Long v. Long

Decision Date05 May 1931
Docket NumberNo. 21368.,21368.
Citation38 S.W.2d 288
PartiesLONG et al. v. LONG et al.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Appeal from Circuit Court, Audrain County; W. C. Hughes, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by James H. Long and others against W. J. Long and others, to construe the will of Mary L. Long. From the judgment, Lucille Long and Esther Turner, administratrices de bonis non with the will annexed of such decedent, two of the defendants, appeal.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Rodgers & Buffington, of Mexico, Mo., for appellants.

Don C. Carter, of Sturgeon, for respondents.

SUTTON, C.

This is an action to construe the will of Mary L. Long. By the second clause of her will she devises two hundred eighty-four acres of real estate in Audrain county to her husband, Harrison M. Long, for and during his natural life, with remainder over to her children, to be divided among them as directed in the third and fourth clauses of the will. By the third clause she directs that at the death of her husband, Harrison M. Long, the real estate devised to him in the second clause of the will be sold, and that the proceeds derived from the sale be divided among her children in certain designated amounts. By the fourth clause she directs that, after payment of the gifts provided for in the third clause, the balance, if any, left of the proceeds of the sale, be divided equally among all her children. She then appoints Annie R. Daniel as executrix.

Mary S. Long, who was one of the children of Mary L. Long, and a devisee under the third and fourth clauses of the will, made a will, and died, after the death of Mary L. Long and before the death of Harrison M. Long. By her will, Mary S. Long devised to Lucille Long and Esther Turner, all her undivided interest in the real estate devised under the will of Mary L. Long. Plaintiffs, James H. Long, H. H. Long, and B. R. Long, and defendants, W. J. Long, Lucille Long, Esther Turner, and Willie Katherine Bloodsworth, are all children of Mary L. Long and devisees under the third and fourth clauses of her will. Upon the death of Mary L. Long, Annie R. Daniel duly qualified as executrix of her will. After the death of Harrison M. Long, Annie R. Daniel resigned as executrix, and Lucille Long and Esther Turner were appointed, and qualified, as administratrixes de bonis non with the will annexed.

Plaintiffs by their petition pray that the court by its judgment and decree construe the will of the said Mary L. Long, and determine whether or not Mary S. Long, having predeceased Harrison M. Long, took any estate or title whatsoever in the real estate devised under the will of Mary L. Long, which was subject to be passed, and did pass, under the will of Mary S. Long, and determine whether or not under the terms of the will of Mary L. Long it is necessary that a trustee be appointed to sell said real estate, and make distribution of the proceeds, as provided under the terms of the will, and that, if the court determine that a trustee is necessary to be appointed to that end, then that the court appoint such trustee.

The court, upon the trial of the cause, adjudged and decreed that under the will of Mary L. Long she devised her real estate to her husband, Harrison M. Long, for his life, with the remainder to her children as provided in the third and fourth clauses of her will; that Mary S. Long, as one of the children of Mary L. Long, took and had an interest in said real...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Mississippi Valley Trust Co. v. Ruhland
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • September 12, 1949
    ...580; Graham v. Karr, 331 Mo. 1157; Hood v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 334 Mo. 404; St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Hill, 336 Mo. 17; Long v. Long, 38 S.W.2d 288. (5) The object of the bequest was in existence and ascertainable at the time the will and the bequest became operative. McGregory v.......
  • Rawlings v. Rawlings
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 16, 1933
    ...non with the will annexed. [Francisco v. Wingfield, 161 Mo. 542, 61 S.W. 842; Cannon v. Cannon, 175 Mo.App. 84, 157 S.W. 860; Long v. Long (Mo. App.), 38 S.W.2d 288.] Under above authorities, discretion merely as to exact time, terms and manner of sale does not work an exception to this rul......
  • Haddow v. St. Louis Public Service Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 5, 1931

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT