Elwell v. Stewart

Decision Date07 January 1922
Docket Number23,386
Citation110 Kan. 218,203 P. 922
PartiesDERINDA ELWELL, Appellee, v. CLYDE STEWART, as Executor of the Estate of HETTIE H. CULP, Deceased, Appellant
CourtKansas Supreme Court

Decided January, 1922

Appeal from Douglas district court; CHARLES A. SMART, judge.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

WILL--Bequest in Trust--Interpretation of Will--Beneficiary Entitled to Net Income of Property. Under a will giving the testatrix's property to a trustee for the use and benefit of her mother during her life and directing the trustee to sell so much of it as he might deem necessary for her care and maintenance the mother is to receive the whole of the net income of the property, although it is more than sufficient for her support.

Edward T. Riling, John J. Riling, both of Lawrence, and S.D. Scott, of Olathe, for the appellant.

J. W. Parker, and G. A. Roberds, both of Olathe, for the appellee.

OPINION

MASON, J.:

Hettie H. Culp died testate leaving all her property to Clyde Stewart, the executor, in trust for the use of her mother, Derinda Elwell, during her life, any of the property remaining in his hands at her death to go to his two daughters. Mrs. Elwell brings this action for the construction of the will for the purpose of determining whether she is entitled to all the net income of the estate or only to so much as is necessary for her support. The trial court adopted the former interpretation and the executor appeals.

The only paragraph of the will requiring consideration reads as follows:

"I give, devise and bequeath to Clyde Stewart, of Baldwin City, Kansas, all of my property, real, personal and mixed, whatsoever and wheresoever located, and all property or interest in property or estate to which I may be entitled, in trust however for the use and benefit of my mother, Derinda Elwell, during her natural life, and I do hereby direct my said trustee to sell and dispose of any or all of such said property as he may deem necessary for the care and maintenance of my said mother, in the event that the income from my said estate shall not be sufficient for such purpose. Upon the death of my mother in the event that any property should remain in the hands of my said trustee undisposed of by him, I give, devise and bequeath all of said property or estate to Beulah Helen Stewart and Ethelyn Blondell Stewart the daughters of said Clyde Stewart, as their sole and separate property, share and share alike."

In support of the theory of the executor it is argued that a consideration of the entire paragraph reveals the testatrix' purpose to have been to provide for her mother's care and maintenance, the trustee to determine what and how much was necessary to that end. We cannot agree to this conclusion. As we...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. State Bd. of Equalization
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • November 14, 1963
    ...is money or its equivalent, generally speaking, it is the interest which it will earn.' 29 A. & E. Ency. of Law, 444.' (Elwell v. Stewart (1922) 110 Kan. 218, 203 P. 922; emphasis Our interpretation finds corroboration in section 6201, which imposes the use tax upon 'storage, use, or other ......
  • Home Builders Ass'n of Greater Kansas City v. City of Overland Park
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • July 26, 1996
    ...property because it is not tied to the type of activity for which the property is being employed. The City cites Elwell v. Stewart, 110 Kan. 218, 219, 203 Pac. 922 (1922), where the court " 'As a general rule the use of a thing does not mean the thing itself, but means that the user is to e......
  • Holmes v. Holmes
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • November 12, 1964
    ...citing the following cases: Rowe v. Rowe, 95 N.H. 241, 61 A.2d 526; McAllister v. Long, 206 Okl. 623, 246 P.2d 352; Elwell v. Stewart, 110 Kan. 218, 203 P. 922; Dillen v. Fancher, 193 Ark. 715, 102 S.W.2d 87. We find these cases from other jurisdictions are not persuasive, as the language o......
  • McAllister v. Long
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • July 2, 1952
    ...other than use it as she may deem fit and proper, during her lifetime. Use cannot be construed to mean to dispose of. In Elwell v. Stewart, 110 Kan. 218, 203 P. 922, the Court held: "As a general rule, the use of a thing does not mean the thing itself, but means that the user is to enjoy, h......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT