Lane v. Railey
Decision Date | 03 November 1939 |
Citation | 133 S.W.2d 74,280 Ky. 319 |
Parties | LANE et al. v. RAILEY et al. |
Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; D. B. Caudill, Judge.
Action for a declaratory judgment to construe a will by S. B. Lane and another, individually and as executors of the will of Bessie B. Lane, deceased, against Mary Crit Lane Railey and others. From an adverse judgment, plaintiff S. B. Lane appeals.
Reversed with direction.
W. B White and Lewis A. White, both of Mt. Sterling, for appellant.
Ed C O'Rear, of Frankfort, Charles D. Grubbs, of Mt. Sterling, and W. B. Alexander, of Adrian, Mich., for appellees.
MORRIS Commissioner.
S. B. Lane and others appeal from a judgment of the lower court construing the holographic will of Bessie B. Lane, a maiden lady who died April 16, 1937, then about sixty years of age. Her will and codicils thereto were written while she was in a hospital in Louisville, the will being dated May 20, and the (signed) codicil December, both in the year 1936.
So much of Miss Lane's will as is conceived to be pertinent to a discussion of the case is copied, as is the codicil:
The petition (in form of the declaratory judgment proceeding) was filed by S. B. Lane and W. H. Railey, individually and as executors of the will. The defendants were Mary Crit Lane Railey, a sister, the wife of W. H. Railey (in the will called Hunter), co-executor of the will, Mary D. Lane Hoch (in the will called Mary D. Lane), niece of testatrix, who with her husband and children, Nancy Lane and Louisa Hoch, infant defendants, resided in Michigan, and W. N. Lane, a non-resident defendant, to whom certain bequests were made in the body of the will, but who was eliminated in the codicil. He died on December 9, 1937, shortly after the death of testatrix, and his mother, Jennie Lane, intervened as his heir, adopting as her pleading the allegations of the answer of W. N. Lane filed November, 1937.
The petition was filed on September 8, 1937. On November 16, 1937, an amended petition set out the fact that there was another child of Karl and Mary Hoch, Karl Hoch, Jr. In report of warning order attorney, filed January 2, 1938, it is said he was one and one-half years of age.
An inventory filed April 30, 1937, showed that at the time of her death testatrix owned bonds and stocks, and the checks in issue as set out in the stipulation, infra.
The cause was submitted to the court for interpretation of the will upon the following agreed facts:
(1) On the dates of the original will, the unsigned codicil, and the later codicil, testatrix had not exceeding the sum of $25 in actual cash money.
(2) On the date of the will (May 20, 1936) the testatrix had to her credit in the Montgomery bank, $758.31. On October 30, 1936 (unsigned codicil), she had to her credit in the same bank, $2,339.69, and at the date of the codicil (December 15th same year) in same bank, $2,256.34. She did not have on the dates mentioned, or any intervening dates, any other bank deposits.
(3) The check for $2,665.87 represented such amount paid to the executors after the death of testatrix, by W. H. Railey, manager of the farm, being Miss Lane's interest in the proceeds from sales of tobacco and other crops raised on the farm during 1936, all of which were sold by Railey prior to the time of the death of the testatrix, except tobacco to the amount of $681.82, and sold within a week after the death of the testatrix.
(4) Miss Lane owned at the time of her death no property other than that disposed of by her will and codicil, unless it be the following items: 10 Carolina, Clinchfield & Ohio Railway bonds; two bonds 16 Court Street, Incorporated; 20 shares of Louisville Gas & Electric Company; 10 shares U.S. Steel Corporation, and which bonds and stocks are the subjects of this controversy.
(5) Testatrix owed at the time of her death $525, and her funeral expenses amounted to the sum of $625.
Silas B. Lane was seventy-three years old; was married October 1902; his wife is about sixty-one years old; he has no children and never had. An amended petition asserts that Mary Railey was then about sixty years of age.
W. N. Lane, unmarried, was in a hospital at the time the signed codicil was written, and at the date of testatrix' death, with what developed to be an incurable disease; he died in December, 1937.
All articles of personal property, including the stocks and bonds mentioned in the appraisement, were on hand and owned by testatrix at the time of the signing of the will and codicil, and the deposit in the Montgomery Bank, as set out hereinbefore. The Railey checks for proceeds of delayed tobacco sale were not given until after her death.
All indebtedness of testatrix, and all special devises made in the will, the executors have paid, except they have not paid the devises to Silas B. Lane, or to Mary Lane Railey; nor has any residue of cash been distributed.
In the division among the devisees of the tangible personal assets mentioned in the unsigned codicil, all have been delivered, as directed, by agreement of the parties, except that the diamond ring, mentioned therein as having been given to Mrs. Annette Lane, is subject to disposition under the will, or as the parties may subsequently agree. The allegations of the petition were admitted as being true, except in so far as same might conflict with the terms of the stipulation.
It is the contention of S. B. Lane that under the will the bank deposit, $2,032.09 the checks of $2,665.87, the $15 and all the stocks and bonds, should be and were intended by testatrix to be treated as disposed of as "cash" and he distributed as follows (after debts and funeral expenses): To S. B. Lane, $3,000; to Mrs. Railey, $3,000, and to S. B. Lane the balance thereof. He further claimed that if it be determined that stocks and bonds are not to be construed as "cash" then after expenses are paid out of the items $2,032.09, $2,665.87, and $15 he should receive $3,000 and the balance applied to the Railey bequest of $3,000. He also claims that under the codicil, in case he should survive his sister, he is entitled to one-half the proceeds arising from the Woodford County land during his survivorship.
Mrs. Railey contends that the stocks and bonds, and two checks, should not be considered as "cash", nor should they, nor the proceeds therefrom, be distributed according to the method set out by S. B. Lane. As to the check for the proceeds from the farm, sale of stock and crops, she contends that the will devised same to her. In reference to the stocks and bonds, and bank deposits, she contends that Miss Lane's will makes no disposition thereof.
W. N Lane and Mary Lane Hoch took the position that the stocks and bonds were not to be considered as "cash" under a proper construction of the will, since she "used the word in its ordinary sense," and that as to these items Miss Lane died intestate. They further contend that the bank deposit and the checks to executors should be treated as, and included in the word "cash," and that after payment of debts, funeral expenses and the payment of the devise to S. B. Lane, the balance of these cash items should be applied to the debt of Mary Railey, but that she would be limited to the balance of such "cash" after the payment to S. B. Lane. They assert that under the codicil S. B. Lane would...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jennings v. Jennings
......Some of these rules are. referred to in Dodd v. Scott, 145 Ky. 310, 140 S.W. 528; Poore v. Poore, 226 Ky. 668, 11 S.W.2d 721;. Lane v. Railey, 280 Ky. 319, 133 S.W.2d 74, and. Ward v. Curry's Ex'r, 297 Ky. 420, 180. S.W.2d 305. . . It is. conceded that ......
-
Jennings v. Jennings; Same v. Jennings' ex'R
......Some of these rules are referred to in Dodd v. Scott, 145 Ky. 310, 140 S.W. 528; Poore v. Poore, 226 Ky. 668, 11 S.W. 2d 721; Lane v. Railey, 280 Ky. 319, 133 S.W. 2d 74, and Ward v. Curry's Ex'r, 297 Ky. 420, 180 S.W. 2d 305. . It is conceded that the word ......
-
National Diamond Syndicate, Inc. v. United Parcel Service, Inc., s. 88-2620
....... II. The Meaning of "Cash Only" . We review de novo a district court's grant or denial of summary judgment. Santiago v. Lane, 894 F.2d 218, 220 (7th Cir.1990); Dribeck Importers, Inc. v. G. Heileman Brewing Co., 883 F.2d 569, 573 (7th Cir.1989). Under Illinois law, 3 if ... E.g., Flower v. Dort, 260 S.W.2d 685, 687-88 (Tex.Civ.App.1953) (construing "cash" broadly in context of will); Lane v. Railey, 280 Ky. 319, 133 S.W.2d 74, 78-79 (App.1939) (in context of will, "cash" included "stocks, bonds, bank credits, and such other personal intangible ......
-
Morris' Estate, In re, 1
......34, 120 N.W.2d 752 (1963); In re Storm's Will, supra; Lane v. Railey, 280 Ky. 319, 133 S.W.2d 74 (1939). Appellees submit, however, that none of the cases cited by either party are in point as they all deal ......