In re Syverson's Estate

• Decision Date: 15 June 1948
• Docket Number: 47222.
• Parties: In re SYVERSON'S ESTATE. SYVERSON et al. v. SYVERSON.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

32 N.W.2d 799

239 Iowa 800

In re SYVERSON'S ESTATE.

SYVERSON et al. v. SYVERSON.

No. 47222.

Supreme Court of Iowa

June 15, 1948

Hart & Hart, of Waukon, for appellants.

A C. Lynch, of Decorah, for appellee.

BLISS Justice.

Gilbert Syverson, the testator, was a farmer in Springfield Township Winneshiek County, Iowa. He died there September 23, 1946 leaving a will executed November 26, 1937, which was probated in said county on October 18, 1946. The sons, Nels and Arthur, were appointed coadministrators, c.t.a. and qualified. Eight children, all adults, survived the testator. The sons are Nels, Willard, Arthur, and Melvin, all farmers living near Decorah. The daughters are Alice Numedahl of Decorah, Clara Hovey, Decorah R.F.D., Gladys Kitch and Edna Winn, both of Detroit, Mich.

He owned two farms at his death. One of them, the old 'home farm' which he acquired in 1896 or before, contained 188 acres. It was the 'home farm' in name, and in fact. The testator lived there most of his life, and died there. The children were all born there. The other farm which he owned was always spoken of as the 'Sandness farm.' He acquired it piece-meal, buying it in portions, as he was able. Just when he became the owner of any or all of it does not appear, but the record shows that he owned it for twenty-five or more years. It contained 115 acres. On it there was a house, granary, slat corncrib, wire corncrib, and a shed which would shelter about twenty head of cattle. There had never been a resident tenant on this farm during the time the testator owned it. It was about a mile and a half from the home place and was operated in connection with it. It was cropped and pastured. Corn and small grain were raised on it every year. Every year as early as there was pasturage, in April or May, the stock cattle, calves and young cattle, and the non-milking cows, were taken to the 'Sandness farm' and left there until the late fall. When the pasture was gone and the corn and grain raised on that farm had been fed to the cattle there, and inclement weather had set in, the cattle were taken to the 'home farm' to be kept until the next spring. Any unfed grain on the Sandness farm was usually hauled to the home place. Sometimes it was left in the granary or cribs on the Sandness farm.

For twenty years before his death the testator and the defendant, Arthur Syverson, had operated both farms on a 'fifty-fifty' basis, that is each owned half the equipment, half the livestock, and half the produce. At the time the testator died all of the farming equipment, livestock, hay, grain etc., were on the 'home farm'--the 188 acres--except 9 yearling steers, 6 yearling heifers, 5 two year old heifers, 1 steer, 23 acres of standing corn, and 350 bushels of oats, more or less, in the granary, all of which was on the Sandness farm. It is conceded by all parties that when the testator died, he and Arthur each owned an undivided one-half interest in these 21 head of cattle, and the corn and oats. In the inventory signed and filed by the co-administrators this property was listed as being on the Sandness farm when the testator died, and an undivided half thereof, valued at $988.50, was stated to be the property of the decedent's estate. It is this property which is in controversy, and which the plaintiffs in their application claim is the property in equal shares of all the children under the residuary clause of the will, and which the defendant, Arthur Syverson, claims is his property under paragraph 3 of the will.

There is no issue as to the testamentary capacity of the testator, and there is no issue of execution, or undue influence. The dispute is over the disposition of said cattle and grain by the will.

The 3d, 4th and 5th paragraphs of the will are:

'Third, To my son, Arthur Syverson, I give, devise and bequeath my home farm in Springfield Township, Winneshiek County, Iowa, consisting of One Hundred and Eighty (180) acres, more or less, including therewith all livestock, machinery, grain and other personal property and equipment,located thereon at the time of my death, all the said real estate and personal property shall be subject to a payment on the basis of Six Thousand ($6000.00) Dollars into my estate, excepting from said property the following, and that I give and devise to my son, Melvin Syverson, four cows, one team of horses and one set of harness which he shall have the right to choose and remove from the premises immediately after my said Last Will and Testament has been admitted to probate, the said last named property to be the absolute property of my said son, Melvin Syverson.' (Italics supplied).

'Fourth, To my son, Melvin Syverson, I give, devise and bequeath my other farm in Springfield Township, Winneshiek County, Iowa, known as the 'Sandness farm', consisting of One Hundred and Fifteen (115) acres, more or less, to be subject to the payment of Twenty Five Hundred ($2500.00) into my estate after which it shall become his absolute property.' (Italics supplied.)

'Fifth, that all the rest, residue and remainder of my estate, moneys and credits of every name and nature, including the monies to be paid as hereinbefore specified by my sons, Arthur Syverson and Melvin Syverson, shall be divided equally, or on an equal basis between all of my children and that I do hereby give, devise and bequeath all of said property in equal shares to my daughters and sons, towit: * * * (naming them), share and share alike.'

No other bequests or devises were made other than to give two shares of creamery-company stock to Arthur, two shares to Melvin, and one share to Willard.

I. Controversies over the testamentary disposition of property have been the cause of much litigation in both trial and appellate courts. The rules and principles of law involved therein are well settled. The disagreement of the parties in this action involves not the principles, but their application. The primary and controlling consideration in actions of this kind is the determination of the intention of the testator. When that has been done the intention must be made effective if it is a lawful one, and not against public policy. The intention of the testator must be ascertained from the will, itself, and from nothing else, if its language is plain and unambiguous. Where the intention is thus clearly and unequivocally expressed there is no need for judicial construction, or extrinsic evidence, and all other rules of testamentary interpretation are inapplicable and must yield. The intention must be that which is manifest from the express language of the will or by necessary implication. 'The presumption is very strong, however, against his having intended any devise or bequest which he has not set forth in his will.' Page on the Law Of Wills (1901). Because of factual dissimilarity the interpretation of the other wills in other cases aids little in ascertaining the intent of the testator in a particular case. Precedents are helpful only in the statement of general principles. We note some of the many decisions of this court announcing rules of law above stated. Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick, 36 Iowa 674, 14 Am.Rep. 538; Smith v. Runnels, 97 Iowa 55, 57, 65 N.W. 1002; Evans v. Hunter, 86 Iowa 413, 414, 415, 53 N.W. 277, 17 L.R.A. 308, 41 Am.St.Rep. 503; Gilmore v. Jenkins, 129 Iowa 686, 691, 692, 106 N.W. 193, 6 Ann.Cas. 1008; In re Estate of Schmitz, 231 Iowa 1178, 1181, 1182, 3 N.W.2d 512; In re Estate of Thomas, 220 Iowa 50, 54, 261 N.W. 622; Ransom v. Mellor, 230 Iowa 451, 454, 297 N.W. 861; In re Edwards' Estate, 231 Iowa 71, 72, 73, 77-78, 300 N.W. 673; Creel v. Hammans, 234 Iowa 532, 534, 13 N.W.2d 305; In re Estate of Austin, 236 Iowa 945, 949, 20 N.W.2d 445, 162 A.L.R. 709; In re Estate of Flannery, 221 Iowa 265, 270, 271, 264 N.W. 68; Harvey v. Clayton, 206 Iowa 187, 190, 220 N.W. 25; Scofield v. Hadden, 206 Iowa 597, 601, 220 N.W. 1; Jordan v. Hinkle, 111 Iowa 43, 45, 82 N.W. 426; In re Estate of Holdorf, 227 Iowa 977, 984, 985, 289 N.W. 756; Horak v. Stanley, 216 Iowa 318-320, 249 N.W. 166; In re Estate of Pottorff, 216 Iowa 1370, 1372, 1373, 250 N.W. 463; Fulton v. Fulton, 179 Iowa 948, 951, 162 N.W. 253, L.R.A.1918E, 1080; Canaday v. Baysinger, 170 Iowa 414, 417-420, 152 N.W.

562; Guilford v. Gardner, 180 Iowa 1210, 1221, 162 N.W. 261; Scott v. Scott, 132 Iowa 35, 36, 37, 109 N.W. 293; Moran v. Moran, 104 Iowa 216, 221-223, 73 N.W. 617, 39 L.R.A. 204, 65 Am.St.Rep. 443; Klumpert v. Vrieland, 142 Iowa 434, 436, 121 N.W. 34; Boehm v. Rohlfs, 224 Iowa 226, 232, 233, 276 N.W. 105; Carpenter v. Lothringer, 224 Iowa 439, 456, 457, 275 N.W. 98; Benham v. Turkle, 173 Iowa 598, 602, 603, 153 N.W. 1017; 69 C.J. 42, sec. 1110; In re Estate of Heckmann, 228 Iowa 967, 975, 976, 291 N.W. 465; Starr v. Newman, 225 Iowa 901, 904, 905, 281 N.W. 830; Anderson v. Anderson, 227 Iowa 25, 31, 32, 286 N.W. 446; Anderson v. Meier, 227 Iowa 38, 42, 287 N.W. 250; Freier v. Longnecker, 227 Iowa 366, 370, 288 N.W. 444; In re Will of Hagan, 234 Iowa 1001, 1007, 14 N.W.2d 638, 152 A.L.R. 1296; In re Estate of Heller, 233 Iowa 1356, 1365, 11 N.W.2d 586; In re Johnson's Estate, Iowa, 30 N.W.2d 164, 167; In re Estate of Johnson, 220 Iowa 424, 425, 426, 262 N.W. 811.

Let us apply these rules and principles to the will in this case. In the third paragraph of the will the testator gave Arthur 'my home farm,' by that designation, and the specified personal property, except what was given to Melvin 'located thereon at the time of my death.' The words used are all plain, simple, common, and of well-understood meanings. The language is free from uncertainty or equivocation. There are neither patent or latent ambiguities. The intention of the testator is obviously manifest from the will, itself. The only...