Johnson v. Preston
Decision Date | 18 April 1907 |
Citation | 80 N.E. 1001,226 Ill. 447 |
Parties | JOHNSON et al. v. PRESTON et al. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lee County; O. E. Heard, Judge.
Bill by James A. Johnson and others against Charles F. Preston and others. From a decree for defendants, complainants appeal. Affirmed.E. E. Wingert and A. H. Switzer, for appellants.
A. C. Bardwell, for appellees.
The heirs at law of Jane Platt filed a bill in the Lee county circuit court to have clauses 5 and 6 1/2 of the will of Jane Platt declared void, and for a partition of the real estate devised by said clauses. Jane Platt died testate March 1, 1904, leaving complainants and James J. Platt her heirs at law. Said Jane Platt left a will consisting of 11 clauses and a codicil of 1 clause. The first clause directs the payment of funeral expenses and all just debts out of the first money that may come into the hands of the executor thereinafter named. The second clause bequeaths to John R. and George H. Platt a chest of cabinet tools, to be enjoyed jointly or individually, as the legatees may elect. By the third James J. Platt is given the household goods of the testatrix to have and to hold and to enjoy during his natural life, and at his death to be divided equally between the five sons of said James J. Platt namely, John R., George H., Frank J., Robert C., and Harold S. Platt. In the fourth the testatrix gives some directions respecting the care of certain cemetery lots.
The fifth clause is as follows:
The sixth clause devises to James J. Platt a life estate in certain real estate with remainder in fee to the five sons mentioned in the third clause.
The next clause is in the following language:
The seventh clause reads as follows:
Passing over the eighth clause, which is not important to a correct understanding of the questions involved, the ninth clause is as follows: ‘Ninth-It is my orders and direction that no part of my property above described shall go to the mother of said John R. Platt, George H. Platt, Frank J. Platt, Robert C. Platt and Harold S. Platt in any way, shape or manner, but shall be held strictly for the parties above mentioned and their heirs, excluding their said mother, and a failure to observe these directions will invalidate this will and render it null and void.’
The last clause nominates Charles F. Preston as executor, and the codicil reduces the yearly annuity of Mary J. Atkinson, given by clause 5, from $100 per annum to $25 per annum.
The foregoing will and codicil were duly admitted to probate by the county court of Lee county on the 30th day of March, 1904, and the executor named accepted the trust, qualified, received letters testamentary and entered upon the discharge of his duties. The heirs at law of the testatrix by the bill challenge the validity of clauses 5 and 6 1/2 of said will as being in violation of the rule against perpetuities and an illegal limitation upon the power of alienation, and pray for a partition of the real estate described in said clauses, as intestate property. The executor and James J. Platt and his five sons were made defendants, all of whom joined in a demurrer to the bill, which was sustained and the bill dismissed for want of equity. Complainants below appeal to this court, and assign error upon the order sustaining the demurrer and decree dismissing the bill.
VICKERS, J. (after stating the facts).
First. Appellants contend that clauses 5 and 6 1/2 are void because they violate the rule against perpetuities. In our consideration of this question we will first consider it with reference to the estate or interest devised to the executor.The sections of the will in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Bassett
... ... 201; Koehler v ... Rowland, 275 Mo. 586, 205 S.W. 220, 9 A. L. R. 107; 21 ... R. C. L. 293; 48 C. J. 939; Johnson v. Preston, 226 ... Ill. 447; Trautz v. Lemp, 329 Mo. 580, 46 S.W.2d ... 135. (a) The rule is satisfied only if there is within the ... time ... ...
-
Trautz v. Lemp
...882; O'Hare v. Johnston, 273 Ill. 458; Plummer v. Brown, 315 Mo. 627, 287 S.W. 316. The following cases are distinguishable: Johnson v. Preston, 226 Ill. 447; Miller v. Weston (Colo.), 189 P. 610; Loud Union Trust Co., 298 Mo. 148, 249 S.W. 629. (b) Even though the title does not vest in th......
-
Colonial Trust Co. v. Brown
... ... events, to make, remain unaffected. Tarrant v ... Backus, 63 Conn. 277, 284, 28 A. 46; Johnson v ... Preston, 226 Ill. 447, 458, 80 N.E. 1001, 10 L.R.A. (N ... S.) 564; Manice v. Manice, 43 N.Y. 303, 308; ... Whitman's Estate, 248 Pa ... ...
-
White v. White
... ... cannot in their nature co-exist. Such a [108 W.Va ... 140] condition is held to be void for repugnancy." ... ... Johnson v. Preston, 226 Ill. 447, 80 N.E. 1001, ... 1006, 10 L.R.A. (N. S.) 564, is a case in which a testatrix ... devised to her executor real property ... ...
-
A Will for Willa Cather.
...to use the funds only in furtherance of education "would be wholly impotent and of no avail"). (17.) See, e.g., Johnson v. Preston, 80 N.E. 1001, 1006 (Ill. 1907) ("To transfer a fee and at the same time to restrict the free alienation of it, is to say that a party can give and not give, in......