Riggs v. Myers
| Decision Date | 31 January 1855 |
| Citation | 20 Mo. 239 |
| Parties | RIGGS et al., Respondents, v. MYERS et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. A will described land devised as the “south-east and south-west quarters of section 4, in township 60, range 38, in Holt county, Missouri.” The devisee of the south-west quarter was to have access to the “Big Spring.” Held, parol evidence that the corresponding quarter sections of township fifty-nine, in the same range and county, were intended to be devised, was admissible, it appearing that the “Big Spring” was upon the south-east quarter of section 4, in township 59, and the testator never owned or claimed any land in section 4, of township 60.
Appeal from Holt Circuit Court.
This was a suit brought by a portion of the heirs at law of George Stewart, deceased, for a partition of the south-east and south-west quarters of section four, in township fifty-nine, range thirty-eight, in Holt county. Missouri, as to which the said George Stewart was alleged to have died intestate. The defendants claim that George Stewart, by his last will, devised the whole of said land to Mary, James and George W. Stewart, from whom they had purchased.
The only provisions in the will of George Stewart material to this case are the following:
1. It is my will and desire that all my just debts and the expenses of my last illness be first promptly paid, and the residue of my estate be divided as hereinafter mentioned.
2. To my wife, Mary Stewart, I give the entire use and enjoyment of the south-west quarter of section four and the south-east quarter of section four, in township sixty, of range thirty-eight, lying in Holt county, Missouri, during her natural life, to have and to hold the same, and at her decease to pass as hereinafter mentioned.
11. To my son, George W. Stewart, I give, at the decease of my wife Mary Stewart, the south-west quarter of section four, in township sixty, of range thirty-eight, in Holt county, Missouri, with the privilege of using the water of the “Big Spring,” having free access to and from it as he may wish.
12. To James Stewart, I give the south-east quarter of section four, in township sixty, of range thirty-eight, in Holt county, Missouri, to have the same at the decease of my wife, Mary.
In addition to the above, there was a devise to Robert S. Stewart, of a quarter section of land upon which he lived, and a small pecuniary legacy to several of the testator's children and grand-children. These were all the provisions of the will.
The defendants in their answer alleged that the draftsman of the will used the word “sixty” by mistake, instead of “fifty-nine,” in the number of the township. At the trial, the defendants offered to prove that George Stewart at the time of his death, owned no other land than the two quarter sections described in the petition and the quarter section devised to R. S. Stewart; that he never owned or claimed any land in section four of township sixty; that there was no such land as the south-east and south-west quarters of section four, in township sixty, it being a fractional section, containing less than one hundred acres, and not subdivided into quarter sections; that the spring, commonly known as the “Big Spring,” was located upon the south-east quarter of section four, in township fifty-nine, range thirty-eight; that George Stewart died upon said last named section; that his sons, George W. and James Stewart, always resided with him, and that his other children lived apart from him for many years before his death; and, that the two quarter sections of land in controversy composed at least three-fourths in value of his whole estate.
All this evidence was excluded, and after a judgment of partition, the defendants appealed to this court.
W. P. Hall, for appellants.
The court erred in excluding the evidence offered by the defendants. In order to ascertain the testator's intention, we must look at the whole will, and must also inquire into all the circumstances which surrounded him when he made his will. Parol evidence as to the nature, marks, qualities, etc., of the subject devised is always admissible. .) The evidence was admissible under the rule, “ falsa descriptio non nocet, cum de corpore constat.” After rejecting the name of the township, enough remains in the will to show the property intended to be devised. .) The evidence was admissible under the rule that parol evidence is admissible to explain a latent ambiguity. The description in the will applies to no object in every particular, but in some particulars it applies to one object, and in some to another. .)
Mr. Vories, for respondent.
The evidence offered by the defendants was properly excluded. The intention of the testator is to govern, but it must be gathered from the words used by him in his will, and effect must be given to every clause and word in the will. Parol evidence is never admissible to show that he intended to devise a particular thing, and by mistake devised a different thing. This would be to repeal the statute concerning wills. Parol evidence is only admissible in the case of a latent ambiguity or a false description. In the first case, it neither takes from nor adds to the words of the will, but points out the person or thing to which those words apply. .) The second case is where the object of the devise has been once sufficiently described without the description which is false. In this case, the false description is rejected, and the will stands, if the description left is sufficiently certain. If not, the will is void for uncertainty. The defendants in their answer ask to show, not a latent ambiguity or a false description, but a mistake, which is never allowed. (6 Conn. 270.)
1. This is a plain case. The application of the undoubted rules as to the admission of extrinsic evidence in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eckford v. Eckford
...the big spring was a general identification of the land which, under the rule, permitted parol evidence to specifically locate it. Riggs v. Myers, 20 Mo. 239. In Emmert Hays, 89 Ill. 11, the testator in his will described land, some of which he did not own, but followed the specific descrip......
-
McMahan v. Hubbard
... ... another. Board of Trustees v. May, 201 Mo. 368; ... Patch v. White, 117 U.S. 210; Riggs v ... Myers, 20 Mo. 243; Creasy v. Alverson, 43 Mo ... 22; Wolf v. Dyer, 95 Mo. 550; Presnell v ... Headly, 141 Mo. 193; Stewart v ... ...
-
Pate v. Bushong
...168 Mo. 660, 68 S. W. 1023, 90 Am. St. Rep. 468;Judge Redfield's note to Kurtz v. Hibner (Ill.) 10 Am. Law Reg. (N. S.) 97-101;Riggs v. Myers, 20 Mo. 239;Gaston's Estate, 188 Pa. 374, 41 Atl. 529, 68 Am. St. Rep. 874;Black v. Richards, 95 Ind. 184, 189-191;Jackson v. Hoover, 26 Ind. 511;Whi......
-
Holland Land & Loan Co. v. Holland
...1313, § 1, and cases cited. In this state, however, the distinction between an ambiguity and an inaccuracy is clearly recognized. Riggs v. Myers, 20 Mo. 239; Donovan v. Boeck, 217 Mo. 70, 86, 116 S. W. The most that can be said of this contract is that the description of the property is gen......