Mechling v. McAllister (In re McAllister's Estate)
| Decision Date | 19 January 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 19989[143].,19989[143]. |
| Citation | 160 N.W. 1016,135 Minn. 357 |
| Parties | In re McALLISTER'S ESTATE. MECHLING et al. v. McALLISTER et al. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Marshall County; Andrew Grindeland, Judge.
In the matter of the estate of Charles McAllister, deceased. Petition by Edward A. Mechling and others for distribution of the estate, opposed by Fannie S. McAllister and others. A decree of the probate court for the latter was affirmed by the district court, and petitioners appeal. Reversed, with directions.
A resident of Iowa made his will, in which, after giving to his wife certain real and personal property in that state, he devised and bequeathed the residue of his estate in equal shares to his wife and his son. The son died before his father. The testator, at the time of his death, had no lineal descendants. His widow filed in the Iowa courts an election to accept the provisions of the will. The teatator owned real estate in Minnesota which was a part of the residue so devised. It is held:
The election in Iowa of the widow to accept the provisions of the will estops her from taking under the statutes of this state property of the testator as to which, by reason of the lapsing of the devise to the son, he died intestate. Johnson v. Johnson, 32 Minn. 513, 21 N. W. 725, distinguished. A. N. Eckstrom, of Warren, and Frank O. Campe, of Chicago, Ill., for appellants.
Julius J. Olson and Rasmus Hage, both of Warren (Buck & Kirkpatrick, of Spencer, Iowa, of counsel), for respondents.
Charles McAllister, a resident of Iowa, died July 20, 1913. At the time of his death he owned a quarter section of land in Marshall county, Minn., and property in Iowa. He left surviving his widow, Fannie S. McAllister, but no children or grandchildren. By his will, after giving to his wife the family residence in Spencer, Iowa, and his stock in a bank, he gave, devised, and bequeathed the residue of his property, which included the land in Marshall county, to his wife and his son, Alexander McAllister, in equal portions. Alexander died before his father, as did the only son of Alexander. The testator then drew a line through the words which gave the son half of the residue, making the language read as a devise of the whole thereof to his wife, and wrote on the margin of the instrument the words:
‘Canceled June 21, 1912, because Alexander McAllister, my son, died May 13, 1912, and his only surviving son May 26, 1912.’
The will was probated in Iowa, and the court held that the attempted change and cancellation was ineffectual because not witnessed, and adjudged that one-half of the residuary estate should go to the widow, and one-half to the heirs of Alexander. The widow filed in the Iowa court her election to accept the provisions of the will. She has filed no renunciation in this state.
The son, Alexander, left surviving him one child, who died as stated above, and his widow, who is still living. The testator, Charles McAllister, left surviving no lineal descendants, but he had two nephews, John H. McAllister and George H. McAllister, a grandnephew, Milo Miller, and a grandniece, Albertine Miller. George H. McAllister conveyed to John H. McAllister, one of the appellants, all his interest in the estate, and Edward A. Mechling, the other appellant, is the owner of the interest of the grandnephew and grandniece.
An exemplified copy of the will was admitted to probate in Marshall county. On a hearing of a petition of the executors for a distribution of the estate the executors of the will and widow of the testator on the one hand, and Edward H. Mechling and John H. McAllister on the other, contested the question whether the half of the residue originally devised to the son Alexander went to the widow, or to the named collateral heirs of the testator. The probate court gave the entire residue to the widow. On appeal to the district court the decree of the probate court was affirmed. The case comes to this court on the appeal of Mechling and McAllister from the judgment of the district court affirming that of the probate court.
It is admitted by all parties that the devise to Alexander McAllister lapsed, and that the testator died intestate as to the land in Minnesota. It is further conceded that under the laws of this state the widow is the sole heir at law of her husband, and that had he left no will she would take the entire estate. The controversy is over the effect of her election in the Iowa court to accept the provisions of the will. The appellants contend that this election estops the widow from taking any portion of her husband's estate except that given her by the will; that she cannot take property as to which he died intestate, but that such property goes to those who would inherit it had the deceased left no widow. In support of this contention appellants cite many authorities from other states, all holding to the doctrine above stated. We cite here some of the cases referred to. Adams v. Adams, 46 Mass. (5 Metc.) 277; In re Benson, 96 N. Y. 499, 48 Am. Rep. 646;Leake v. Watson, 60 Conn. 498, 21 Atl. 1075;Ellis v. Dumond, 259 Ill. 483, 102 N. E. 801;Collins v. Collins, 126 Ind. 559, 25 N. E. 704;28 N. E. 190;Severson v. Severson, 68 Iowa, 656, 27 N. W. 811;Compton v. Akers, 96 Kan. 229, 150 Pac. 219;Hardy v. Scales, 54 Wis. 452, 11 N. W. 590. Probably the basic reason for this doctrine is that, where the husband has made provision for his wife in his will, it is to be presumed that he gave her all he intended she should have, and that to allow her, after she has elected to take under the will, to share in property as to which the husband died intestate, goes against the clear intention of the testator. It is interesting, though not important, to note how this line of reasoning proves false in the case at bar, where the intention of the testator that his wife should have the lapsed legacy to the son, though illegally expressed, is none the less very clear. But the authorities are practically unanimous in support of appellants' contention. Respondents insist that these authorities are not controlling, or even applicable, for the reason that under our statute the widow was not required to renounce the will or make an election. They rightly say that the laws of this state, where the real estate is situated, control its distribution. Boeing v. Owsley, 122 Minn. 190, 145 N. W. 129. They quote the following language of the late Justice Brown in the opinion...
To continue reading
Request your trial