Hutter v. Crawford

Decision Date22 June 1928
Citation7 S.W.2d 1043,225 Ky. 215
PartiesHUTTER et al. v. CRAWFORD et al.
CourtKentucky Court of Appeals

Appeal from Circuit Court, Kenton County.

Proceeding between Arthur Hutter and others and Benjamin Crawford and others. From the judgment, Arthur Hutter and others appeal. Affirmed.

Stepehns L. Blakely and W. E. Tyler, both of Covington, for appellants.

Elmer Ware, of Covington, for appellees.

DIETZMAN J.

The question presented by this case is what character of estate was devised to Mary Hutter by this will of her husband "In the name of God, Amen:

I Nicholas Hutter, of Fiske street in the city of Covington, in Kenton county, in the commonwealth of Kentucky, being of lawful age and though weak of body, yet of sound mind and disposing memory, do make, publish and ordain this writing as my last and only will and testament, for the disposition of all my property of every description after my death, in the manner and words following to wit:

Firstly It is my will that my medical attendance and all my just debts of every description shall be firstly fully paid.

Second It is my will that all of the rest and residue of my property both real and personal shall be given to and belong to my beloved wife, Mary Hutter, to the end that she may the better control and educate my children in the ways of industry and morality and to this end I empower my said wife, Mary, to borrow money on my real estate or to sell any part of the same for the payment of all of my said debts, and that there may be no sale or sacrifice of my household furniture after my death.

Thirdly: It is my will that the court shall cause no appraisement to be made of my personal property, so that my wife shall not be subjected to any expense or trouble or annoyance thereby.

Fourthly: After all my said debts are fully paid I will and direct that all the residue of my estate both real and personal shall belong entirely and in fee simple to my said wife, Mary Hutter, feeling certain that she will do rightly in every way by all of my children.

Fifthly: I do hereby appoint my said wife, Mary Hutter as the sole executrix and legatee of this my last will and testament for the purposes, uses and intent above written, and furthermore it is my will that she shall not be required to give any bond whatever as executrix of this my will aforesaid.

Providing nevertheless that if she ever at any time should marry again to any other man during her life, then it is my will that said property above named or whatever else it may be changed into shall be at once so divided that two thirds thereof shall go to and be equally divided amongst my children then living so that they shall share equally.

In witness whereof, I, the maker of this will have this day signed, sealed and acknowledged,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Lee v. Tipton
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • May 18, 2012
    ...a defeasible fee simple estate while others have interpreted the language as creating a defeasible life estate.7 See Hutter v. Crawford, 225 Ky. 215, 75S.W.2d 1043 (1928); Duncan v. Cole, 303 Ky. 746, 199 S.W.2d 438 (1947); Hopson's Trustee v. Hopson, 282 Ky. 181, 138 S.W.2d 365 (1940); Hut......
  • Davis v. Bennett's Ex'x
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • March 18, 1938
    ...575, 195 S.W. 1102; Prindible v. Prindible, 186 Ky. 280, 216 S.W. 583; Walton v. Jones, 216 Ky. 289, 287 S.W. 710; and Hutter v. Crawford, 225 Ky. 215, 7 S.W.2d 1043. have carefully examined and read them more than once; and find that only two of them (Hinkle v. Hinkle and Walton v. Jones) ......
  • Davis v. Bennett's Ex'x
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • March 18, 1938
    ...575, 195 S.W. 1102; Prindible v. Prindible, 186 Ky. 280, 216 S.W. 583; Walton v. Jones, 216 Ky. 289, 287 S.W. 710; and Hutter v. Crawford, 225 Ky. 215, 7 S.W.2d 1043. have carefully examined and read them more than once; and find that only two of them (Hinkle v. Hinkle and Walton v. Jones) ......
  • Cuddy v. McIntyre
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • April 18, 1950
    ...passed to the widow by any stretch of the imagination or by application of any rule of construction however elastic. Hutter v. Crawford, 225 Ky. 215, 7 S.W.2d 1043 and KRS 381.060. The will then would have devised a defeasible fee to Nanie Cuddy, the incident of defeasance being one which d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT