Huffman v. Huffman, A-7648

• Decision Date: 05 October 1960
• Docket Number: No. A-7648,A-7648
• Citation: 161 Tex. 267,339 S.W.2d 885
• Parties: Lyter HUFFMAN et al., Petitioners, v. Phil C. HUFFMAN et al., Respondents.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 885

339 S.W.2d 885

161 Tex. 267

Lyter HUFFMAN et al., Petitioners, v. Phil C. HUFFMAN et al., Respondents.

No. A-7648.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Oct. 5, 1960.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 30, 1960

Stone, Agerton, Parker & Snakard, B G. Mansell, Fort Worth, for Fort Worth National Bank, Administrator.

R. T. Thornton, Hyder & Honts, Tilley, Hyder & Law, Fort Worth, for Myrtle Huffman, Lyter Huffman, Patricia Wright & Arthur Wright.

Collins & Green, Cantey, Hanger, Johnson Scarborough & Gooch, Charles L. Stephens, Fort Worth, for Phil C. Huffman and others.

GREENHILL, Justice.

This is a suit for the construction of the holographic will of Gladys Huffman. The question is whether or not her stock in the Rotary Apartments in Fort Worth was bequeathed in the will. The trial court, sitting without a jury, held that the stock did pass under the will. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed and held that it did not. Tex.Civ.App., 329 S.W.2d 139. We here affirm the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals The will reads:

'To Whom it May Concern:

'To Myrtle, Lyter and Pat I leave the choice of my personal belongings (my ring is at Ft. Worth Nat'1 Bank.) Then they can give some things to the others.

'The Rotary Apts. Inc. stock belonging to me has been handed to Myrtle and Lyter for what I lost them in the oil deal.

'305 Lamar Building and contents to be divided among all four-2 brothers and two sisters and a fifth share to Lizzie Belle's two children.

'Please give part of Rotary Apts. Income to Pat

'I love all of you.

'(s) Gladys Huffman

Rochester, Minn.

Sept. 3, 1957'

Gladys Huffman wrote her will while in the Mayo Clinic where she was being treated for a malignant condition from which she died a few months later. She had been divorced and had no children. The parties to this suit stipulated that 'Myrtle and Lyter,' mentioned in the will, were her sister and brother; that 'Pat' was Patricia Wright, niece of the testatrix; that 'all four' were her four surviving brothers and sisters: Lyter, Phil, and Myrtle Huffman, and Mrs. Mary Lou Spireling; and that 'Lizzie Belle's two children' were William and Tom Hull, Jr., sons of the deceased sister of the testatrix. The parties further stipulated the identity and location of the Rotary Apartments and '305 Lamar Building,' both in Fort Worth. The controversy, and the only matter at issue, concerns the stock in the Rotary Apartments.

The Rotary Apartments, Inc. was a corporation which owned the Rotary Apartments. The stock was wholly owned by the testatrix, Gladys Huffman, except for qualifying shares. After she was aware of her serious illness, she physically handed the certificates of stock in the corporation to her sister, Myrtle. A disagreement exists as to the words used by Gladys in handing the stock to Myrtle, but they were in substance, 'Take this and keep it.' or 'take this and be responsible for them'; or 'take it and keep it, you all will be the ones that will be needing it now.'

On the witness stand, both Myrtle and Lyter testified that Gladys gave them the stock at that time. They also gave inconsistent testimony that they considered the apartments as belonging to Gladys 'until the end'; i. e., until Gladys' death. There was evidence that Gladys, who was President of Rotary Apartments, Inc., listed the apartments for sale as 'owner' after handing the stocks to Myrtle, and that Gladys continued to receive and spend the income from the apartments. There was a good .deal of testimony that Myrtle, Lyter and Pat had been particularly kind to Gladys and had cared for her in her illness. On the other hand, by concluding the will with the words, 'I love all of you,' Gladys expressed a love for all of her brothers and sisters and the niece and nephews mentioned in the will. There was also evidence that Myrtle and Lyter had advanced considerable sums to Gladys on 'oil deals' and for care of the apartments, and that they had not been repaid. Pat, apparently in order to be able to testify under the Dead Man Statute, quitclaimed any interest in the Rotary Apartments for $250. ²

This suit for construction of the will was brought by Phil Huffman, Mary Lou Huffman Spireling (brother and sister of the testatrix) and others. Myrtle, Lyter and Pat brought a cross action in which they contended that the will was unambiguous and that the Rotary Apartments stock passed under the will. In the alternative they pleaded that there had been a gift of the stock by Gladys to Myrtle and Lyter before Gladys' death.

The trial court, without a jury, found that there had been no gift of the stock from Gladys during her lifetime to Myrtle and Lyter. No appeal was taken from that holding and that question is not before us.

The particular portion of the will here involved reads:

'The Rotary Apts. Inc. stock belonging to me has been handed to Myrtle and Lyter for what I lost them in the oil deal. * * *

'Please give part of the Rotary Apts. Income to Pat.'

We agree with the Court of Civil Appeals that there was not a bequest of the Rotary Apartment stock. There are no words of grant or devise; and, taken in context, there are no words from which a bequest can reasonably be inferred. The Paragraph concerning the apartments above quoted is a statement that Gladys had handed the stock to Myrtle and Lyter for what she had lost them. She may have believed that she had previously given the stock to them. The trial court found that she had not, and the matter has become final. We may speculate that Gladys wanted Myrtle and Lyter to have the stock, and their position deserves a good deal of sympathy. But the duty of the Court is to construe the will from the words used therein. And the instrument simply does not bequeath the stock to Myrtle and Lyter. The intent must be drawn from the will, not the will from the intent.

The rule of law applicable here is expressed in Page on Wills:

'* * * In determining the testator's intention the true purpose of the inquiry is to ascertain not what he meant to express apart from the language used, but what the words he has used do express. Accordingly, when there is no dispute as to what words were written in the will, it is a fundamental principle that extrinsic evidence cannot be received to show that the testator intended something outside of, and independent of such written words, to add words to those in the will, to contradict its language, or to take words away from those in the will, even though the court may believe that the actual disposition of the testator's property which results through changing circumstances was not contemplated by him.' 4 Page on Wills (Lifetime Ed.), 622 et seq., § 1617.

'The only purpose and justification of the admission of extrinsic evidence is to explain testator's meaning which is set forth in the words of the will. Assuming that there is a valid will to be construed, it is the place of the court to find the meaning of such will, and not under guise of construction or under general powers of equity to assume to correct or redraft the will in which testator has expressed his intentions.' Ibid., 627. stThe words, 'Please give...