Eyer v. Beck

• Decision Date: 11 May 1888
• Citation: 38 N.W. 20,70 Mich. 179
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: EYER ET AL. v. BECK ET AL.

38 N.W. 20

70 Mich. 179

EYER ET AL. v. BECK ET AL.

Supreme Court of Michigan

May 11, 1888

Appeal from circuit court, Gratiot county; HENRY HART, Judge.

Action by Jacob Eyer and Gottlieb Beck, executors of Christian Beck Sr., against James Beck, Harriet Beck, (now Tours,) and Rachel Beck, (now Harding,) children of Christian Beck, Jr. to construe a certain clause in their testator's will. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiffs appeal.

CAMPBELL J.

The only question before us is whether Christian Beck, deceased in making his will, gave to each of the three children of his deceased son, Christian Beck, the same interest in his estate given to each of his surviving children. The court below held that each of those grandchildren stood on the same footing as the actual children of decedent, and took individually, and not by representation from their parent. There is nothing in the rest of the will throwing any light on testator's intention, which, it seems to us must be gathered from the clause in the will directing how the estate should be applied. This is the second clause which, after directing a sale of his land in Michigan, proceeded to declare that "the proceeds of the same, together with what money may be realized from notes or other obligations, be equally divided, after the payment of preferred debts, among my heirs, to-wit: John Beck, the children of Christian Beck, Jr., deceased, Elizabeth Eicher, Gottlieb Beck, Peter Beck, Magdalena Eyer." This will was made in Ohio, but was republished in Michigan, where testator died. The arguments on both sides were based on decisions in England and America, some of which were in point on each theory; a part holding that such a legacy went by representation, and a part that it made a distribution per capita among children and the three grandchildren. It appears incidentally that at the time of the distribution in the probate court one of the daughters of testator had died, leaving six children, who were testator's grandchildren, each of whom, under the order of the circuit court, gets only one-sixth of the amount allowed to each of the three grandchildren referred to in the will. In the conflict of authority which appears we do not feel bound to depart from what we may conclude to be the natural meaning of the will, if we can find any clue to that. The cardinal principle of interpretation of wills is to carry out the intention of the testator, if it is lawful, and if it can be discovered. If the language used has been so fully established by construction as to make a rule of property, courts cannot very well depart from the settled interpretation, although testimony, if introduced, might show the testator did not really so understand it. But this is a rule of law, and not of interpretation, and is enforced only on that account. It would be an untrue presumption, in point of fact, in most cases, because we all know that the abstruse rules set up by precedents are...