Powers v. Scharling
Citation | 67 P. 820,64 Kan. 339 |
Decision Date | 08 February 1902 |
Docket Number | 12,105 |
Parties | MARTHA POWERS et al. v. ALBERT D. SCHARLING |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
Decided January, 1902.
Error from Dickinson district court; O. L. MOORE, judge.
Judgment reversed and remanded.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. CONVEYANCES -- Writing both Contractual and Testamentary. A writing properly drawn, signed witnessed and acknowledged may be contract in part and testamentary in part.
2. CONVEYANCES -- Life-estate in Grantor -- Other Reservations, A conveyance of real estate otherwise legal is neither void nor revocable because it is subject to a life-estate in the grantor, the payment of his debts, expenses of his last illness and funeral, and certain bequests.
3. CONVEYANCES -- Description of Property -- Extrinsic Evidence. A deed is not void for want of description when by extrinsic evidence it may be made certain.
Edwin A. Austin and R. H. Kane, for plaintiffs in error.
Thomas Dever, for defendant in error.
OPINION
Martha Powers, for herself, and as trustee for Harriet Campbell, sued in the district court of Dickinson county in ejectment for the possession of certain described real estate.
Their title is a written instrument incorporated into the petition by proper averments, and called "The last will and testament of David Sebrill." The deceased, after providing for the payment of his debts, including those of his last illness and funeral expenses and the probating of his will, gives and bequeaths to one of his sons, naming him, all the indebtedness due from said son to him at that time, and directs his executor to deliver to said son an acquittance, and to his three remaining sons, naming them, five dollars each.
The instrument then reads:
This instrument is properly witnessed as a will and acknowledged before a notary as a deed.
To this petition the defendant below demurred. Before the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Younger v. Younger's Estate, 44690
...an instrument might be testamentary in part, and contractual in part. (Reed, Ex'r v. Hazleton, 37 Kan. 321, 15 P. 177; Powers v. Scharling, 64 Kan. 339, 67 P. 820; and Foster v. Allen, 159 Kan. 116, 123, 152 P.2d 818.) The court has also recognized that an instrument valid as a will may be ......
-
Merrill v. Boal
...6 Ga. 515; Heaston v. Krieg, 77 N. E. 805, 167 Ind. 101, 119 Am. St. Rep. 475; Reed v. Hazleton, 15 P. 177, 37 Kan. 321; Powers v. Scharling, 67 P. 820, 64 Kan. 339; Wolfe v. Wolfe, 2 Irish Rep. K. B. Div. 246; Porter v. Evert's Estate, 71 A. 722, 81 Vt. 517. By the terms of the trust instr......
-
In re the ESTATE OF Hazel I. McCREATH
...Law of Wills § 6.7, at 261-62 (rev. ed.2009) (citing, inter alia, Taylor v. Wilder, 63 Colo. 282, 165 P. 766 (1917); Powers v. Scharling, 64 Kan. 339, 67 P. 820 (1902)); see also Annotation, May Instrument Inter Vivos Operate Also as a Will, or Part of Will, 45 A.L.R. 843 (1926). From our r......
-
Thom v. Thom, 38410
...448, 93 P. 854; Nolan v. Otney, 75 Kan. 311, 89 P. 690, 9 L.R.A.,N.S., 317; Durand v. Higgins, 67 Kan. 110, 72 P. 567; Powers v. Scharling, 64 Kan. 339, 67 P. 820; Love v. Blauw, 61 Kan. 496, 59 P. 1059, 48 L.R.A. 257; and other cases therein cited. To review the foregoing cases would add n......