Campbell v. McLain

• Decision Date: 03 December 1925
• Docket Number: No. 16820.,16820.
• Citation: 318 Ill. 610,149 N.E. 481
• Parties: CAMPBELL et al. v. McLAIN et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

318 Ill. 610

149 N.E. 481

CAMPBELL et al.

v.McLAIN et al.

No. 16820.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 28, 1925.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 3, 1925.

Petition by Robert Campbell and others for probate of will, objected to by Lila W. McLain and others. Denial of probate was affirmed on appeal by the circuit court, and petitioners appeal.

Order denying probate affirmed.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; Kickham Scanlan, judge.

R. A. Green, of Ottawa, and George V. McIntyre and Walter K. Lincoln, both of Chicago, for appellants.

Rosenthal, Kurz & Tiedebohl, of Chicago (James Rosenthal, Edward R. Tiedebohl, and Sidney Levy, all of Chicago, of counsel), for appellees.

STONE, J.

Appellants, devisees and legatees under the will of John Campbell, deceased, filed their petition in the probate court of Cook county to probate that will. Appellees objected to the probate of the will on the ground that Campbell subsequentto the execution thereof married, and that by section 10 of chapter 39 of our statutes, known as the Descent Act, such marriage revoked the will. The probate court so held, and appellants appealed to the circuit court of that county, where, on hearing, that court also held the will to have been revoked by the subsequent marriage of Campbell, and denied probate. Appellants bring the cause here on appeal, urging, first, that that part of section 10 which provides that ‘marriage shall be deemed a revocation of a prior will’ contravenes section 13 of article 4 of the Constitution, for the reason that it is, in effect, an amendment of section 17 of the Wills Act (Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1923, c. 148, § 19), and it was not set out in full as an amendment with that section of the Wills Act, as required by said section of the Constitution. The second contention is that, if section 10 of the Descent Act be held constitutional, it should be construed as providing for a presumptive revocation only, and that the presumption of revocation should in this case be held to be overcome by circumstances surrounding the testator at the time of his death.

It appears from the record that John Campbell on October 4, 1886, executed his will. He was then a bachelor. By his will he devised his property to appellants, children of his brother. On December 30, 1886, he married. He and his wife lived together until 1921, when the latter died. On June 8, 1924, he died. There were no children by the marriage. He made no will subsequent to his marriage. His estate consisted chiefly of real estate in Cook county.

Regarding appellants' contention that section 10 of the Descent Act is unconstitutional, it is sufficient to say that no question touching the constitutionality of that section was raised either in the probate or circuit court. On the hearing in the circuit court it was shown by the testimony of witnesses, over the objection of appellees here, that just prior to the death of Campbell he had stated that his will was upstairs, locked in a trunk or a box. This evidence was apparentlyoffered for the purpose of showing circumstances surrounding the testator at the time of his death and an attitude of mind which negative a presumption of revocation. There was nothing in the evidence offered or objections made to indicate that a ruling was sought on the question of the constitutionality of section 10, and, while no pleadings beyond the petition for probate, and objections filed thereto, were required in this case, the record must show that the question was raised in the trial court if it is to be pressed here. It is a rule long established that an appellant may not urge the invalidity of a statute for the first time in this court. Snyder v. Industrial Com., 297 Ill. 175, 130 N. E. 517;Savoy Hotel Co. v. Industrial Board, 279 Ill. 329, 116 N. E. 712;Masonic Ass'n v. City of Chicago, 217 Ill. 58, 75 N. E. 439;Cummings v. People, 211 Ill. 392, 71 N. E. 1031;Mechanics' Savings Ass'n v. People, 184 Ill. 129, 56 N. E. 346;Chiniquy v. People, 78 Ill. 570.

The question raised on the second point is whether the will of one who subsequently marries is revoked by virtue of the statute, or whether the act provides a presumptive revocation merely, and whether, in case no children are born of the marriage, and the wife predeceases the husband, who made the will, such circumstances, with those surrounding the testator at his death, overcome the presumption of revocation arising from the marriage.

It is admitted in the briefs of counsel for appellants that, if Campbell's wife were living at the time of his decease, his will made prior to their marriage would be void, but it is urged that section 10 of the Descent Act provides for a revocation by implication, or a presumptive revocation only, and not a positive revocation, taking place by reason of the act of the marriage. The argument is that the provision of section 10 should be construed as a declaration of the common law on the subject as it existed prior to the enactment of the statute. This court has held repeatedly that rules of the common law as to the distribution of property by descent no longer exist in this state, and that chapter[318 Ill. 613]28 of our statutes, which declares that the common law of England and all statutes of a general nature made prior to the fourth year of James I shall be the rule of decision, and be considered as of full force until repealed by legislative authority, is of no application as regards the law of descent, as the Descent Act and the act in relation to wills in effect repealed the common law with reference to inheritance, and those acts are the only law prevailing in this state on that subject. Lewark v. Dodd, 288 Ill. 80, 123 N. E. 260;Quirk v. Pierson, 287 Ill. 176, 122 N. E. 518;Kochersperger v. Drake, 167 Ill. 122, 47 N. E. 321,41 L. R. A. 446. So it cannot be said that the common-law rule as to presumptive revocation of wills by subsequent marriage of the testator obtains in this state.

Tyler v. Tyler, 19 Ill. 151, decided in 1856, American Board of Com'rs v. Nelson, 72 Ill. 564, decided in 1874, and In re Tuller, 79 Ill. 99, 22 Am. Rep. 164, decided in 1875, cited by appellants, are cases in which a will was excuted and a subsequent marriage took place before the passage of the Descent Act in 1872, and can have no application here. It is...