O'Connell v. O'Connell
Decision Date | 18 May 1916 |
Docket Number | 3 Div. 244 |
Citation | 196 Ala. 224,72 So. 81 |
Parties | O'CONNELL v. O'CONNELL et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Chancery Court, Montgomery County; O.S. Lewis Chancellor.
Bill by G.A. O'Connell against Alice O'Connell and others to quiet title to land. From a decree rendered, complainant appeals, with cross-appeal by one of respondents. Reversed and rendered.
The will of Lucy O'Connell as to the items mentioned is as follows:
Hill, Hill, Whiting & Stern, of Montgomery, for appellant.
W.A. Jordan and J.F. Dillard, both of Montgomery, for appellees.
This bill was filed by the appellant, G.A. O'Connell, against the appellees, his children, and cross-complainant, Alice O'Connell, his sister, to quiet title to certain real estate devised to him by his mother, Lucy A. O'Connell. The sole question for determination on this appeal is the construction of the will of Lucy O'Connell in so far as the same affects the parties to this cause and the property involved. The report of the case will contain items 2, 7, 8, and 16 of the will.
It will be noted that the property devised to George A. O'Connell, appellant here, was without any limitation or restriction. This, without more, clearly vests in appellant a fee-simple title to the property. The court below, however, concluded that the provisions of item 16 limited the estate granted in item 7, and held that the complainant to the original bill owned only a life estate in the property devised to him. It is to be noted that in item 2, set out in the report of the case, it is provided that the real estate devised to the several daughters be limited to a life estate; but in item 8 of the will, containing the gift to the daughter Alice O'Connell, cross-complainant here, of an undivided one-half interest in a certain lot on the east side of Commerce street, in the city of Montgomery, the testatrix provided specifically that "said undivided one-half interest to be given to her absolutely and not subject to the provisions of item 2 hereof."
The said Alice O'Connell, being a party respondent to the original bill, filed a cross-bill seeking to have established her absolute...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tumlin v. Troy Bank & Trust Co., 4 Div. 538
...rules must bend, is that the intention of the testator shall prevail, provided it is consistent with the rules of law. O'Connell v. O'Connell, 196 Ala. 224, 72 So. 81. Each will presents its own inquiry, in which testator's intention controls. Meglemry v. Meglemry, 222 Ala. 229, 131 So. In ......
- Palmer v. French
- Darrow v. Moore
-
Bell v. Killian
...420, 116 So. 116; Hatcher v. Rice, 213 Ala. 676, 678, 105 So. 881; Ralls v. Johnson, 200 Ala. 178, 180, 75 So. 926; O'Connell v. O'Connell, 196 Ala. 224, 229, 72 So. 81. While this is a recognized principle in the construction of wills, we do not think it is applicable in construing the wil......