Mitchell v. Board of Curators of Morrisville College
Citation | 266 S.W. 481 |
Decision Date | 25 November 1924 |
Docket Number | No. 28599.,28599. |
Parties | MITCHELL v. BOARD OF CURATORS OF MORRISVILLE COLLEGE et al. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Polk County; C. H. Skinker, Judge.
Action by Hannah L. Mitchell against the Board of Curators of Morrisville College and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal: Affirmed.
Arch A. Johnson, of Springfield, for appellants.
Herman Pufahl, of Bolivar, for respondent.
The plaintiff brought this suit to construe the will of her deceased husband, Arthur E. Mitchell, and to determine the rights thereunder of plaintiff, and of the defendants, in and to the real estate devised. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the will gave to her a life estate with the power to sell and dispose of the fee, and it is the contention of appellants, the remaindermen, that she took only a life estate and could not dispose of the fee. Prior to the time of filing the suit she had sold, and conveyed to the purchasers, two small tracts of land. The sole issue was and is whether she had this power under the will. The trial court held that she had the power so to do, and the remaindermen have appealed.
The testator had no children, and after leaving legacies of $5 each, to a brother and a sister, his will continues as follows:
The will was made February 22, 1910, and the testator died in August, 1911. The inventory, appraisement of personal property, and the annual and final settlements filed in the probate court were introduced in evidence by the plaintiff. The personal estate was small. After the payment of expenses and indebtedness, and the statutory allowance to the widow of $400 and the allowance of the further sum of $500 for her support, there remained a balance upon the final settlement of $631. The real estate consisted of the residence of the deceased and 7½ acres therewith, and about 87 acres of other land in several small tracts situated near the town of Morrisville. These appear to have been unimproved or pasture lands. Their rental value was not shown. The plaintiff offered in evidence a warranty deed made by her to a purchaser in 1910 of a four-acre tract, and also a deed, made in 1920 of a tract of 15 acres, and offered to show that $1,200, the consideration paid for the 15 acres, was a full and fair price. Upon objection of defendants this evidence was excluded.
In this, as in every case involving rights asserted to exist by virtue of the will of a person deceased, the primary purpose is to ascertain the meaning of the will. In these cases all courts are expressly admonished to "have due regard to the directions of the will, and the true intent and meaning of the testator." Section 555, R. S. 1919. In this inquiry all of the provisions of the will are to be considered in their relation to each other, and to the whole. Turner v. Timberlake, 53 Mo. 371; Allison v. Chaney, 63 Mo. 379; Chew v. Keller, 100 Mo. 302, 13 S. W. 395; Tisdale v. Prather, 210 Mo. 402, 109 S. W. 41. It has also been said:
"The true intent and meaning of the testator can be best ascertained by the courts and those concerned in the execution of wills by putting themselves, so far as may be, in the place of the testator and reading all his directions therein contained in the light of his environment at the time it was made." Murphy v. Carlin, 113 Mo. loc. cit. 117, 20 S. W. 786, 35 Am. St. Rep. 699, and cases there cited.
In 1910 when this will was made, the plaintiff was 62 years of age. She and her husband were childless. The amount and character of the estate left by the testator as shown by the proceedings in the probate court, begun in 1911, has been referred to. The plaintiff was not shown to have been possessed of any other property than that left to her under the will. In ascertaining now what was the intent of the testator, the provisions of the will are to be considered in the light of the conditions shown to exist at the time the will was made.
Counsel for appellants, in support of their claim that the plaintiff was without power to dispose of the real estate, cites two decisions only, the decisions of this court in Bramell v. Cole, 136 Mo. 201, 37 S. W. 924, 58 Am. St. Rep. 619, and Mace v. Hollenbeck, 175 S. W. 876. In Bramell v. Cole the testator devised his estate to his wife "during her natural life time; she to have the entire control of the same." Then after describing his real estate and referring to his moneys, notes or bonds, and other personal property, it was further directed that all "go to her, for her to have full control of the same as long as she lives and that after her death, what is left to go to" the certain persons named. The court in that case said, loc. cit. 213, 37 S. W. 927:
In that case it may be observed there was, in addition to the real estate devised by the will, personal property to an amount in excess of $50,000, of which about $40,000 remained upon final settlement, and the life tenant, in the subsequent management of this, had converted much of it into real estate. Preliminary to the foregoing statement...
To continue reading
Request your trial