Canaday v. Baysinger

• Decision Date: 17 May 1915
• Docket Number: 29993
• Citation: 152 N.W. 562,170 Iowa 414
• Parties: EARL W. CANADAY, Appellee, v. IDA MAY BAYSINGER, Appellant
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

152 N.W. 562

170 Iowa 414

EARL W. CANADAY, Appellee, v. IDA MAY BAYSINGER, Appellant

No. 29993

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

May 17, 1915

Appeal from Warren District Court.--HON. J. H. APPLEGATE, Judge.

PROCEEDINGS brought in partition and for the construction of a will.

Affirmed.

Berry & Watson, for appellant.

F. P Henderson, for appellee.

GAYNOR J. DEEMER, C. J., LADD and SALINGER, JJ., concur.

OPINION

GAYNOR, J.

This is an action brought by one of the heirs of David Canaday deceased, for the partition and sale of certain real estate, and for the purpose of establishing and determining the respective rights of each in the same, and for a decree quieting the title of plaintiff therein, against the claims of Mary, Enos and Millie Swafford, Ida May Baysinger, and Wm. Baysinger.

David Canaday died in March, 1879, and left a will which is hereinafter set out. His widow, Eliza Canaday, survived him, and died in March, 1913. The appellant, Ida May Baysinger, was a daughter of David and Eliza Canaday. The petition charges that by the terms of the will, the widow, Eliza, took only a life estate in the premises mentioned in the will; that, after the death of David Canaday, and before the death of Eliza, Ida May Baysinger, Enos and Mary Swafford, by quit claim deed, conveyed all their right, title and interest in the premises to George G. Canaday, a son of David Canaday; that George Canaday died on the 31st day of March, 1913, and the plaintiff is his only heir at law.

Ida May Baysinger, the appellant herein, was a daughter of David and Eliza Canaday. She claims an interest in the land as an heir of Eliza. She bases this claim on the theory that the will gave to Eliza an absolute title to the land; that the quit claim deed made by her to plaintiff's ancestor conveyed to him no title because she then had none to convey; that as the heir of Eliza, she is entitled to it. She demurred to plaintiff's petition, and the demurrer places in issue the allegation that the widow took only a life estate. The issue, therefore, to be determined herein, and which is decisive of the controversy, is, Did Eliza Canaday take a fee simple title in the premises under the will, or did she take only a life estate? If she took only a life estate, the fee vested in the heirs of David Canaday, subject to the life estate, and vested immediately upon the probate of the will, which related back to the time of the death of David. Ida May Baysinger's quit claim deed would therefore convey her interest in the fee, subject to the life estate. If Eliza took a fee under the deed, then Ida May Baysinger acquired nothing until the death of Eliza, and whatever rights she acquired would be as the heir of Eliza Canaday, and this right having come to her after the execution of the quit claim did not insure to the benefit of her grantor in the quit claim.

Ida May Baysinger alone challenged the allegation of the petition by demurrer. Her demurrer was overruled, and a decree entered quieting the title in the plaintiff as against her. From this ruling she appealed.

The will, which we are required to construe and by which the rights of these parties must be judged and determined, is as follows:

"I, David Canaday, of Richland Township, Warren County, Iowa, I am of feeble health but of good mind. Do this day make this my last will and testament, that is to say after my death, I wish my funeral expenses and debts all paid by selling my personal property and one piece of land, viz., 23 1/2 acres in the south end of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section Seven, Township Seventy-seven, North of Range Twenty-two, west of the 5th P. M. I bequeath to Eliza Canaday, my wife, the piece of land or rather the place that we live on, beginning at the Southeast corner of Section Twelve, in Township Seventy-seven, North of Range Twenty-three, west of the 5th P. M. and running south 60 rods; thence west eighty rods to a starting point; thence North 44 rods; thence West 54 1/2 rods; thence South 44 rods; thence East to place of beginning, containing 15 acres more or less. I also wish her to have a choice milch cow. I further wish her to have the west half of the southeast quarter of section Twelve, Twp. 77, North of Range 23, W. also commencing at the Southeast Corner of the West Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section Twelve, Twp. 77; Range 23 W. thence West 53 2/3 rods; thence fifteen rods south; thence 53 2/3 rods east; thence fifteen rods north to the place of beginning. Section 13, Tp. 77, Range 23 west.

"I also wish my wife to have all the household and kitchen except two beds and bedding for my daughter, Ida May, after my wife's death it is my wish that the remainder of the household and kitchen furniture be sold and the land also to (be) sold and the money to be equally divided between my five heirs."

The action of the court in overruling the demurrer of Ida May Baysinger was predicated upon the theory that Eliza Canaday took only a life estate in the land mentioned in the will, and that the fee vested in the heirs of David, subject to this life estate. We are asked to construe this will and say whether or not Eliza Canaday was, by the terms of the will, vested with the fee, or whether, under the will, she took only a life estate.

It is well settled in this state now, and is in other states where the question has been before the courts, that the intention of the testator is controlling. At the time of the making of the will, he is the owner of the property, and has a right under the law to make such disposition of it as he thinks best and desires. The right to dispose of it as he sees fit and to whom he sees fit, has no limitation except that by a will he cannot dispose of those rights given by statute to the widow, and providing the disposition is not immoral or against public policy.

None of these questions are involved here. There is no question, from a reading of this will, that the testator intended by the will to dispose of all his property to someone mentioned in the will. We are only concerned with the disposition made of the real estate: As to this, he intended to and did dispose of all to take effect upon his death. The question is, Did the widow take a limited estate with devise over to his heirs? The contention of the plaintiff is that she took a limited estate, limited to the duration of her life, and that the remainder over passed to the heirs of David Canaday. As has been frequently said, the intention of the testator is the polar star in the interpretation of a will. The will may be ever so inartistically drawn: it may be even ungrammatical in its terms, yet if, from the whole will, taking all the parts together, and giving them full consideration, the court can determine what the intent of the testator is, that must prevail. Of course, there are certain recognized canons of...