Mercantile Trust Co. v. Adams
Decision Date | 06 June 1910 |
Parties | MERCANTILE TRUST COMPANY v. ADAMS |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; John E. Martineau, Chancellor affirmed.
Decree affirmed.
Rose Hemingway, Cantrell & Loughborough, for appellant.
Wills should be so construed as to carry out the intention of the testator. 75 Ark. 19. The first taker under the will took only a life estate, and the fee passes to the person who would take as heir of the first taker. 44 Ark. 458; 58 Ark 403; 67 Ark. 517; 72 Ark. 336; 49 Ark. 125. Mrs. Bard's life estate was forfeited bye the tax sale to Mercer. Kirby's Dig., § 7132; 59 Ark. 364; 80 Ark. 583.
Bradshaw Rhoton & Helm, for appellees.
Section 735, Kirby's Digest, does not apply to wills. Id. § 738. Courts will, on discovering that they have rendered an opinion in conflict with a valid statute, correct the error. 59 Ark. 326; 33 Ark. 517; 35 Ark. 395; 37 Ark. 370. Alice Bard took the estate upon conditions subsequent. Tied. on Real Prop., §§ 451, 272; 1 Warv. on Ven. 451; 2 Ping., Real Prop. 739, 740. When the conditions are subsequent, the estate vests subject to be defeated. 26 Ark. 617; 3 Ark. 252; 50 Ark. 141. The word "heirs" is not necessary to convey a fee simple. Kirby's Dig., § 733. The gift is absolute, and the limitation over is void. 81 Ark. 480; 3 Ark. 187; 82 Ark. 209; Underhill on Wills, vol. 2, § 689; Page on Wills, § 684; 72 Ark. 296. The will did not create an estate tail. 51 Ark. 61; 52 Ark. 113; 61 Ark. 366; 58 Ark. 306; 67 Ark. 521.
OPINION
We adopt appellant's abstract of the pleadings in this case which is as follows:
The appearance of all parties to this intervention and cross complaint was duly entered or service of summons had in the manner required by law.
Howard Adams, as trustee, demurred to this intervention and cross-bill upon two grounds: First, because he alleged that there was a defect of parties defendant made by the intervention, in that the minors had no interest whatever in the controversy. Second, because the intervention did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in favor of the Mercantile Trust Company as curator of the estate of the minors, in that the minors are shown by the intervention to have no interest whatever in the land in controversy under the will of Elizabeth A. Crisman.
Ruling upon the demurrer was reserved by the chancellor until final decision of the cause.
On the 13th of November, 1909, Howard Adams, as trustee, filed an answer to the intervention and cross complaint of the Mercantile Trust Company as curator, by which he denied that the minors were the owners in fee of the property, and that the minors became vested with any estate by virtue of the provisions of the will of Elizabeth A. Crisman; he admitted that Alice R. Bard was in possession of the property at the time of the making of the deeds of trust, and that Mercer held a tax deed to the property. He denied that the property was permitted to forfeit for taxes and to be bought in by Mercer by reason of the alleged agreement between him and the People's Savings Bank. He denied that by reason of the forfeiture of the property for taxes Alice R. Bard had forfeited her life estate in the property, and that the minors were entitled to the immediate possession thereof. He alleged that Alice R. Bard was not able to pay the taxes on the land, and suffered the same to become delinquent, and that the lands were about to be sold for taxes; that she asked the plaintiff to purchase the land at tax sale for her use and benefit in order to prevent the land from getting into alien hands; that said bank agreed to and did become the purchaser of the lands at tax sale, and directed that the deed be made to Mercer, its agent and representative; that Mercer holds the tax deed for the use and benefit of the plaintiff and Alice R. Bard; that the purchase at the tax sale was in fact a payment of the taxes by Alice R. Bard, and hence no forfeiture occurred.
On November 13, 1909, the Mercantile Trust Company filed an amendment to its intervention and cross complaint, by which it charged that it was provided in the will of Elizabeth A. Crisman that "said lot is not to be sold or disposed of by the said Alice during her lifetime," and that Alice R. Bard had no power to sell or to mortgage the same to Howard Adams, as trustee, or to any one else, and that the mortgagees acquired no right or interest in any estate which Alice R. Bard had in or to the property, and were not entitled to foreclose the mortgage.
On September 29, 1909, Howard Adams, as trustee, filed an amendment to his answer to the intervention and cross-complaint in which, he set up that the rents and proceeds from the property were being collected by the Mercantile Trust Company as curator upon the theory that, if the court should hold that the plaintiff had no right, title or interest in the lands, the moneys so received should be paid to the minors; but alleged that said minors had no interest in said fund, and that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Champion v. Williams
...& Moses' Digest, § 10054, contemplates a valid tax sale, and a void tax sale does not work a forfeiture to the remainderman. 80 Ark. 583; 95 Ark. 333. A new cause of action arises upon the of the life tenant, the same as if no forfeiture had ever happened. 17 R. C. L. 650; 9 Am. St. Rep. 79......
-
Booe v. Vinson
...to the plaintiffs the annual stated sum while they lived, and at their death whatever was left of the estate to go to charitable purposes. 95 Ark. 333; 187 N.Y. 400; 10 Ann. Cases, 172; 74 Kan. Conceding that the bequest of the residue of the estate to "charitable purposes" is void for unce......
-
Jackson v. Lady
...the plaintiff is estopped to maintain the suit. All portions of a will must be harmonized and no portion treated as surplusage. 51 A. 865; 95 Ark. 333; 115 Ark. 400; 400 Id. Mrs. Owens certainly took the fee under the will. 2 Ark. 583; 2 Howard 43; 11 S.E. 172; 51 A. 865, 540; 40 Cyc. 1382;......
-
Harrington v. Cooper
...90 Ark. 152; 104 Id. 439; 2 Mass. 56; 34 Barb. (N. Y.) 594; 17 Hun. (N. Y.) 215; 59 Vt. 557; 32 N.E. 687; 70 Ga. 572; 95 Ark. 333; 23 Id. 179, 357; 49 Id. 125; Id. 545; 75 Id. 20 and many others. 3. Parol evidence was not admissible. 36 Am. & Eng. Am. Cas. 1 and note; 40 Cyc. 1429-30 (11); ......