Medlin v. Medlin, 5794.
Decision Date | 16 June 1947 |
Docket Number | No. 5794.,5794. |
Citation | 203 S.W.2d 635 |
Parties | MEDLIN et al. v. MEDLIN et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Deaf Smith County; John Aldridge, Judge.
Suit by W. A. Medlin and others against Minnie Medlin and others for a declaratory judgment construing the last will and testament of T. W. Medlin, deceased. From an adverse judgment, the plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed in part and in part reversed and rendered.
Underwood, Johnson, Dooley & Wilson, of Amarillo, for appellants.
Carl Gilliland and James W. Witherspoon, both of Hereford, for appellees.
On November 21, 1939, T. W. Medlin died testate and left surviving him his wife Minnie Medlin, one of the appellees herein, and nine children, consisting of W. A., Thomas Franklin, Richard Cole, John and Keyes Medlin and Marie Harris, Julia McCall, Alice Gelvin and Geraldine Bonner. His last will and testament was admitted to probate on December 11, 1939, and this suit was instituted on the 15th of May, 1945, by five of the surviving children, namely: W. A. Medlin, Thomas Franklin Medlin, Marie Harris, Julia McCall and Alice Gelvin, all of whom are appellants here, against the surviving wife, Minnie Medlin, and the remaining four children, who constitute the appellees. The purpose of the suit was to obtain a declaratory judgment construing the last will and testament of T. W. Medlin, deceased, which, after declaring the testator's purpose to make and publish his last will and testament and directing the payment of his debts, is as follows:
The issues made by the pleadings will be revealed in the discussion to follow. The court below placed upon the will the following constructions: (1) that it gives to the surviving wife, Minnie Medlin, a life estate in and to all the properties of the estate, including all mutations thereof; (2) that the life estate so devised is not limited or confined to user and benefit for her reasonable comfort, maintenance and support; (3) that the rents and revenues of the properties belong to Minnie Medlin and do not become a part of the corpus of the estate or the remainderman's interest devised to the children; (4) that appellee, Minnie Medlin, is made independent executrix with power to sell and convey part or all of the property of the estate for the purpose of paying the debts thereof and to provide for her comfortable support and maintenance; (5) that the remaindermen have no present vested interest in the estate; and (6) that there is no provision in the will, either expressed or otherwise, by which the interest of the testator and his surviving wife in the community property are liable ratably for the payment of the debts or support of the surviving wife.
Appellants duly excepted to the judgment, perfected an appeal and present the case in this court upon assignments and points of error in which they contend, first, that the court erred in holding that the life estate bequeathed to the surviving wife was not limited and confined to her use and benefit and for her reasonable and comfortable maintenance and support; secondly, that the court erred in holding that the rents and revenues accruing from the property after the death of the testator became the absolute and separate property of the surviving wife and do not become a part of the corpus of the estate or remainder interest devised to the children; thirdly, that the court erred in holding the will does not provide that the testator's portion of the community estate is only ratably liable for payment of the community debts owing by the estate; and, fourthly, they assign error of the court in holding that the remaindermen have no present vested interest in the property of the estate.
The contention under the first point of error is that the surviving wife, Minnie Medlin, received under the will a limited, rather than a general life estate. Appellants assert that the estate bequeathed to her was fashioned simply to provide and safeguard a comfortable living and support during her lifetime. In support of this contention, they say that Section III of the will provides that "in order to keep and preserve the estate in the best manner and for my wife to live comfortably, it will be necessary for her, in some instances, to lease, sell, transfer, mortgage and convey part or all of such properties during her life time in order to pay debts and better manage and control such properties * * *." They contend that the use of the quoted words indicates that the testator's plan and purpose was to limit the life estate bequeathed to his wife only to such use as might be necessary for her...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Central Carolina Bank & Trust Co. v. Bass, 768
...Cruikshank, 39 Misc.Rep. 401, 80 N.Y.S. 8; Mitchell v. Knapp, 54 Hun. 502, 8 N.Y.S. 40, aff'd 124 N.Y. 654, 27 N.E. 413; Medlin v. Medlin, Tex.Civ.App., 203 S.W.2d 635; Reilly v. Huff, Tex.Civ.App., 335 S.W.2d 275; In re Ivy's Estate, 4 Wash.2d 1, 101 P.2d 1074; In re Downs' Estate, 243 Wis......
-
United States v. Stapf
...it abundantly clear that decedent by the terms of his will could so obligate his estate and his community property. Medlin v. Medlin, Tex.Civ.App., 1947, 203 S.W.2d 635; and Matthews v. Jones, Tex.Civ.App., 1952, 245 S.W.2d 974. It is true that neither of these cases involved taxes, but the......
-
Laster v. First Huntsville Properties Co.
...S.W.2d 579, 582 (1955) (setting out the rule used to determine whether a remainder interest has vested); Medlin v. Medlin, 203 S.W.2d 635, 641 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1947, writ ref'd) (a remainderman's interest in property is usually vested). It is undisputed that at the time Richard mortg......
-
Long v. Long
...that the testator intended to confine his devise or bequest to his part of the property. Sailer v. Furche, supra; Medlin v. Medlin, Tex.Civ.App., 203 S.W.2d 635, 640, writ refused; Baldwin v. Baldwin, 134 Tex. 428, 135 S.W.2d 92; 44 Tex.Jur., p. 867, 868. To overcome this presumption, the w......