Fleming v. Blount
Decision Date | 19 May 1941 |
Docket Number | 4-6362 |
Citation | 151 S.W.2d 88,202 Ark. 507 |
Parties | FLEMING v. BLOUNT |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Francis Chancery Court; A. L. Hutchins, Chancellor reversed.
Decree reversed and cause remanded.
Harrelson & Harrelson, for appellant.
Dennis W. Horton and Roy D. Campbell, for appellee.
The decision of the question presented on this appeal is determined by the construction of the last will and testament of John Homer Blount, which, in its entirety, reads as follows:
At the time of the execution of this will the testator was a widower, and none of his three children--two sons and a daughter--had completed their education to the satisfaction of their father. He later married, and was survived by these three children and his second wife, to whom no child was born.
These children, who are now of full age, and the widow entered into a contract with appellant to convey a tract of land owned by the testator at the time of his death. An abstract of the title to the land disclosed this will, upon which the title depends, and appellant declined to accept the tendered deed upon the ground that it would not convey the merchantable title for which the contract of sale provided. Suit was brought to enforce this contract, and a demurrer to the complaint was overruled and appellant was directed to accept the deed tendered and pay the purchase price, from which decree is this appeal.
It is not contended that this will was revoked by the marriage of the testator subsequent to its execution under the provisions of § 14520, Pope's Digest, for the reason that no issue was born to the second marriage. But the will does not exclude the widow from the interest she would have taken had her husband died intestate. The devisees, however, take subject to the will, modified, as it must be, by the subsequent marriage of their father. The insistence is that the widow and these devisees, together, take the entire fee simple title, and that as all of them joined in the execution of the deed tendered there is no one who may complain of its sufficiency, for the reason that, subject to the payment of the debts as provided in item one (all of which have been paid), the children, as devisees under items two, three and four, take title in fee simple, subject only to the marital rights of the widow.
To sustain this contention the case of Bernstein v. Bramble, 81 Ark. 480, 99 S.W. 682, 8 L. R. A., N. S., 1028, 11 Ann. Cas. 343, is chiefly relied upon. The will there construed read in part as follows:
It was there held that the property mentioned was devised to the first taker in fee simple, and that the limitation over to another at the former's death was void for repugnancy. This rule of construction, while hoary with age, is one which usually operates to defeat the intention of the testator when the will is read in its entirety and the intention of the testator gathered from its four corners.
But the authority of that case need not be impaired to ascertain the testator's intention in the present case. There, the testator devised to the first taker title in fee simple, to be held forever. Not so here. Subject to and after the payment of his debts, the testator designated the quantum of his estate which each of his children should take, each a third, both of his real estate and personal property. But for what purpose and upon what condition? We must read the will in its entirety to find the answer to that question and to determine just what the estate and interest is which items two, three and four devise.
It was said in the case of Piles v. Cline, 197 Ark. 857, 125 S.W.2d 129, as has been said in many other cases, that, in construing a will it is the duty of the court to ascertain, from a consideration of the language employed in the will, the intention of the testator, and to give effect to that intention, and, in so doing, the will should be read in its entirety and effect given, if possible, to all the language employed. In this Piles case, it was further said:
In the Bernstein case, supra, Judge BATTLE quoted from Underhill on the Law of Wills, vol. 2, § 689, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Walt v. Bevis
...until the youngest of his children reached the age of twenty-one years, but this did not diminish the estate granted. In Fleming v. Blount, 202 Ark. 507, 151 S.W.2d 88, it was held that where a testator devised one-third of his real estate to each of three children, but directed that none o......
-
Wehr v. Wehr (In re Wehr's Will)
...v. Vanek, 104 Kan. 624, 180 P. 240;Herzog v. Trust Co. of Easton, 67 Fla. 54, 64 So. 426, Ann.Cas.1917A, 201;Fleming v. Blount, 1941, 202 Ark. 507, 151 S.W.2d 88;Scherrer v. Brown, 21 Colo. 481, 42 P. 668;Tyler v. Tyler, 19 Ill. 151;Teopfer v. Kaeufer, 12 N.M. 372, 78 P. 53,67 L.R.A. 315. I......
-
Dickens v. Tisdale
... ... Jackson v. Lady, 140 Ark. 512, 216 S.W ... 505), the devise in the first clause of the item being ... restricted accordingly." See Fleming v ... Blount, 202 Ark. 507, 151 S.W.2d 88 ... Appellants ... frankly make this statement in their brief: "It would be ... ...
-
Roemhild v. Jones
...on the question of whether reasonable restraints upon alienation will be permitted is not too clearly indicated. However, Fleming v. Blount, 202 Ark. 507, 151 S.W.2d 88, would tend to indicate that Arkansas leans at least toward permitting restraints upon alienation for a limited time for r......