Gannon v. Albright

• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: GANTT, J.
• Citation: Gannon v. Albright, 183 Mo. 238, 81 S.W. 1162 (Mo. 1904)
• Decision Date: 22 June 1904
• Parties: GANNON et al. v. ALBRIGHT, Appellant

81 S.W. 1162

183 Mo. 238

GANNON et al. v. ALBRIGHT, Appellant

Supreme Court of Missouri

June 22, 1904

Appeal from St. Louis County Circuit Court. -- Hon. Rudolph Hirzel Judge.

Reversed.

T. K Skinker for appellant.

(1) The will conferred upon the two sons, Michael, Jr., and Joseph, a fee simple, coupled with an absolute power of alienation. For this reason the devise over, under which the plaintiffs claim, is void. 4 Kent, Com. (10 Ed.), p. 270; 2 Washb. Real Prop. (6 Ed.), 667; Tiedeman, Real Prop., sec. 398; Jackson v. Bull, 10 John. 19; Jackson v Robins, 15 John. 169, 16 John. 537; Helmer v. Shoemaker, 22 Wend. 137; Van Horne v. Campbell, 100 N.Y. 287; Ide v. Ide, 5 Mass. 500; Melson v. Doe, 4 Leigh 408; Riddick v. Cohoon, 4 Rand. 547; Cook v. Walker, 15 Ga. 457; Pickering v. Langdon, 22 Me. 413; Ramsdell v. Ramsdell, 21 Me. 288; Jones v. Bacon, 68 Me. 34; Rona v. Meier, 47 Iowa 607; McKenzie's Appeal, 41 Conn. 607. (2) At the least, the will conferred upon the two sons, Michael, Jr., and Joseph, a fee simple, determinable as to each upon his dying without issue living at the time of his death; and as they both died leaving issue, after having conveyed the land, their issue, the plaintiffs, have no interest in the land and can not recover. G. S. 1866, p. 442, sec. 5; Yocum v. Siler, 160 Mo. 281; McRee v. Means, 34 Ala. 349; Newsom v. Holesapple, 101 Ala. 682; Couch v. Gorham, 1 Conn. 36; Alfred v. Marks, 49 Conn. 473; Morgan v. Morgan, 5 Day 517; Russ v. Russ, 9 Fla. 105; Gibson v. Hardaway, 68 Ga. 370; Harris v. Smith, 16 Ga. 545; Matthews v. Hudson, 81 Ga. 120; Daniel v. Daniel, 102 Ga. 181; Summers v. Smith, 127 Ill. 645; Strain v. Sweeney, 163 Ill. 603; Smith v. Kimbell, 153 Ill. 368; Jones v. Miller, 13 Ind. 337; Smith v. Hunter, 23 Ind. 580; Pape v. French, 122 Ind. 10; Boling v. Miller, 133 Ind. 602; Ross v. Ross, 135 Ind. 367; Hart v. Thompson, 3 B. Mon. 482; Daniel v. Thompson, 14 B. Mon. 662; Mitchell v. Campbell, 94 Ky. 347; Inv. Co. v. Figg, 95 Ky. 403; Webb v. Baptist Church, 90 Ky. 117; Crozier v. Cundall, 99 Ky. 202; Buck v. Paine, 75 Me. 582; Hersey v. Purington, 96 Me. 166; Dallam v. Dallam's Lessee, 7 Harris & J. 220; Hilleary v. Hilleary, 26 Md. 274; Gambrill v. Lodge, 66 Md. 17; Devecmon v. Shaw, 70 Md. 219; Backus v. Assn., 77 Md. 50; Anderson v. Brown, 84 Md. 261; Richardson v. Noyes, 2 Mass. 56; Ide v. Ide, 5 Mass. 500; Brightman v. Brightman, 100 Mass. 238; Jordan v. Roach, 32 Miss. 481; Eaton v. Straw, 18 N.H. 320; Downing v. Wherrin, 19 N.H. 9; Pinkham v. Blair, 57 N.H. 226; Den v. Taylor, 5 N. J. L. 413; Den v. Snitcher, 14 N. J. L. 53; Seddell v. Wills, 20 N. J. L. 223; Wilson v. Wilson, 46 N. J. L. 321; Den v. Schenck, 8 N. J. L. 29; Drummond v. Drummond, 26 N.J.Eq. 234; Den v. Allaire, 20 N. J. L. 6; Groves v. Cox, 40 N. J. L. 40; Fosdick v. Cornell, 1 John. 440; Jackson v. Blanshan, 3 John. 292; Wilkes v. Lion, 2 Cow. 333; Heard v. Horton, 1 Denio 165; Miller v. Macomb, 26 Wend. 229; Hill v. Hill, 2 Barb. 419; Hatfield v. Sneeden, 54 N.Y. 280; Pendleton v. Pendleton, 2 Murphy (N. C.) 82; Jones v. Spaight, 1 Carolina Law Rep. 157, 544; Taylor v. Maris, 90 N.C. 619; Buchanan v. Buchanan, 99 N.C. 308; Kelly v. Williams, 113 N.C. 437; Wright v. Brown, 116 N.C. 26; Parish v. Ferris, 6 Ohio St. 563; Niles v. Gray, 12 Ohio St. 320; Durfee v. MacNeil, 58 Ohio St. 238; Rowland v. Warren, 10 Ore. 127; Hauer v. Sheetz, 2 Binney 532; Toman v. Dunlop, 18 Pa. St. 72; Hill v. Hill, 74 Pa. St. 173; Mangum v. Piester, 16 S.C. 316; Gordon v. Gordon, 32 S.C. 563; Lewis v. Claiborne, 5 Yerg. 369; Booker v. Booker, 5 Hump. 505; Stone v. Maney, 3 Tenn. Chan. 731; Brown v. Brown, 86 Tenn. 277; Armstrong v. Douglas, 89 Tenn. 219; Randall v. Josselyn, 59 Vt. 557; Bells v. Gillespie, 5 Rand. 273; Randolph v. Wright, 81 Va. 608; Tomlinson v. Nickell, 24 W.Va. 148; Jackson v. Chew, 12 Wheat. 153; Jackson v. Kip, 2 Paine 366; Lippett v. Hopkins, 1 Gall. 454; Abbott v. Essex Company, 18 How. 202; Pells v. Brown, 2 Cro. Jac. 590; Barker v. Suretees, 2 Strange 1175; Porter v. Bradley, 3 T. R. 143; Roe v. Jeffrey, 7 T. R. 589; Doe v. Wetton, 2 Bos. & P. 324; Doe v. Frost, 3 Barn. & Ald. 546; Ex parte Davies, 9 E. L. & E. 88.

Charles Cummings Collins also for appellant.

(1) (a) The statute of wills requires all courts in the execution of last wills to have due regard to the direction of the will and the true intent and meaning of the testator in all matters brought before them. R. S. 1899, sec. 4650. (b) This is also the prevailing principle of construction irrespective of statute. Yocum v. Siler, 160 Mo. 281; Fanning v. Doan, 128 Mo. 323; Emerson v. Hughes, 110 Mo. 630; Cook v. Couch, 100 Mo. 29; Wead v. Gray, 78 Mo. 59. (c) And technical rules 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; Suydam 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 consideration any surrounding circumstances that will throw light on such intention. Roberts v. Crume, 173 Mo. 572; Reinders v. Koppelman, 94 Mo. 338; McMillan v. Farrow, 141 Mo. 62; Rothwell v. Jamison, 147 Mo. 601; Schorr v. Carter, 120 Mo. 415. (e) Of two equally probable interpretations of a will, that shall be adopted which prefers those nearest to and known by testator. Schouler on Wills, sec. 479; Downing v. Bain, 24 Ga. 372; Wood v. Mitchell, 92 N.Y. 375; Fanning v. Doan, 128 Mo. 323. (f) The words "heirs and assigns forever" are words of limitation, indicating an intention to pass a fee simple. Under our statute they are not necessary for that purpose, but they are technically apt and proper, and as such are still in common use and recognized by the courts as appropriate terms for that purpose. Roberts v. Crume, 173 Mo. 572; Chew v. Keller, 100 Mo. 369; Emerson v. Hughes, 110 Mo. 627; Redman v. Barger, 118 Mo. 574; Fanning v. Doan, 128 Mo. 330; Jarboe v. Hey, 122 Mo. 341; Clarkson v. Clarkson, 125 Mo. 381. (2) No life estate was either expressly or impliedly devised to Michael J. Gannon, Jr., and Joseph E. Gannon. (3) Testator devised an absolute estate to these two sons, who had a legal right to convey their fee simple title. An estate in fee simple can not be impaired, qualified or cut down by subsequent clause of the will, except by words affirmatively as strong as those which conveyed the estate; the subsequent clause must be as clear and decisive in the expression of an intention to so limit or qualify the estate as is the first clause devising the estate. Yocum v. Siler, 160 Mo. 281; Roth v. Rauschenbusch, 173 Mo. 582; Roberts v. Crume, 173 Mo. 572; Cook v. Couch, 100 Mo. 29; Wead v. Gray, 78 Mo. 59; Chew v. Keller, 109 Mo. 362; Emerson v. Hughes, 110 Mo. 630; State ex rel. v. Tolson, 73 Mo. 320; Green v. Sutton, 50 Mo. 186; Allen v. Claybrook, 58 Mo. 131; Lewis v. Pitman, 101 Mo. 291; Reinders v. Koppelman, 68 Mo. 491; McTigue v. McTigue, 116 Mo. 138; Rothwell v. Jamison, 147 Mo. 602; Norcum v. D'Oench, 17 Mo. 98; Rubey v. Barnett, 12 Mo. 3; Tremmel v. Kleinboldt, 75 Mo. 258; Howard v. Carusi, 109 U.S. 575; Roberts v. Lewis, 104 U.S. 945; Ide v. Ide, 5 Mass. 500; Dannell v. Hart, 137 Mass. 218; Parker v. Iasigi, 128 Mass. 416; Clark v. Luepp, 88 N.Y. 228; Roseboom v. Roseboom, 81 N.Y. 356; Freeman v. Coit, 96 N.Y. 63; Byrnes v. Stillwell, 103 N.Y. 453; Temple v. Sammis, 97 N.Y. 526; Haight v. Pine, 39 N.Y.S. 511; Banzer v. Banzer, 32 N.Y.S. 803; Campbell v. Beaumont, 91 N.Y. 464; Den v. Snitcher, 10 N. J. L. 63; William v. Bradley, 3 Allen 282; Hoxsey v. Hoxsey, 37 N.J.Eq. 24; Pells v. Brown, 2 Cro. Jac. 590; Johnson v. Cook, 12 Ch. Div. 653; Dodson v. Hay, 3 Brown, Ch. C. 404; Jackson v. Bull, 10 John. 19; Jackson v. Robins, 15 John. 169, 16 John. 537; Lamb v. Eames, L. R. 10 Eq. Cas. 267; Thornhill v. Clark, 2 Clark & Finn 22; 4 Kent, Com. (10 Ed.), 270; 1 Jarman on Wills, 552; 2 Redfield on Wills, 277; Schouler on Wills, 468, 474, 478. The decisions favoring a life estate in such cases are based upon express limitations for life, or upon limitation expressed in words affirmatively as strong as those which convey the estate, or upon limitation for life with power of appointment over fee which was not exercised. Schorr v. Carter, 120 Mo. 409; Chiles v. Bartleson, 21 Mo. 344; Harbison v. James, 90 Mo. 411; Munro v. Collins, 95 Mo. 33; Redman v. Barger, 118 Mo. 568; McMillan v. Farrow, 141 Mo. 63; Bean v. Kenmuir, 86 Mo. 666; Walton v. Drumtra, 152 Mo. 489. Besides, these cases in which the court has construed the estate of first taker to be a life estate, have little bearing on this question, which is predicated on the proposition that the first taker takes an unconditional fee, and upon the attempt to limit another fee after the first. (4) No estate tail can be created by implication. The words "dying without issue," should be construed as heirs or issue living at the time of the death of the ancestor. No implication of an estate tail can arise from words purporting a failure of issue, unless the intention to use the phrase as denoting an indefinite failure of issue be distinctly marked, and the donee will take an estate in fee simple subject to an executory devise in the event of dying without leaving issue at his death. Jarman on Wills, 521; Yocum v. Siler, 160 Mo. 281; Naylor v. Goodman, 109 Mo. 550; Roth v. Rauschenbusch, 173 Mo. 582; Den v. Snitcher, 14 N. J. L. 53; Roseboom v. Roseboom, 81 N.Y. 356; Clark v. Luepp, 88 N.Y. 228; Lambe v. Eames, L. R. 10 Eq. Cas. 206; Thornhill v. Hall, 2 Clark & Finn. 22; R. S. 1879, sec. 4004.

Henry T. Kent and James W. Williams for respondents.

(1) Joseph E. Gannon and Michael J. Gannon, Jr., the devisees under the will of Michael...