Lindsey v. Eckles

• Decision Date: 21 November 1901
• Citation: Lindsey v. Eckles, 99 Va. 668, 40 S. E. 23 (1901)
• Parties: LINDSEY v. ECKLES.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

40 S.E. 23

99 Va. 668

LINDSEY

v.ECKLES.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Nov. 21, 1901.

DEEDS—CONSTRUCTION—INTENTION OF GRANTOR.

A deed conveyed land in trust for the benefit of the trustee's wife and her seven children on the expressed intention that the wife, during her life, should "be supported from its' proceeds, " and that during her life her issue should "be supported and educated from its proceeds, " and that on her death it should "be equally divided among such issue." Held, that the deed created an express trust in favor of the wife and her children during her life, giving to each during her life an equal share in the proceeds of the land conveyed, and that on her death the issue took the property in fee, and hence her assignee could claim but one-eighth of such proceeds during her life.

Appeal from corporation court of city of Bristol.

Suit between one Lindsey and one Eckles. From a decree in favor of Lindsey, Eckles appeals. Affirmed.

Bullitt & Kelley, D. D. Hull, Jr., W. S. Hamilton, and Bailey, Price & Byars, for appellant.

H. W. Sutherland, for appellee.

CARDWELL, J. The deed to be construed in this case is as follows:

"This deed, made the 20th day of April, 1868, between Judith Rowland, of the one part and Wm. G. Lindsey, of the other part, witnesseth:

"That the said Judith Rowland, for and in consideration of the affection and regard she feels towards her niece Mrs. Rebecca J. Lindsey, the wife of the said Wm. G. Lindsey, and Rebecca J. Lindsey, and the children of said Wm. G. Lindsey and Rebecca J. Lindsey, and the further consideration of the reservation by the said Judith Rowland of a right, should she see fit to claim it, to remain in the family of the said Wm. G. Lindsey and Rebecca J. Lindsey, as a member thereof, during her natural life, and to be cared for as such by the said Wm. G. Lindsey or Rebecca J., his wife, she, said Judith Rowland, doth grant confirm, and herebyconvey unto the said Wm. G. Lindsey, * * * in trust for the following uses and purposes, to wit: For the use, support, and maintenance of the said Rebecca J. Lindsey, the wife of the said Wm. G. Lindsey, and for the use, maintenance, and education of the issue of said Wm. G. Lindsey and Rebecca J., his wife; it being the intention hereof that the said Rebecca J. Lindsey shall be supported from said property, or the proceeds thereof, during her life, and that the issue of the said Rebecca J. Lindsey and the said Wm. G. Lindsey, during the life of the said Rebecca J. Lindsey, shall be supported and educated from the proceeds of said property, and at the death of said Rebecca J. Lindsey all the said property, as well as proceeds arising from the same, to be equally divided between or among the issue of the said Wm. G. Lindsey and Rebecca J. Lindsey:

"Provided, however, that the said Wm. G. Lindsey shall have power, and is hereby empowered and authorized, should he deem it best to do so, to continue to hold said property, or the proceeds thereof, together, for the use of the children of the said Wm. G. Lindsey and Rebecca J. Lindsey, until the youngest living one thereof shall have arrived at the age of 21 years, and then divide the said property or proceeds thereof among the said issue of the said Wm. G. Lindsey and Rebecca J. Lindsey."

The closing paragraph of the deed authorized the trustees to sell the property and reinvest the proceeds in other property, to be held as specified in the deed, and further provided that none of the property or proceeds therefrom should ever in any manner become liable for the individual debts of the trustee, Wm. G. Lindsey.

Mrs. R..1. Lindsey having sold and conveyed her interest to appellant, he is claiming the entire proceeds from the property for her life; but the court below fixed her interest at one-eighth of the proceeds for her life, giving to each of her seven children one-eighth, and in this ruling there is no error.

It is argued for the appellant that the case...