Cockrell v. First Nat. Bank of Kansas City

• Decision Date: 12 April 1948
• Docket Number: 40485
• Citation: 211 S.W.2d 475,357 Mo. 894
• Parties: Charles C. Cockrell, Francis Marion Cockrell, Thomas Marion Cockrell and Ella Etta Cockrell-Zierdt v. The First National Bank of Kansas City, a Corporation, Nannie S. House and John J. Cockrell, Trustees Under the Will of Thomas L. Cockrell, Deceased, John J. Cockrell and M. W. Borders, Jr., Executors of the Estate of Thomas L. Cockrell, Deceased, Appellants, Ella M. Cockrell, John J. Cockrell and Helen Louise Hampton, Defendants
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

211 S.W.2d 475

357 Mo. 894

Charles C. Cockrell, Francis Marion Cockrell, Thomas Marion Cockrell and Ella Etta Cockrell-Zierdt v. The First National Bank of Kansas City, a Corporation, Nannie S. House and John J. Cockrell, Trustees Under the Will of Thomas L. Cockrell, Deceased, John J. Cockrell and M. W. Borders, Jr., Executors of the Estate of Thomas L. Cockrell, Deceased, Appellants, Ella M. Cockrell, John J. Cockrell and Helen Louise Hampton, Defendants

No. 40485

Supreme Court of Missouri

April 12, 1948

Motion for Rehearing or to Transfer to Banc Overruled May 27, 1948.

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court; Hon. John R. James Judge.

Affirmed.

John B Gage, John F. Reinhardt and F. Philip Kirwan for defendants-appellants The First National Bank of Kansas City Nannie S. House and John J. Cockrell, Trustees Under the Will of Thomas L. Cockrell, Deceased, John J. Cockrell and M. W. Borders, Jr., Executors of the Estate of Thomas L. Cockrell, Deceased; Gage, Hillix, Shrader & Phelps and Margolin & Reinhardt of counsel.

(1) Testator's last will and testament with codicil contemplate a withholding until the death or remarriage of the widow by the trustees of the net income of the trust estate not distributed to her. Mercantile-Commerce Bank & Trust Co. v. Morse, 201 S.W.2d 317; Brown v. Mead, 121 Conn. 1, 183 A. 27; New York Trust Co. v. Murray, 120 N.J.Eq. 494, 186 A. 531; Perry v. Brown, 34 R.I. 504, 83 A. 8. (2) The crucial words of paragraph (b) of Section XI plainly and without ambiguity direct distribution of the accrued, accumulated and undistributed net income of the trust estate upon the death or remarriage of the widow. State v. Hitchcock, 241 Mo. 433, 146 S.W. 40; In re MacManus' Will, 282 N.Y. 420, 26 N.E.2d 960; Titsworth v. Titsworth, 107 N.J.Eq. 436, 152 A. 869; Industrial Trust Co. v. Budlong, 70 R.I. 432, 40 A.2d 585; In re Baldwin's Estate, 69 Cal.App. (2d) 760, 160 P.2d 124. (3) By elementary principles of law paragraph (b) of Section XI prohibits distribution of any of the net income of the trust estate to the beneficiaries named therein until the death or remarriage of the widow. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Rawle's Third Revision, p. 2134; Legal Maxims, Broom, Eighth Edition (1911), p. 505; Maquire v. State Savings Assn., 62 Mo. 344; Hoover v. Natl. Casualty Co., 236 Mo.App. 1093, 162 S.W.2d 363; Murphy v. Carlin, 113 Mo. 112, 20 S.W. 786. (4) Paragraph (1) of Section XI of the will is not, as stated in the decree, in conflict with paragraph (b) of the same section, and does not override such paragraph by requiring or permitting distribution to the beneficiaries named in paragraph (b) at any time other than as set forth in said paragraph (b). The last sentences of paragraphs (a) and (1) simply mean that income accruing during administration, or prior to the death or remarriage of the widow, shall continue to retain its character as income, and thus eventually permit the primary beneficiary to receive distribution from such income as and from the date of testator's death. Estey v. Commerce Trust Co., 333 Mo. 977, 64 S.W.2d 608. (5) Paragraph (1) of Section XI furnishes no authority for distribution at this time to the beneficiaries named in paragraph (b). Loud v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 298 Mo. 148, 249 S.W. 629; St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Bassett, 357 Mo. 604, 85 S.W.2d 569; Lunsmann v. Mississippi Valley Trust Co., 339 Mo. 669, 98 S.W.2d 748; Rapp v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 229 S.W. 1105. (6) The general expression in paragraph (1) of Section XI of the will does not override the specific instruction in paragraph (b) of the same section. Mersman v. Mersman, 136 Mo. 244, 37 S.W. 909. Malone v. Moberly, 55 S.W.2d 1008; Broaddus v. Park College, 238 Mo.App. 304, 180 S.W.2d 268. (7) Testator's last will and testament with codicil must be construed according to the intent expressed therein unless contrary to some positive rule of law. St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Kelley, 199 S.W.2d 344; Smoot v. Harbur, 203 S.W.2d 890; Sec. 568, R.S. 1939. (8) The direction of testator that payments and distributions from the net income of the trust estate to the collateral heirs named in paragraph (b) of Section XI are not to begin until the "death or remarriage" of his wife contravenes no applicable rule of law. Estey v. Commerce Trust Co., 333 Mo. 977, 64 S.W.2d 608. (9) A will should be construed to give effect to all the words therein without rejecting or controlling any of them, provided this can be done by a reasonable construction not inconsistent with the manifest intent of the testator. Borland on Wills, Enlarged Edition (1915), p. 308; Cox v. Jones, 229 Mo. 53, 129 S.W. 495; Lang v. Taussig, 354 Mo. 930, 180 S.W.2d 698. (10) A court is without power to reform an unambiguous will or to impute to a testator an intent not expressed in his will and codicil. McCoy v. Bradbury, 290 Mo. 650, 235 S.W. 1047; Masterson v. Masterson, 344 Mo. 1188, 130 S.W.2d 629; In re Holmes Estate, 328 Mo. 143, 40 S.W.2d 616; Estey v. Commerce Trust Co., 333 Mo. 977, 62 S.W.2d 608.

Philip J. Close and Phineas Rosenberg for respondents.

(1) Clause XI(L) of the will directs distribution from the date of testator's death. State Bank v. Gross, 334 Ill. 512, 176 N.E. 739; Estey v. Commerce Trust Co., 333 Mo. 977, 64 S.W.2d 608; Palmer v. French, 326 Mo. 710, 32 S.W.2d l.c. 595; Lehmann v. Griffin, 224 Mo.App. 657, 31 S.W.2d 271. (2) The whole will expresses intent for distribution from the date of testator's death. In re Watson's Will, 144 Misc. 213, 258 N.Y.S. 755; Thorn v. DeBreteuil, 86 A.D. 405, 83 N.Y.S. 849; In re Mathues Estate, 322 Pa. 358, 185 A. 768; Hussey v. Sargent, 25 Ky. Law Rep. 315, 75 S.W. 211. (3) Where the will discloses an intent that there shall be no accumulation of excess income or such an accumulation would be contrary to the scheme of the testator or where the will discloses no intent either way, the excess income should be distributed to those entitled to it as it accrues. New Haven Bank v. Hubinger, 117 Conn. 417 167 A. 914; Stempel v. Middletown Trust Co., 127 Conn. 206, 15 A.2d 305; Colonial Trust Co. v. Brown, 105 Conn. 261, 135 A. 555; Plummer v. Brown, 315 Mo. 627, 287 S.W. 316; Selleck v. Hawley, 331 Mo. 1038, 56 S.W.2d 387; Lehmann v. Griffin, 224 Mo.App. 657, 31 S.W.2d 271; Hesselbrock v. First Natl. Bank & Trust Co., 106 N.J.Eq. 339, 150 A. 783; Rogers v. Rogers, 11 R.I. 35; Butler v. Butler, 40 R.I. 425, 101 A. 115; Reighard's Estate, 253 Pa. 43, 97 A. 1044; In re Kohler, 231 N.Y. 353, 132 N.E. 114. (4) Accumulation and withholding of income is not directed or permitted by the will. In re Stevens, 95 N.Y.S. 297, 46 Misc. 623; Lehmann v. Griffin, 224 Mo.App. 657, 31 S.W.2d 271; Hoadley v. Beardsley, 89 Conn. l.c. 280, 93 A. 535; Sheppard v. Union & New Haven Trust Co., 106 Conn. 638, 138 A. 809; Burt v. Gill, 89 Md. 145, 42 A. 968; Green v. Green, 35 A.2d 238; Aldrich v. Aldrich, 45 R.I. 179, 110 A. 626; In re Graves Will, 139 Misc. 13, 247 N.Y.S. 632. (5) It is a cardinal rule of construction that this will must be construed as a whole and the entire plan of the testator considered and every word given effect. Weller v. Searcy, 343 Mo. 768, 123 S.W.2d 73; Bond v. Riley, 317 Mo. 594, 296 S.W. 401; Irvine v. Ross, 339 Mo. 692, 98 S.W.2d 763; Carter v. Boone County Trust Co., 338 Mo. 629, 92 S.W.2d 647. (6) The dominant and primary intent of the will overrides any inconsistent special provisions. Schee v. Boone, 295 Mo. 212, 243 S.W. 882; Meiners v. Meiners, 179 Mo. 614, 78 S.W. 795; Brown v. Tuschoff, 235 Mo. 499, 138 S.W. 497; Gannett v. Shepley, 351 Mo. 286, 172 S.W.2d 857. (7) If two constructions are possible, one of which indicates an absurd or unjust intention and the other a reasonable and fair intention, the courts will give preference to the construction indicating the reasonable and fair intention. Lemp v. Lemp, 264 Mo. 533, 175 S.W. 618; Clotilde v. Lutz, 157 Mo. 439, 57 S.W. 1018; Ford v. Neely, 242 Ky. 18, 45 S.W.2d 818; Estate of Mayhew, 307 Pa. 84, 160 A. 724; In re Lindsay's Estate, 258 N.Y. 792; Johnson v. Brasington, 156 N.Y. 181, 50 N.E. 859; In re Boutelle's Estate, 218 Minn. 158, 15 N.W.2d 506; Robards v. Brown, 167 Mo. 447, 67 S.W.2d 245. (8) Where there is irreconcilable difference between two clauses or provisions, the last prevails as the latest expression of testator's intent. 69 C.J. 112; Page on Wills (Lifetime Edition), sec. 932; Kemp v. Hutchinson, 110 S.W.2d 1126. (10) If two constructions are possible, one of which is in harmony and the other at variance with other provisions of the will, the court will adopt that construction which will harmonize said clause with the rest of the will. Peters v. Carr, 16 Mo. 54; Bond v. Riley, 317 Mo. 594, 296 S.W. 401; Prosser v. Hardesty, 101 Mo. 593. (11) The law does not favor the postponement of enjoyment of a beneficial interest. Hamilton v. Lewis, 13 Mo. 184; Selleck v. Hawley, 331 Mo. 1038, 56 S.W.2d 387; Plummer v. Brown, 315 Mo. 627, 287 S.W. 316; Estey v. Commerce Trust Co., 333 Mo. 977, 64 S.W.2d 608. (12) The law will not presume that testator intended to make an empty show of giving a bounty to beneficiaries. Clotilde v. Lutz, 157 Mo. 439, 57 S.W. 1018. (13) The surrounding circumstances show intent for distribution from the date of testator's death. Wooley v. Hayes, 285 Mo. 566, 226 S.W. 842; Gannett v. Shepley, 351 Mo. 286, 172 S.W.2d 857. (14) The intent for maintenance is paramount. Estey v. Commerce Trust Co., 333 Mo. 977, 64 S.W.2d 608; Weller v. Searcy, 343 Mo. 768, 123 S.W.2d 73; Hesselbrock v. First Natl. Bank & Trust Co., 106 N.J.Eq. 339, 150 A. 783; Rogers v. Rogers, 11 R.I. 38. (15) Distribution of income from the date of testator's death prevents obliteration of such income through...