Cochran v. Lee's Adm'r
Decision Date | 11 January 1905 |
Citation | 84 S.W. 337 |
Parties | COCHRAN et al. v. LEE'S ADM'R et al. |
Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Chancery Division.
"Not to be officially reported."
Action by Belle Lee Cochran and others against the administrator of Belle B. Lee. From the judgment rendered, the guardian of infants appeals. Reversed.
Loraine Mix and R. L. Page, for appellants.
McDermott & Ray, for appellees.
Mrs Belle B. Lee died a resident of Jefferson county in November 1903, having an estate worth about $38,000. She owned real estate worth about $6,000, and the balance of the property consisted of stocks and bonds. She left surviving her four children--a so, Wm. B. Lee., who was unmarried; two daughters, Margaret Cochran and Anna Belle Young, each of whom was married, and had three children; and a son, Philip Lee, who was married and had one child. The property which she had was received by her from her father, James Bridgeford, and was held in trust for her by the Fidelity Trust Company of Louisville under the terms of her father's will, which, so far as material, is as follows
On April 3, 1902, Mrs. Lee wrote with her own hand her will, which was admitted to probate after her death, and is in these words:
The four children claim that they take under the will the property devised to them in fee simple, and that the words "die without issue of their body" refer to a death in the lifetime of the testarix. The guardian for the infants, however, maintains that they take under the will only a defeasible fee, which will be defeated by their death at any time without issue of their body. The circuit court held that they took in fee simple, and the guardian appeals for the infants.
The deposition of John T. Malone, an officer of the Fidelity Trust Company, which was the trustee under the father's will, was taken, in which he testified that Mrs. Lee told him that, if she ever made a will, she would never tie her...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jennings v. Jennings
... ... Wheeler's Heirs v. Dunlap, 52 Ky. 291, 13 B.Mon ... 291; Cochran v. Lee's Adm'r, 84 S.W. 337, 27 ... Ky.Law Rep. 64; Marquette v. Marquette's ... Ex'rs, 190 ... ...
-
Jennings v. Jennings; Same v. Jennings' ex'R
...or one contrary to that which the language used reveals. Wheeler's Heirs v. Dunlap, 52 Ky. 291, 13 B. Mon. 291; Cochran v. Lee's Adm'r, 84 S.W. 337, 27 Ky. Law Rep. 64; Marquette v. Marquette's Ex'rs, 190 Ky. 182, 227 S.W. 157; Muth v. Goins, 199 Ky. 321, 250 S.W. 995. It can not be receive......
-
Martin v. Hale
... ... Counsel ... for defendants rely on Cochran v. Lee's Adm'r ... (Ky.) 84 S.W. 337, as "directly in point." The ... language there construed ... ...