. Brumfield, 32 Miss. 115; Murdoch v. Murdoch, 97 Miss. 693, 53 So. 684; Whitfield v. Thompson, 85 Miss. 760, 38 So. 113; Cady v. Lincoln, 100 Miss. 765, 57 So. 213; Rives v. Burrage, 110 Miss. 789, 70 So. 893; Cohea v. Jamison, 68 Miss. 510, 10 So. 46; Mallory v. Clark, 9 Abb. Prac. (N. Y.) 358; Williams v. Tozer, 185 Pa. 302, 39 A. 947, 64 Am. St. Rep. 650; Woodrop v. Weed, 154 Pa. 307, 26 A. 375, 35 Am. St. Rep. 832; Rembert v. Key, 58 Miss. 536; Farr v. Gilreath, 23 S.C. 502; Cannon v. Barry, 59 Miss. 289; Prewett v. Land, 36 Miss. 495; Culley 1. Elford, 187 Ala. 165, 65 So. 381; Story, Eq. Pl. section 149; Hale v. Hale, 146 Ill. 227, 33 N.E. 858, 20 L. R. A. 247; Smith v. Gaines, 39 N.J.Eq. 545; Ex parte Lyman, 11 R. I. 157; Kolb v. Booth, 80 S.C. 501, 61 S.E. 942; Sollee v. Croft, 7 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 34; East Rome v. Cothran, 81 Ga. 359, 8 S.E. 737.

7. It is a general rule of testamentary construction, universally recognized in this country and in England, that, "in the absence of clear and unambiguous language indicating a contrary intent to be derived from the will," considered in the light of all of its provisions, the class of persons described as testator's "heirs," "right heirs," "heirs at law," "relations," or by equivalent phraseology, is to be ascertained as of the time of the death of the testator, and not at some subsequent period; and this rule is based upon the true legal and ordinary meaning of the terms employed, and it finds application alike in the cases of vested and contingent and executory interests, and its application is not precluded by the fact that the tenant of an antecedent particular estate is among those, or is the only one, answering the descriptive phraseology at the death of the testator. Harris v. McLaran, 30 Miss. 533; Alexander v. Richardson, 106 Miss. 517, 64 So. 217; Branton v. Buckley, 99 Misc. 116, 54 So. 850, L. R. A. 1917C, 527; Dunlap v. Fant, 74 Miss. 197, 20 So. 874; McDaniel v. Allen, 64 Miss. 417, 1 So. 356; Bullock v. Downs, 9 H. L. Cas. 1; Lee v. Lee, 1 Drew & S. 85; Mitchell v. Bridges 13 Week. Rep. 2,000; Kellett v. Shephard, 139 Ill. 442, 28 N.E. 751, 34 N.E. 254; Tuttle v. Woolworth, 62 N.J.Eq. 532, 50 A. 445; Kenyon's Appeal, 17 R. I. 149, 20 A. 294; Pilkington v. Spratt, 5 Barn. & Ad. 731; Stewart's Appeal, 147 Pa. 383, 23 A. 599; Stokes v. Van Wyck, 83 Va. 724, 3 S.E. 387; Boydel v. Golightly, 14 Sim. 327; Rawlinson v. Wass, 9 Hare, 673; Gorbel v. Davison 18 Beav. 556; Thompson v. Smith, 27 Can. S. C. 254; Wright v. Gooden, 6 Houst. (Del.) 397; Smith v. Winsor, 239 Ill. 567, 88 N.E. 482; Bunting v. Speek, 41 Kan. 424, 21 P. 288, 3 L. R. A. 690; Weil v. King, 104 S.W. 380, 31 Ky. Law Rep. 1010; Brown v. Lawrence, 3 Cush. (Mass.) 390; Abbott v. Bradstreet, 3 Allen (Mass.) 587; Dove v. Torr, 128 Mass. 38; Keniston v. Mayhew, 169 Mass. 166, 47 N.E. 612; Holloway v. Holloway, 5 Ves. Jr. 399, contingent; Pope v. Whitcombe, 3 Meriv. 689; Losburg v. Newport, 9 Beav. 376; Urquhart v. Urquhart, 13 Sim. 613; Wrightson v. McCauley, 14 Mees. & W. 214; Nicholson v. Wilson, 14 Sim. 549; Ware v. Rowland, 2 Phill. Ch. 635; Baker v. Gibson, 12 Beav. 101; Bird v. Luckie, 8 Hare, 301; Re Barber, 1 Smale & G. 118; Markham v. Ivatt, 20 Beav. 579; Starr v. Newberry, 23 Beav. 436; In re Land, 9 Week, Rep. 589; Mortimore v. Mortimore, 26 Week. Rep. 134; Gast v. McNutt, 40 N. S. 41; Harrison v. Jones, 82 Ga. 599, 9 S.E. 527; Minot v. Tappan, 122 Mass, 535; Whall v. Converse, 146 Mass. 345, 15 N.E. 660; Rotch v. Rotch, 173 Mass. 125, 53 N.E. 268; Crisp v. Crisp, 61 Md. 149; Boston, etc., Co. v. Parker, 197 Mass. 70, 83 N.E. 307; Allison v. Allison, 101 Va. 573, 44 S.E. 904, 63 L. R. A. 920; Wadsworth v. Murray, 161 N.Y. 274, 55 N.E. 910, 76 Am. St. Rep. 265; Riehle Appeal, 54 Pa. 97; Wilinson v. Garrett, 2 Colly, Ch. Cas. 643; Siefferth v. Bodham, 9 Beav. 370; Murphy v. Donegan, 3 Jones & L. 354; Halloway v. Radcliffe, 23 Beav. 163; Southgate v. Clinch, 27 L. J. Ch. 651; Harrison v. Harrison, 28 Beav. 21; Fletcher v. Fletcher, 3 De Gex, F. & J. 775; Clifton v. Holton, 27 Ga. 321.

Barnett & Perrin, Barbour & Henry, and Green & Green, for appellees.

1. Trustees only proper or necessary parties.--The trustees took a title in fee to Rialto and Springwood plantations by this will. Where lands are devised, the devisees only and not the heirs, are necessary parties to a proceeding. Williams v. Williams, 49 Ala. 439; Penn. Life Ins. Co. v. Bauerle, 143 Ill. 459, 33 N.E. 166; Temple v. Scott, 143 Ill. 290, 32 N.E. 366; Hale v. Hale, 146 Ill. 227, 33 N.E. 858, 20 L. R. A. 247; Baylor v. Dejarnette, 13 Grat. (Va.) 165-171; Young v. Young, 89 Va. 675, 17 S.E. 470, 23 L. R. A. 642; Markle's Estate, 17 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 337; Putman v. Gleason, 99 Mass. 454; Fitzgibbon v. Barry, 78 Va. 762; Mitford's Pleadings, 265, 266; Rhodes v. Caswell, 41 A.D. 229, 58 N.Y.S. 470; New Jersey Franklinite Co. v. Ames, 12 N.J.Eq. 507, 509; Willink v. Morris Coal Co., 4 N.J.Eq. 377; Van Vechten v. Terry, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 197; Alabama, etc., Ry. Co. v. Thomas, 86 Miss. 27, 38 So. 770; Wall v. Bois Gerard, 11 Smedes & M. 588; 16 Cyc. 191; Ridley v. Halliday, 106 Tenn. 614, 61 S.W. 1025, 53 L. R. A. 477, 82 Am. St. Rep. 902; Burwell v. Cawood, 2 How. 560, 11 L.Ed. 384; Richter v. Jerome, 123 U.S. 233, 8 S.Ct. 106, 31 L.Ed. 132; 12 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 1041; Alabama v. Burr, 115 U.S. 426, 6 S.Ct. 81, 29 L.Ed. 435; Ferris v. Van Ingen, 110 Ga. 108, 35 S.E. 350; Steiner v. Steiner, 120 Ala. 144, 26 So. 498; Roberts v. Hale, 124 Iowa 300, 99 N.W. 1076, 1 Ann. Cas. 940; Hagan v. Barksdale, 44 Miss. 186; Hardee v. Cheatham, 52 Miss. 38; section 2079, Miss. Code 1906; Paine v. Pendleton, 32 Miss. 320; 1 Freeman on Judgments (4 Ed.), section 172.

2. Words "My Right Heirs" Remaindermen.--In construing wills, there are well-established exceptions to the rule that the word "heirs" is to be taken to mean those who would take as heirs as of the time of the testator's death. Welch v. Blanchard, 208 Mass. 523, 94 N.E 811, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1 and notes; Wood v. Bullard, 151 Mass. 324, 25 N.E. 67, 7 L. R. A. 304; section 2776, Miss. Code 1906; section 2775, Miss. Code 1906; Middlesex Banking Co. v. Field, 84...