Cuddy v. McIntyre
| Decision Date | 18 April 1950 |
| Citation | 312 Ky. 606,229 S.W.2d 315 |
| Parties | CUDDY et al. v. McINTYRE et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Napier & Napier, Hazard, Redwine & Redwine, Winchester, Marcus C. Redwine, Winchester, for appellants.
Barney Baker, Hazard, for appellees.
VAN SANT, Commissioner.
James S. Cuddy died testate on October 24, 1946 survived by his wife, Nanie McIntyre Cuddy, who, in turn, died intestate on June 24, 1948. After the death of his widow, Mr. Cuddy's brothers and sisters, being his sole heirs, instituted this action against appellees, Taylor McIntyre, administrator of the estate of Mrs. Cuddy, and Richmond McIntyre, her father and sole heir. The action was instituted under the Declaratory Judgment Act, Civ.Code of Prac. Sec. 639a-1 et seq., for construction of the will of James S. Cuddy.
It appears from reading the will that the testator was a man of limited letters. The will reads:
'This does not take afect till my death wit my will
'James S. Cuddy'
Many abstract rules for construction of wills have been adopted and resorted to in innumerable cases in this and other courts. But in the final analysis, they are resolved into what now is deemed to be the cardinal rule of construction; viz., the courts will look to the four corners of the will and determine what the testator intended to say from the language he used, and the courts will give effect to this intention, unless forbidden by public policy or positive provisions of the law. Childers v. Welch, 304 Ky. 700, 202 S.W.2d 169, Cottrell v. Cottrell, 305 Ky. 663, 205 S.W.2d 312.
Appellants themselves suggest that we mentally rewrite the will so that the pertinent part will read: 'I, James S. Cuddy, will to my wife, Nanie Cuddy, all my property in Powell County and Wolfe County * * *, she to have and to hold the same as long as she remains my widow, with the power in her to sell and convey any part of this property that she may need for her support.' They then ask that the document, so paraphrased and rewritten, be construed to convey a mere life estate in the widow in contradistinction to the defeasible fee declared by the Chancellor.
We are of the opinion that appellants' paraphrasing does no violence to the testator's intention and actually states his intention in a more concise and clear manner than that adopted by the testator himself. Wherefore, we will accept it for the purpose of our consideration. We would have no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. Tipton
...of the instrument of conveyance and attempt to glean intent therefrom. Taylor v. Farrow, 239 S.W.2d 73 (Ky. 1951); Cuddy v. McIntyre, 312 Ky. 606, 229 S.W.2d 315 (1950). Second, an interpretation should be adopted that favors the conveyance of a fee simple estate. Often, an instrument of co......
-
Chaffin v. Adams
...is that in the absence of contrary lnaguage in the will the law presumes a testator does not intend to die intestate. Cuddy v. McIntyre, 312 Ky. 606, 229 S.W.2d 315. It is evident from reading the will as a whole that the testator clearly intended to make a testamentary disposition of all h......
-
Clay v. Security Trust Co.
...of the entire estate. Andrew's Ex'x v. Spruill, 271 Ky. 516, 112 S.W.2d 402; Corn v. Roach, 225 Ky. 725, 9 S.W.2d 1074; Cuddy v. McIntyre, 312 Ky. 606, 229 S.W.2d 315; Citizens Fidelity Bank & Trust Co. v. Schellberg, Ky., 238 S.W.2d 142. The presumption is even stronger where the will cont......
-
Taylor v. Farrow
...the court will give effect to the intention unless forbidden by public policy or positive provisions of the law, Cuddy v. McIntyre et al., 312 Ky. 606, 607, 229 S.W.2d 315. We have also said that testamentary language, which long usage and judicial recognition have given a fixed meaning, wi......