Crecelius v. Horst
| Decision Date | 31 October 1883 |
| Parties | CRECELIUS, Appellant, v. HORST. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. Wills.
In construing a will, the testator's intention governs, and that construction should be given which prevents a failure of the gift.
2. ______.
A devise to a class, though as tenants in common, will not lapse by the death of one of the devisees before the testator, but the survivors take the whole. a1
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals.
AFFIRMED.
J. A. Beal for appellant.
Fred'k Gottschalk for respondents.
This was a suit in ejectment commenced in St. Louis county, to recover certain interests in real estate in said county. The answer was a general denial. It appears from an agreed statement of facts that one William Crecelius died seized of the land; that he had of his first marriage two children, Catherine Christine and John William, and of his second marriage one child, Ida, who is plaintiff. He died in 1874. He made his will in 1871, whereby he devised to “my daughter Ida, the sum of $1,” to his wife Theresa, who was Ida's mother, “such a share in my estate as the laws of Missouri allow her and no more;” “the residue and remainder to my children John William and Catherine Christine.” John William died in 1872 while a member of his father's family and at his house. The court found for the plaintiff and adjudged her entitled to a one-fourth interest, and assessed damages and monthly value. On appeal to the St. Louis court of appeals this judgment was reversed. That court held that the plaintiff was disinherited by the will, and that the portion which John William would have taken if he had survived the testator passed to his sister Catherine entirely, and that plaintiff acquired no interest in it. Crecelius v. Horst, 9 Mo. App. 51. In our opinion the judgment of the court of appeals was right, and for the reasons given in support of it we affirm its decision.
All concur.
a1. These syllabi are taken from the report of the case in 9 Mo. App. 51.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gannon v. Albright
...must yield to the obvious meaning of the testator; all other rules of construction are subordinate. Small v. Field, 102 Mo. 104; Crecilius v. Horst, 78 Mo. 566; v. Thayer, 94 Mo. 49. (d) If the intention of the testator is not manifest from the will the court is justified in taking into con......
-
St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Clarke
...living at the time of the vesting to the exclusion of the heirs of predeceased members of the class. Crecelius v. Horst, 9 Mo.App. 51, 78 Mo. 566; Holloway v. Burke, 336 Mo. 380; Walker v. Trust & Savings Bank, 12 F.2d 896. (9) A power of appointment not exercised leaves the estates created......
-
Walton v. Drumtra
...will, 40 Mo. 287; Carr v. Dings, 58 Mo. 400; Allison v. Chaney, 63 Mo. 279; Suydam v. Thayer, 94 Mo. 49, 6 S.W. 502; Crecelius v. Horst, 78 Mo. 566; Chiles v. Bartleson, 21 Mo. 344; Munro v. Collins, 95 Mo. 33, 7 S.W. 461; Lewis v. Pitman, 101 Mo. 281, 14 S.W. 52; Small v. Field, 102 Mo. 10......
-
Van Every v. McKay
... ... S. 1889 (now Sec. 567, R. S. 1929); Bredell v ... Collier, 40 Mo. 321; Carr v. Dings, 58 Mo. 406; ... Allison v. Chaney, 63 Mo. 282; Crecelius v ... Horst, 78 Mo. 566, this court affirmed the decision of ... the St. Louis Court of Appeals (Crecelius v. Horst, ... 9 Mo.App. 51); Chiles v ... ...