Honaker v. Starks
| Decision Date | 09 September 1912 |
| Parties | HONAKER. v. STARKS. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Where testatrix, owning five shares of stock in a bank, disposed of her estate, real and personal, to a number of devisees and legatees, and her will, containing no residuary clause, gave to a beneficiary named "my stock (one share)" in a bank, the gift of the stock included all the shares of stock.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Wills, Cent. Dig. § 965; Dec. Dig. § 449.*]
Where the subject of a gift in a will is sufficiently and clearly ascertained, effect will be given to the gift, notwithstanding any added particulars of description, which are found to be false or mistaken.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Wills, Cent. Dig. § 982; Dec. Dig. § 463.*]
Where a will is subject to two constructions, the construction which will prevent total or partial intestacy will be preferred.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Wills, Cent. Dig. § 965; Dec. Dig. § 449.*]
Appeal from Circuit Court, Bland County.
Suit between J. D. Honaker, administrator of Rebecca J. Hicks, deceased, and C. J. M. Starks. From a decree for the latter, the former appeals. Affirmed.
Williams & Williams, for appellant.
A. R. Porterfield and W. J. Henson, for appellee.
HARRISON, J. [1] The last will and testament of Rebecca J. Hicks was duly probated in Bland county on the 10th day of March, 1909. The testatrix disposes of her estate, real and personal, to a number of devisees and legatees, there being no residuary clause in the will.
The seventh clause of the will is as follows: "I give, devise and bequeath to C. M. Starks my stock (one share) in the Bank of Bland County, located at Bland, Virginia."
The record shows that the testatrix owned five shares of stock in the bank mentioned, and it is contended by the appellant that under the seventh clause the appellee took only one share of stock, and that the testatrix died intestate as to the remaining four shares.
We are of opinion that the devise of "my stock" carried with it the five shares of stock owned by the testatrix in the Bank of Bland, and that such devise was not limited or in any way diminished by the subsequent parenthetical words "(one share)." This was merely an attempted, but mistaken, descrip-tion of the stock owned by the testatrix in the Bank of Bland, which had previously been disposed of by the use of the broad term "my stock, " which was five shares.
Statements of quantity are seldom given much weight, because the amount is not often exactly known, and is easily mistaken. Where the subject is sufficiently and clearly ascertained, as it is in the case before us, by the use of the words "my stock, " though there be added particulars of description, which are found to be false or mistaken, effect will be given to the devise notwithstanding, and the false or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arnold v. Groobey
...cases. Smith v. Smith, 17 Gratt. (58 Va.) 268; Gallagher, et al. v. Rowan's Adm'r., et al., 86 Va. 823, 11 S.E. 121; Honaker v. Starks, 114 Va. 37, 39, 75 S.E. 741; Bowe v. Bowe, 118 Va. 28, 86 S.E. 856; Prison Association v. Russell, supra; Coffman's Adm'r. v. Coffman, 131 Va. 456, 466, 10......
-
Powell v. Holland
...two modes of interpretation are possible, that is preferred which will prevent either total or partial intestacy." Honaker v. Starks, 114 Va. 37, 39, 75 S.E. 741, 742 (1912). The reasoning underlying this presumption is succinctly stated in McCabe v. Cary's Ex'r., 135 Va. 428, 433-34, 116 S......
-
Haag v. Stickley
...time of his death. Thus, he bequeathed "my shares of stock" in the company, intending to give all the shares he owned. Honaker v. Starks, 114 Va. 37, 75 S.E. 741 (1912). In Honaker, the testatrix provided: "I give, devise and bequeath to C. M. Starks my stock (one share) in the Bank of Blan......
-
Bradshaw v. Bangley
...where two modes of interpretation are possible, that is preferred which will prevent either total or partial intestacy. ' Honaker v. Starks, 114 Va. 37, 39, 75 S.E. 741. 'We start with the legal presumption that the testator intended to dispose of his entire estate. There is a strong presum......