Caldwell v. Caldwell
Decision Date | 08 April 1920 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 216 |
Citation | 204 Ala. 161,85 So. 493 |
Parties | CALDWELL et al. v. CALDWELL et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; W.W. Haralson, Judge.
Bill by E.H. Caldwell and another against D.K. Caldwell and others to require the executor to file his accounts and vouchers and for a reference to state an account upon a partial settlement of the estate of Almena Caldwell. From the order granting the relief prayed, the respondents appeal. Affirmed.
See also, 200 Ala. 570, 76 So. 928.
Lawrence E. Brown, of Scottsboro, for appellants.
Bouldin & Wimberly and John B. Tally, all of Scottsboro, for appellees.
The question at issue depends upon the construction of the will of S. Almena Caldwell, deceased, of date February 9, 1912. A will must be held to speak from testator's death, and whatever estate he then possessed must be held to pass according to its terms. Pearce v. Pearce, 74 So 952, 958; Dallas Compress Co. v. Smith, 190 Ala 423, 433, 67 So. 289; Blakeny v. Du Bose, 167 Ala. 627, 636, 637, 52 So. 746.
It was agreed at the trial that testatrix died on March 3, 1918; that at the time of her death her next of kin were her brothers E.H. and G.B. Caldwell, and the children of her brother David King Caldwell, who had theretofore died on November 17, 1914.
The pertinent provisions of the will are as follows:
The will contained no alternative bequest of the personal property, no residuary clause as to the personal property. Was a case of lapsed legacy presented by the death of David King Caldwell, and because of no provision in the will for the disposition of the personal property in event of such death before that of testatrix? Code, § 6158; Woodroof v. Hundley, 147 Ala. 287, 39 So. 907; Johnson v. Holifield, 82 Ala. 123, 127-129, 2 So. 753; 40 Cyc. 1925, and many authorities.
The distinction at common law between a devolution of lapsed legacies and devises is adverted to in Johnson v. Holifield supra, and our court remarked that no substantial reason existed for a distinction between the devolution of a lapsed devise of real estate and that of a lapsed bequest of personalty; that the rule had its origin in technical rules of law growing out of the different estimates of value as between personalty and real property, the application of which in many cases lost sight of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Powell v. Pearson
...203 Ala. 590, 595, 84 So. 846; Hemphill v. Moody, 64 Ala. 468. See, also, Steele v. Crute, 208 Ala. 2, 93 So. 694; Caldwell v. Caldwell, 204 Ala. 161, 85 So. 493; Crawford v. Carlisle, 206 Ala. 379, 89 So. Henderson v. Henderson, supra. The statute, that all property not disposed of by will......
-
Henderson v. Henderson
...200 Ala. 178, 75 So. 926; Gunter v. Townsend, 202 Ala. 160, 79 So. 644; Jemison v. Brasher, 202 Ala. 578, 81 So. 80; Caldwell v. Caldwell, 204 Ala. 161, 85 So. 493; Fowlkes v. Clay, 205 Ala. 523, 88 So. Crawford v. Carlisle, 206 Ala. 379, 89 So. 565. We may say, however, that the applicatio......
-
Crawford v. Carlisle
...distribution; while real property, so undisposed of, descends to the heir at law ( Johnson v. Holifield, 82 Ala. 123, 2 So. 753; Caldwell v. Caldwell, supra; Pearce v. Pearce, Ala. 491, 74 So. 952; Trustees of Cumberland University v. Caldwell, 203 Ala. 590, 84 So. 846; Denson v. Autrey's E......
-
First Nat. Bank v. Cash
... ... concerned, was converted into cash and treated as personalty ... from the time of the death of testator. Caldwell v ... Caldwell, 204 Ala. 161, 85 So. 493; Pearce v ... Pearce, 199 Ala. 491, 505, 74 So. 952; Crawford v ... Carlisle, supra ... ...