Hurt v. Hurt
| Decision Date | 20 September 1917 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | HURT et al. v. HURT. |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County.
Bill by James H. Hurt and another against Sarah L. Hurt. Decree adjudging Sarah Hurt to be entitled to intangible personal property under the husband's will, and James H. Hurt and others appeal. Reversed in part.
This case involves the sole question of whether the appellee, the widow of John B. Hurt, deceased, under the will of the latter, is entitled to and is the absolute owner of the intangible personal property of the estate of such testator.
The solution of this question depends upon the proper construction of the will of said testator, of which the following clauses only are deemed material, namely:
Then follows, in subsequent parts of the will, provisions as to the persons entitled to take such seven parts of the estate "after the death of my wife, " as repeatedly stated in the will.
The will is dated October 8, 1911. The testator died on April 20, 1915, and the will was probated on May 3, 1915. The widow was then about 65 years of age.
At the time of his death the estate of the testator consisted of real estate and tangible and intangible personal property. The real estate consisted of a 13-room dwelling house located on a large lot of 2 3/4 acres in the town of Wytheville, Va., where the testator and his wife resided at the time of his death, and several other houses and lots, rented out, and some vacant land in and near such town, which might be cultivated or rented out for cultivation. The tangible personal property consisted of household and kitchen furniture, a Ford automobile, and a cow. The intangible personal property consisted of stock in the Wytheville Sanitary Company, money in bank, notes and bonds for money lent out, accounts of debts due testator, and a life insurance policy of $1,000. The appraised value of said property is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Real estate: | | |
|------------------------------------------------------|----------|----------|
|Said residence and lot | |$ 3.500.00|
|------------------------------------------------------|----------|----------|
|Other improved real estate | |6, 250.00 |
|------------------------------------------------------|----------|----------|
|Unimproved real estate | |2, 450.00 |
|------------------------------------------------------|----------|----------|
| |$12,200.00| |
|------------------------------------------------------|----------|----------|
|Tangible personal property | |425.00 |
|------------------------------------------------------|----------|----------|
|Intangible personal property | | |
|------------------------------------------------------|----------|----------|
|Said stock |$687.50 | |
|------------------------------------------------------|----------|----------|
|Money in bank |855.23 | |
|------------------------------------------------------|----------|----------|
|Notes, bonds, and accounts considered good by executor|3, 217.56 |4, 760.29 |
|------------------------------------------------------|----------|----------|
|Total estate | |$17,385.29|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The testator never had a large income. He was deputy clerk of the circuit court for six years, in the latter part of his life, but for several years before his death he was in bad health and had no income except from his property, which at such time was about the same as when he died. He accumulated his estate in small amounts by careful saving. He had no children. He and his wife lived in the residence above named for a number of years before his death. Their manner of life was comfortable, but frugal. The wife did the housework, except occasionally she would hire extra help, and testator did the most of the work about the home, such as caring for the fires, etc., when not too unwell to do so. They kept no servant regularly. In testator's lifetime, when heat was needed, they had fires in grates, as well as in the hot-water furnace, because they preferred the open fires. The living expenses of testator and his wife during the last years of his life were less than $50 per month, including insurance on and upkeep of his property and other expenses incidental thereto, as stated by him, in accordance with the testimony of his widow.
Testator and his wife lived for the most part to themselves. The persons entitled in remainder under said will did not live, nor were they much, with the testator in recent years, some living in remote states; one nephew not having been heard of by testator for years, as stated in the will.
The widow had at the death of testator, and has still, a small separate estate of about $1,580, money lent out at interest, of which $750 was derived from sale of a small parcel of land inherited by her, and the residue she accumulated by small savings.
The executors acting under said will have delivered to said widow all of said tangible personal property for her use, but have not delivered to her any of the intangible personal property.
The widow occupies the said dwelling house and lot, in which she and her husband resided at and before his death as aforesaid.
The executors are paying over to the widow all of the net income derived from the real estate and intangible personal property aforesaid. From this source the widow received, during the first 13 months after testator's death, $698.12, or an average of $53.70 per month. During the months of May, June, and July, 1916, she received $2S7.03 of the executors, or $71.75 per month. Up to September, 1916, a period of 17 mouths, she received of the executors $985.15, or an average of $57.95 per month. The evidence shows that, as estimated in 1916, the probable net income from such property will be $700 or $800 per year.
Since testator's death, "little John Hurt, " a nephew of testator, about 12 years of age, has lived with the widow and a brother of hers, who lives in the same town, has spent a part of his time with her. With their assistance about caring for the fires and doing chores about the place, the manner of life of the widow has been practically the same as it was before her husband's death. She does practically the same work now as before the testator's death, and lives practically as comfortably. It is true that she...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chapman v. Chapman, 31117.
...In re Nevins Estate, 192 Pa. St. 258; In re Fowlers Estate, 281 Pa. 459, 126 Atl. 817; Love v. Walker, 59 Ore. 95, 115 Pac. 296; Hurt v. Hurt, 93 S.E. 672. (b) The will itself negatives the existence of any absolute power of disposition. (c) Under the will and under the law a disposal of th......
-
Chapman v. Chapman
...353; In re Nevins Estate, 192 Pa. St. 258; In re Fowlers Estate, 281 Pa. 459, 126 A. 817; Love v. Walker, 59 Ore. 95, 115 P. 296; Hurt v. Hurt, 93 S.E. 672. (b) The will negatives the existence of any absolute power of disposition. (c) Under the will and under the law a disposal of the prop......
-
Smith v. Smith
... ... 1188, 137 S.W.2d ... 629; In re Moor's Estate, 163 Mich. 353, 128 ... N.W. 198; Johns' Adm. v. Johns' Adm., 86 Va ... 333, 10 S.E. 2; Hurt v. Hurt, 121 Va. 413, 93 S.E ... 672; Bristow v. Bristow, 138 Va. 67, 120 S.E. 859; ... Frye v. Community Chest, 4 So.2d 140, 241 Ala. 591; ... ...
-
Walker v. Clements
...enjoy the benefit of the Corpus is implied by the word 'use'. In re Moor's Estate, 163 Mich. 353, 128 N.W. (198), 199.' Hurt v. Hurt, 121 Va. 413, 422, 93 S.E. 672, 674; Taylor v. Taylor, 176 Va. 413, 11 S.E.2d 587; Bristow v. Bristow, 138 Va. 67, 69, 120 S.E.2d 859.' In Bristow v. Bristow,......