Gregory v. Cowgill

• Citation: 19 Mo. 415
• Parties: GREGORY, et al., Respondents, v. COWGILL, et al., Appellants.
• Decision Date: 31 March 1854
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

19 Mo. 415

GREGORY, et al., Respondents,

v.COWGILL, et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1854.

1. A case in which the declarations of a testator were held inadmissible to explain the meaning of his will.

2. Where a life estate is expressly given by a will, the same will not be converted into a fee by mere words of implication, unless the manifest general intent of the testator requires it.

Appeal from Lewis Circuit Court.

Anderson and Dryden, for appellants.

Glover & Richardson, Pratt & Redd, for respondents, argued the following points:

1. The words “all that may remain,” &c., in the will do not raise a power of disposition in the widow of the testator. Ide v. Ide, 5 Mass. 503. 16 J. R. 585. 4 Kent, 319. 2. If those words did raise a power of disposition, there is no evidence that the widow intended to execute the power by her conveyance to the defendant. Where there is an interest and a power in the same person, a deed executed without particular reference to the power, will be applied to the interest. 4 Kent 334-5. 4 Vesey, 631. 1 Atkyns, 559. 3 Story's 427. 3 J. C. R. 551. 12 Modern, 470. 2. Parol evidence, to show the intent of the testator, was inadmissible, under the circumstances.

SCOTT, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

Robert Sinclair died seized of a considerable estate, both real and personal. By his will, he devised to his wife, Susan, all of his estate, both real and personal, of what kind and nature soever, to have and to hold and to enjoy during her natural life-time, with the exception of Eden, his black man, whom, for his fidelity, he emancipated. To his nephew, J. H. Gregory, he devised all that might remain of his estate, both real and personal, after the death of his wife, to have and to hold and to enjoy forever. These clauses, with the exception of the formal parts, constituted the entire will. J. H. Gregory afterwards died, and left the plaintiff, Sarah C. Gregory, his sole heir at law. Susan Sinclair, after the death of her husband, intermarried with William Pritchard, and they joined in a deed conveying the tract of land in controversy, to James Cowgill, the defendant, for the sum of $1200. This land was one of the tracts devised by the will to Susan Sinclair, the wife of the testator. After the death of Susan Pritchard, (formerly Sinclair,) this suit was brought by the plaintiff, the heir of the devisee in remainder, J. H. Gregory, to recover possession of the land sold to James Cowgill, on the ground that the will of Robert Sinclair gave his wife only a life estate in the land conveyed by her and her husband to Cowgill, and consequently that his interest therein had...