Lightfoot v. Poindexter
Decision Date | 21 November 1917 |
Docket Number | (No. 5805.) |
Citation | 199 S.W. 1152 |
Parties | LIGHTFOOT et al. v. POINDEXTER et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Brown County; Jno. W. Goodwin, Judge.
Suit by William Poindexter, executor, against B. C. Lightfoot and others. From the judgment, certain defendants appeal. Affirmed.
J. E. Clarke, of Cleburne, for appellants T. W. and A. J. Lightfoot. S. C. Padelford, of Cleburne, for other appellants. C. L. McCartney, Mark McGee, and I. J. Rice, all of Brownwood, for appellees.
Statement.
This suit was instituted in the district court of Brown county, Tex., by William Poindexter, as executor and trustee of the estate of Mrs. Mattie R. Coggin, deceased, in the nature of a bill of interpleader, the petition setting forth the various items or provisions of the will of the said Mrs. Coggin; including a number of special bequests and a residuary clause naming Daniel Baker College, of Brownwood, Tex., as residuary legatee, and interpleading the various persons named in the will as legatees, including the appellants herein, to wit, B. C. Lightfoot, T. W. Lightfoot, and A. J. Lightfoot. The main purpose of the bill was to secure a construction of the will by the court, and one of the minor purposes was to have the court determine whether certain of the legatees, to wit, the appellants T. W. Lightfoot and A. J. Lightfoot, had forfeited the bequests to them under the provisions of the will. The petition sets forth the will in full, a statement of the provisions sufficient for our purposes being contained in the trial court's findings of fact hereinafter copied. There is a codicil to the will, but it is unnecessary to set out any portion thereof except paragraph 4, as follows:
"I have not made any provision in this will for my beloved sister-in-law, Mrs. Bettie L. Tabor, and I desire to here state that this, is not due to any lack of affection for her or appreciation of her friendship, but knowing she is so comfortably fixed in this life, and that her years will be few at best, I feel that a devise to her would not add to her comfort, but would simply diminish a fund which I desire to create, and which I have created for educational purposes."
The petition alleges that the will was executed upon the date which it bears; that thereafter, on March 21, 1915, Mrs. Coggin died, and the will was duly admitted to probate in the county court of Brown county, and the petitioner, William Poindexter was recognized by the court by proper order as the independent executor of the will and trustee of the estate, and "that he thereafter duly qualified as such, and is now the legally qualified and acting executor under said will," and trustee of the estate, which is now in process of administration under the terms of the will; that one of the devisees named in the will, to wit, Mrs. Dollie Lamont, was living at the time the will was executed, but died before the decease of the testatrix, and that her husband, W. A. Lamont, is living and is her only heir at law, and that the said B. C. Lightfoot, T. W. Lightfoot, and A. J. Lightfoot, brothers of Mrs. Coggin, the testatrix, are her only heirs at law; that Daniel Baker College, W. A. Lamont, and B. C. Lightfoot, T. W. Lightfoot, and A. J. Lightfoot are each and all claiming the benefit of the specific legacy of $5,000 provided in the will for Mrs. Dollie Lamont; that B. C. Lightfoot is also claiming the $10,000 devised by the will for the erection of a tabernacle or coliseum in Coggin Park, in the city of Brownwood, and also the sum of $25,000 to $35,000 devised for the purpose of erecting a chapel on the grounds of Daniel Baker College in Brownwood, to become the property of said college when erected, and also the residue of the estate of Mrs. Coggin mentioned in item 7 of the will, item 7 being the residuary clause therein, and Daniel Baker College being the residuary legatee thereunder, and is seeking to contest and annul the provisions of the will in respect to the matters mentioned; that B. C. Lightfoot is contending that under the law the legacies last mentioned do not vest in the legatees mentioned in the will, but under the law vest in him and T. W. Lightfoot and A. J. Lightfoot, as the only heirs at law of Mrs. Coggin; that T. W. Lightfoot and A. J. Lightfoot have repudiated the will and made an attack thereon, and are contesting the provisions thereof, and by such acts have forfeited the bequests to them under the provisions of the will relating to forfeiture by legatees. The petitioner prays the court "to construe the will and to instruct him in reference thereto as respects his legal duties in paying out, not only the said sum of $5,000 devised to the said Mrs. Dollie Lamont, but in respect to all other devises mentioned in said will, and he further prays this court, after hearing, to instruct him in the premises as to whether the said T. W. Lightfoot and the said A. J. Lightfoot have forfeited their respective legacies by virtue of seeking to annul and make inoperative some of the provisions of said will, and whether he should now pay to them, or either of them, said devises," and that each of the parties interpleaded be required to set up any claim or claims they have in any of the legacies or devises, and show cause why the will and said estate should not be administered as the will is written.
The respondent B. C. Lightfoot filed an answer containing general and special demurrers to the bill of interpleader, and a general denial, and specially pleaded as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Parsons v. Childs
... ... Allen, 539; Harger v. Barrett, 319 Mo. 633; Mott ... v. Morris, 249 Mo. 137; Women's Christian Assn ... v. Campbell, 147 Mo. 103; Lightfoot v ... Poindexter, 199 S.W. 1152; Continental Ill. Natl ... Bank & Trust Co. v. Harris, 194 N.E. 250; Gibson v ... Frye Institute, 137 Tenn ... ...
-
Farm & Home Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Missouri v. Armstrong
...5 R. C. L. 331; Zollmann on Law of Charities, sec. 474; Lightfoot v. Poindexter (Tex. Civ. App.), 199 S.W. 1152, numerous cases collated at page 1167.] directors of the college are not, in legal contemplation, in any sense or to any extent representatives of the General Association or its m......
-
Shriner's Hospital for Crippled Children of Texas v. Stahl
...into the residuary absent a contrary intent expressed clearly in the will. Kuehn v. Bremer, supra; Lightfoot v. Poindexter, 199 S.W. 1152, 1159, 1160 (Tex.Civ.App. Austin 1917, writ ref'd); Petsch v. Slator, 573 S.W.2d 849, 852 (Tex.Civ.App. Austin 1978, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Cole v. Harris......
-
Powers v. First Nat. Bank of Corsicana, Tex.
...103 S.W. 354, 16 L.R.A., N.S., 829, 842; Green v. Fidelity Trust Co., 134 Ky. 311, 120 S.W. 283, 20 Ann.Cas. 861, 863; Lightfoot v. Poindexter, Tex.Civ.App., 199 S.W. 1152, par. 9. Based on these authorities, we hold that the bequest in favor of Reynold's Orphanage is Since the trust was a ......