Hassell v. Frey, 7208.
Citation | 117 S.W.2d 413 |
Decision Date | 08 June 1938 |
Docket Number | No. 7208.,7208. |
Parties | HASSELL et al. v. FREY et al. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
H. O. Norwood and Mayo W. Neyland, both of Greenville, for plaintiffs in error.
Thomas W. Thompson, of Greenville, for defendants in error.
Ben Hassell and others brought this suit against Maude Lucille Frey and husband in trespass to try title and for the construction of the will of H. M. Hassell, deceased, and the codicils thereto. The case was tried by the court, and judgment was rendered in favor of Maude Lucille Frey for the interest owned in the property by Mrs. R. C. Hassell, which was an undivided one-half interest therein. Judgment was also rendered that after the payment of $5 each to Maude Lucille Frey and Mrs. W. E. (Hallie) Brooks the remainder of the one-half interest owned by H. M. Hassell should vest in plaintiffs in certain proportions as stated in the decree. The Court of Civil Appeals at El Paso held that the rule in Shelley's Case controlled in the construction of the will of H. M. Hassell, and that Maude Lucille Frey was not only entitled to recover the one-half interest in the property owned by Mrs. R. C. Hassell, but was also entitled to recover the interest in the property owned by H. M. Hassell, in the possession of Mrs. R. C. Hassell at the time of her death, 97 S.W.2d 970. A writ of error was granted to review the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals.
The parties will be designated plaintiffs and defendants, as they were in the trial court.
The principal question presented here is that the Court of Civil Appeals erred in holding that the rule in Shelley's Case controlled in the construction of the will of H. M. Hassell, and in rendering judgment as above stated.
It is alleged that on January 19, 1917, H. M. Hassell and wife, Mrs. R. C. Hassell, agreed that reciprocal wills should be made, the husband to will to the wife a life estate in the community property as well as in the separate property owned by him, and the wife to will to the husband all the community property owned by her, she not owning any separate property for life; and that at their respective deaths all of the property should pass to the blood kin of H. M. Hassell, and that the adopted heir, Maude Lucille Bean (who is now Maude Lucille Frey), should receive as her share of the respective estates the sum of $5. It is alleged that Mrs. R. C. Hassell recognized such agreement up to the time of her death; that H. M. Hassell died testate on April 10, 1934, and after the death of her husband Mrs. R. C. Hassell probated his will and elected to accept under it.
We copy below the pertinent parts of the will and the codicils. After reciting that the testator should be given a Christian burial, and that his just debts should be paid, the will continues as follows:
Then follows the appointment of his wife as sole executrix of his will.
The first codicil recites that his wife's physical condition precludes her from performing the duties as executrix, and in order to relieve his wife of such duties he appoints J. C. Thompson and B. R. Brown as executors. In the second, and last, codicil, which was executed April 10, 1934, we find the following language:
The trial court in rendering judgment made certain findings. After stating the character of the suit, the court found that at the time of filing the suit H. M. Hassell and wife owned the property in controversy. It was also found: (1) That on August 17, 1909, H. M. Hassell and wife adopted as their legal heir, as required by law, Maude Lucille Frey (nee Maude Lucille Bean), and at the time of their deaths she was their legally adopted heir; (2) that prior to the deaths of H. M. Hassell and wife their parents had died, and that no child or children were ever born to H. M. Hassell and his wife; (3) that with the exception of Maude Lucille Frey and Mrs. W. E. (Hallie) Brooks, plaintiffs in this case were the sole surviving heirs at law of H. M. Hassell; and (4) that the property involved here is the community property of H. M. Hassell and wife.
We copy verbatim the following findings:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Avis v. First Nat. Bank of Wichita Falls
...be construed in connection with the surrounding facts and circumstances existing at the time the will was made. Hassell et al. v. Frey et al., 131 Tex. 578, 117 S.W.2d 413; Wallace et al. v. First Nat. Bank of Paris, 120 Tex. 92, 35 S.W.2d 1036; Federal Land Bank of Houston v. Little, 130 T......
-
Power v. Landram
...have liberally construed the word 'heirs' to mean children in order to avoid the force of the rule in Shelley's case. Hassell v. Frey, 131 Tex. 578, 117 S.W.2d 413 (1938); Federal Land Bank of Houston v. Little, 130 Tex. 173, 107 S.W.2d 374 (1937); Calvery v. Calvery, 122 Tex. 204, 55 S.W.2......
-
Baines v. Ray
...other written instruments. That construction has become a rule of our jurisprudence, as is indicated in the cited 44 Tex.Jur. 700, Hassell v. Frey, 131 Tex. 578, 117 S.W.2d 413, and Lawrence v. Lawrence, Tex.Civ.App., 229 S.W.2d 219, error There seems such a unanimity among our courts as to......
-
Simmons v. O'Connor, 14193.
...to the word heir used in the will, the testator did not intend to include the son's widow within the term "heir". In Hassell v. Frey, 131 Tex. 578, 117 S.W.2d 413, 414, it was held that the testator did not intend to include an adopted daughter within the term "my heirs at law". The followi......