Cousins v. Cousins
Decision Date | 07 October 1931 |
Docket Number | No. 3654.,3654. |
Citation | 42 S.W.2d 1043 |
Parties | COUSINS v. COUSINS et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Gray County; W. R. Ewing, Judge.
Action by Mrs. Mettie E. Cousins and others against Aubrey S. Cousins. From the judgment, defendant appeals.
Affirmed in part, and in part reversed, and cause dismissed.
Stone & Guleke, of Amarillo, for appellant.
Cole & Porter, of Clarendon, for appellees.
This is an action brought by Mrs. Mettle E. Cousins, the surviving wife of S. A. Cousins, and their six children, to have the will of S. A. Cousins, deceased, construed, and to recover from Aubrey S. Cousins any interest claimed by him in certain real property described in plaintiffs' petition.
S. A. Cousins was married twice. Oscar Cousins, now deceased, was the child of his first marriage, and the appellant Aubrey Cousins is the only child of Oscar Cousins.
The statement of facts is as follows:
Neither party introduced any other or further evidence upon the trial.
Plaintiffs filed the suit asking for a construction of the will, and prayed for a recovery from Aubrey S. Cousins of any interest he was claiming in certain real property described in the petition.
Aubrey Cousins filed a general demurrer, general denial, numerous special exceptions, and a cross-action in trespass to try title to recover an undivided one-seventh interest in the property described in the plaintiffs' petition.
The trial court rendered a judgment construing the will against the contention of Aubrey S. Cousins and holding that each of the children of S. A. Cousins, deceased, by his second wife, was entitled to a one-sixth interest in the property involved, after the life estate devised to Mettie E. Cousins had determined, and that Aubrey S. Cousins was not entitled to any part of the estate of S. A. Cousins, deceased.
It will be noted that the third clause of the will is: "No provision is made in this will for the heirs of Oscar Cousins, deceased, a son by a former marriage, whose mother is now dead and said son having received his portion of the estate at the time of his mother's death, the same being stated in the deed recorded in Hamilton, Hamilton County, Texas."
As shown by the agreed statement, Aubrey Cousins is the only living heir of Oscar Cousins, deceased, and this clause of the will clearly excludes him from any participation under the will.
As said by Connor, Justice, in Citizens' Bank & Trust Co. v. Dustowe, 188 N. C. 777, 125 S. E. 546, 548:
And the holding is that, where a party is expressly excluded by the terms of the will, he is neither a necessary nor a proper party to an action to construe the will. To the same effect is the holding in Gay v. City of Ft. Worth (Tex. Civ. App.) 4 S.W.(2d) 268; 40 Cyc. 1846.
We are strongly inclined to the opinion that the judgment should be reversed and the case dismissed, in accordance with that rule, and, but for the fact that Aubrey Cousins is asking affirmative relief, we would adopt that course.
The first clause of the will provides that, after the payment of debts, "the remainder of our estate, both real and personal, shall descend and be invested in the surviving member of our marriage for the remainder of his lifetime, with full power to manage and control said estate."
This clearly invests the surviving wife with a life estate in all of the property, both separate and community, owned by her husband at the time of his death, and under the provisions of the will even her own children have only a contingent interest so long as she lives, and certainly Aubrey Cousins, the grandson of a former marriage, who is expressly excluded by the third clause of the will, has no present interest.
The primary purpose of the suit is to have the court construe the second clause of the will, which provides: "Should we both die at one time, our estate is to be divided equally among the following heirs," naming the children of the second marriage.
A proper construction of the second clause would be: It names the children of the second marriage as contingent remaindermen. Since the life tenant, the widow, is still alive, and neither Aubrey, nor any of her children, may survive her, and they have no rights involved in this suit to be adjudicated until her death, there is no matter in dispute with reference to them and no present interest to be subserved by a construction of the entire will. A decision to the effect that Aubrey Cousins is or is not entitled to share in the remainder after the death of his grandfather's second wife would be merely determining future rights...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Price v. Shiels
... ... not entertain jurisdiction.' [149 Neb. 339] Heald v ... Heald, 56 Md. 300. See, also, Cousins v. Cousins, ... Tex.Civ.App. 42 S.W.2d 1043 ... In 4 ... Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence (5th Ed.) § 1157, p. 466, ... the rule ... ...
-
Ellis v. Bruce
...v. Lockett, Tex.Com.App., 131 Tex. 287, 115 S.W.2d 405, 406; Rae v. Baker, Tex.Civ.App., 38 S.W.2d 366, 368, W.R.; Cousins v. Cousins, Tex.Civ.App., 42 S.W.2d 1043, 1045, W.R.; Caples v. Ward, 107 Tex. 341, 179 S.W. 856, 'The cardinal principle in the construction of wills, that the intenti......
-
Holliday v. Smith
...was not connected with or related to another interest concerning which there was a present justiciable controversy. Cousins v. Cousins, Tex.Civ.App., 42 S.W.2d 1043, writ refused, cited and relied upon by the Court of Civil Appeals in this case fits into that category. In this case there wa......
-
Davis v. First Nat. Bank of Waco
...will not take jurisdiction of a suit for the construction of a will unless it can afford immediate relief. * * *" Cousins v. Cousins, Tex.Civ.App., 42 S.W.2d 1043, 1045, writ refused; Munger v. Richards, Tex.Civ. App., 87 S.W.2d 797; 69 C.J. 868. "Courts do not sit to decide mere abstract q......