McMurry v. McMurry

• Decision Date: 21 April 1937
• Docket Number: 34571
• Citation: 104 S.W.2d 345,340 Mo. 1094
• Parties: Clark McMurry et al. v. Tine Albert McMurry, Defendant, Maude McMurry et al., Appellants
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

104 S.W.2d 345

340 Mo. 1094

Clark McMurry et al. v. Tine Albert McMurry, Defendant, Maude McMurry et al., Appellants

No. 34571

Supreme Court of Missouri

April 21, 1937

Appeal from Andrew Circuit Court; Hon. R. B. Bridgeman Judge.

Affirmed.

Earl C. Borchers for appellants.

(1) In interpretation and construction of wills the court should seek the true intent of testator as revealed in the language of the will. Sec. 567, R. S. 1929; Settles v Shafer, 129 S.W. 897; Grace v. Perry, 197 Mo 550, 95 S.W. 875; Cross v. Hoch, 149 Mo. 325; Coleman v. Haworth, 8 S.W.2d 931; Thornborough v. Craven, 284 Mo. 552, 225 S.W. 445. (2) In the interpretation of a will due regard must be given to all expressions and all provisions of the will. Scott v. Fulkerson, 60 S.W.2d 34; Sec. 567, R. S. 1929. (3) The law favors the creation of estates of the highest order. 28 R. C. L. 231, sec. 191; Carroll v. Carroll, 58 S.W.2d 670; Alman v. Coffman, 53 S.W.2d 594. (4) Where testator gives absolute title to donee by one clause, as in this case, same cannot be cut down by subsequent clause unless same is equally clear, positive and convincing. 28 R. C. L. 231, sec. 191; 75 A. L. R. 62; Sevier v. Woodson, 205 Mo. 202; Cornett v. Cornett, 248 Mo. 184; Sorenson v. Booram, 317 Mo. 516, 297 S.W. 70; Small v. Fields, 102 Mo. 104, 14 S.W. 815; Payne v. Reece, 297 Mo. 54, 247 S.W. 1006. (5) All clauses of a will should be given effect, if possible, and that interpretation made of them which will eliminate all contradiction as nearly as possible. Coleman v. Haworth, 8 S.W.2d 931. (6) Where a fee simple title is conveyed by one clause of a will, it cannot be cut down by a subsequent clause directing the disposition of any remainder which may be undisposed of at the death of the devisee. Sec. 563, R. S. 1929; Roth v. Rauschenbusch, 173 Mo. 582, 73 S.W. 664; 61 L. R. A. 455; 75 A. L. R. 62; Sevier v. Woodson, 205 Mo. 202; Gannon v. Albright, 183 Mo. 238, 67 L. R. A. 97. (7) Where a feesimple title is given its essential attributes cannot be curtailed. 75 A. L. R. 62. (8) The third paragraph of the will of Peter C. McMurry was directory only in character and did not either create or take away anything from the estate already given to the widow, Mary L. McMurry. 75 A. L. R. 62; 28 R. C. L. 238; Roth v. Rauschenbusch, 173 Mo. 582, 73 S.W. 664. (9) Respondents acquired no title to the real estate in question either by the will of Peter C. McMurry or by the will of Mary L. McMurry; it having passed by the will of Peter C. McMurry to Mary L. McMurry as the absolute owner and upon the death of Mary L. McMurry the property passed in accordance with the terms of her will to these appellants as per the terms thereof, and partition should not have been decreed upon respondents' petition. Seiver v. Woodson, 205 Mo. 214; Sec. 563, R. S. 1929. (10) Respondents' attack on appellants is without merit, having not been made in proper form or time, and was waived. Lee v. Fuetterer Battery & Supply Co., 322 Mo. 1204.

Livengood & Weightman and J. S. Shinabargar for respondents.

(1) The word absolutely or absolutely during life is never construed to create a fee if followed by a remainder clause. Therefore, the will of Peter C. McMurry gave to Mary L. McMurry a life estate only. Underwood v. Cave, 176 Mo. 1; Grace v. Perry, 197 Mo. 559; Coleman v. Hayworth, 8 S.W.2d 931, 320 Mo. 859; Evans v. Folks, 135 Mo. 397; McMillan v. Farrow, 141 Mo. 55; Sec. 563, R. S. 1929; Schneider v. Kloepple, 270 Mo. 389; Van Every v. McKay, 53 S.W.2d 873; Reinders v. Koppelmann, 68 Mo. 482; Garland v. Smith, 164 Mo. 1; Rubey v. Barnett, 12 Mo. 3; Harbison v. James, 90 Mo. 411; Scott v. Fulkerson, 60 S.W.2d 929; Burnett v. Burnett, 244 Mo. 491; Mitchell v. Board of Curators, 226 S.W. 481; Chestnut v. Chestnut, 75 A. L. R. 66. (2) The second count of appellants' amended petition constituted a departure from the original pleading, in that it added a new cause of action and cannot be maintained. Carter v. Dilley, 167 Mo. 564; Springfield v. Randall, 240 S.W. 867; Ross v. Cleveland Mineral Co., 162 Mo. 317; Heman v. Glann, 129 Mo. 325; Lumpkin v. Collier, 69 Mo. 70; Scholl v. Noe, 297 S.W. 999; Bich v. Vaughan, 140 Mo.App. 595; Steele v. Brazier, 139 Mo.App. 319; Pruett v. Warren, 71 Mo.App. 84. (3) Appellants cannot join a count in partition with a count in quiet title when they claim the legal title. This is permissible only where the equitable title is claimed. Armor v. Frey, 253 Mo. 447. (4) Respondents' motion to strike appellants' amended petition was proper. Skillman v. Ballew, 27 S.W.2d 1036; Boyd v. St. L. Brewing Assn., 5 S.W.2d 49, 318 Mo. 1206. (5) Respondents' petition seeking partition was first filed. It sought the same relief as was sought by appellants' amended petition. The parties were the same. It therefore had priority and the court correctly granted the relief sought therein. Moore v. Ruxlow, 83 Mo.App. 51; 1 C. J., p. 58, sec. 74.

OPINION

Hays, J.

This is a consolidation of two cases originating in the Circuit Court of Andrew County, heard upon the trial as one case and appealed to this court as one. The principal controversy is over the proper interpretation of the last will and testament of Peter C. McMurry, deceased, who at the time of his death, June 4, 1914, owned in fee certain real estate situate in said county and devised it by said will, dated November 20, 1901. The will, so far as pertinent here, is as follows:

"I give, devise and bequeath all my property, both personal and real, as follows: all my real estate and personal property, including my life insurance, to my beloved wife, Mary L. McMurry, making her absolute owner thereof, her life time, she to be her own executor and no bond to be required.

"At her death two hundred dollars is to be paid out of the property to my son, Tine Albert McMurry, and the remainder divided equally among my four remaining children, to-wit: Emily Josephine Moss, Gertrude McMurry, Clark McMurry and Maud McMurry."

The trial court found that the widow, Mary L. McMurry, took only a life estate in the real estate described in the will and in the petition; that the fee vested in the three daughters named and the son Clark McMurry in equal moieties of one-fourth each, subject to the $ 200 bequest made to the son Tine Albert McMurry. Pursuant to such finding the court rendered an interlocutory decree in the action for partition instituted therefor on November 19, 1934, by said Clark McMurry and Emily J. Moss against said Maude McMurry and Gertrude McMurry (now Ruddell) and Tine Albert McMurry. From that decree defendants Maude McMurry and Gertrude McMurry Ruddell took this appeal.

The counsel for the appellants states, as controlling the construction of this will, the rule of law to be, that where an estate in fee is granted in plain and unequivocal language in one clause of a will, the same cannot be lessened or cut down by a subsequent clause of the will, unless the language used in such subsequent clause is as clear, plain and unequivocal as the language of the first part of the grant.

This is a well-settled rule of law. Proper applications made of it may be found in Roth v. Rauschenbusch, 173 Mo. 528, 73 S.W. 664; Middleton v. Dudding (en banc), 183 S.W. 444, and Lemp v. Lemp, 264 Mo. 433, 175 S.W. 618. The testamentary provision in no one of those decisions is in parallel with the provision before us, hence they require no particular notice here. Appellants' only citations in this connection dealing with testamentary provisions in anywise similar to the one here under review are: Payne v. Reece, 297 Mo. 54, 247 S.W. 1006; Sorenson v. Booram, 317 Mo. 516, 297 S.W. 70. Similar to those cases a number of others might be added, among them these: Underwood v. Cave, 176 Mo. 1, 75 S.W. 451; Russell v. Eubanks, 84 Mo. 82, and Grace v. Perry, 197 Mo. 550, 95 S.W. 875, and cases cited l. c. 562-563. This latter line of authority is, we think, controlling in this case.

The counsel for appellants contrasts the devising clause with the remainder clause and attempts to show that the definite article "the" in the latter, used to point out "the" property and "the" remainder, is indefinite and lacking in implications of ownership and power of control on the part of the testator, when contrasted with the possessive and authoritative implications of the pronoun "my" used in relation to his wife and his property etc., when he made the devise to her in the devising clause. In our estimation the testator used the definite article appropriately and precisely if he meant it to apply to such part only of his property as might not be disposed of by his wife in her lifetime, as we think he did mean it. Furthermore, the words used in the remainder clause "are not ambiguous and inferential in their intent but are a clear and explicit limitation on the absolute grant" contained in the devising clause. [Underwood v. Cave, 176 Mo., supra.] In that clause the court, after the expression just quoted, said (l. c. 15) of the devising clause there held in judgment: "It is a clear and explicit limitation of the grant contained in the second clause of the will. It simply states that the property bequeathed shall be hers, absolutely, during her natural life, to use and enjoy as she might see proper. The term 'absolutely' does not enlarge the estate; it must be construed as applying to the estate granted by the express words. In other words, it means that her life estate, and the use and enjoyment of the property, shall not be limited by any conditions." And a little further on the court said: ". . . we find that the terms used, limiting the grant to a life estate are in harmony with this rule. That the testator only intended to create a life interest is manifest from the...