In re Patterson's Estate

• Decision Date: 02 June 1924
• Docket Number: No. 113.,113.
• Parties: In re PATTERSON'S ESTATE.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

227 Mich. 486

198 N.W. 958

In re PATTERSON'S ESTATE.

No. 113.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

June 2, 1924.

Error to Circuit Court, Shiawassee County; Joseph H. Collins, Judge.

In the matter of the estate of Andrew J. Patterson, deceased. From an order of distribution and construction of will, Ivah Patterson-Wilson brings error. Affirmed.

Argued before CLARK, C. J., and McDONALD, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, STEERE, FELLOWS, and WIEST, JJ. Miner & Miner, of Owosso (Matthews & Hicks, of Owosso, of counsel), for appellant.

Pulver & Bush and Warren Pierpont, all of Owosso, for appellees.

SHARPE, J.

The last will and testament of Andrew J. Patterson, long a resident of Shiawassee county, executed on January 21, 1889, contained the following provision:

‘I give, devise and bequeath to my beloved wife Nancy A. Patterson all of my estate of which I may die possessed of whatever nature real personal and mixed, for her lifetime and at her decease the remainder over unto the surviving children the issue of myself and my said wife Nancy A. Patterson, share and share alike. My said wife to have the use and profits of my said estate, and if the same are not sufficient for her proper maintenance and support then she is to use of the principal estate sufficient for her proper maintenance and support.’

At the time the will was executed, the testator had four children living, Charles J. Patterson, Arthur D. Patterson, Carrie A. Patterson (Terbush), and Fred R. Patterson. Charles and Arthur died before the testator, leaving no issue. Carrie then had two children, Jay M. Terbush, Jr., and Rispah Terbush, while Fred had one child, Ivah Patterson. Before the death of the widow, which occurred on February 6, 1923, both Carrie and Fred had died. Carrie's two children were then living. Fred's first wife, the mother of Ivah, had died. He had remarried and his widow, Carrie E., and a son, Frederick G., as well as Ivah, who had married a man named Wilson, survived him.

The question here presented is whether the remainder over after the termination of the life estate in the widow, Nancy, vested on the death of the testator or on the death of Nancy. If it vested on the death of the testator, then the widow of Frederick is entitled to her distributive share of his estate; if not, she has no interest therein. The trial court, in a carefully prepared opinion, concluded that the remainder vested on the death of the testator. Ivah Patterson Wilson here reviews by writ of error the order of distribution made pursuant to such conclusion. Carefully prepared and helpful briefs have been filed, and the case was ably presented on the hearing.

[1][2] Counsel are not in dispute over the general rules by which we must be governed. We must ascertain the intent of the testator if possible (Kirsher v. Todd, 195 Mich. 297, 162 N. W. 129), so construe the will that every word ‘means something, if possible’ (Rivenett v. Bourquin, 53 Mich. 10, 18 N. W. 537), and give ‘force and vitality to all parts and all expressions in the will’ (In re Blodgett's Estate, 197 Mich. 455, 163 N. W. 907). Counsel for appellees also insist upon the application of the rule that ‘the law favors the vesting of estates at the earliest possible moment’ (Schouler on Wills (6th Ed.) § 1258; In re Shumway's Estate, 194 Mich. 245, 248, 160 N. W. 595, L. R. A. 1918A, 578), and also strongly urge that the construction which this court has placed upon wills wherein similar language was used has become an established rule of property in this state and should not be disregarded.

[3] Had not the words ‘at her decease’ and ‘surviving’ been inserted in the provision, it is clear that the remainder would have vested in Carrie and Fred at the death of the testator. We are of the opinion that the decisions of this court in Rood v. Hovey, 50 Mich. 395, 15 N. W. 525, and in Porter v. Porter, 50 Mich. 456, 15 N. W. 550, are conclusive as to the construction which we should place upon the provision in this will. In the Porter Case, after giving the widow an estate for life in all the property of the testator, the will provided:

‘On the decease of my wife, Eliza G. Porter, I desire my property to be divided equally between my surviving children,’ etc.

Mr. Justice Campbell, speaking for the court, said:

‘We think, on the rules of construction which have always prevailed in this...