Ruth v. Jester, 4622
Decision Date | 11 March 1957 |
Docket Number | No. 4622,4622 |
Citation | 198 Va. 887,96 S.E.2d 741 |
Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Parties | ROBERT DAVID RUTH, ET AL., v. ROYSTON JESTER, JR., ADMINISTRATOR, ETC., ET AL. Record |
Arthur B. Davies, III (Hickson & Davies, on brief), for the appellants.
Maurice Steingold (Royston Jester, Jr.; Samuel A. Steingold; Steingold & Steingold, on brief), for the appellees.
The holographic will of Thomas M. Hughes was probated before the clerk of the trial court on November 10, 1954, and Royston Jester, Jr. qualified as administrator c.t.a. Thereafter Virginia Hughes Ruth appealed the probate proceedings and upon a hearing the chancellor entered an order admitting the will to probate. Whereupon the administrator c.t.a. brought this suit to construe the will, making all parties in interest defendants thereto. Upon submission of the case, the chancellor entered the decree complained of holding the will 'void and of no effect for vagueness and uncertainty in any and all particulars and respects' except as to certain specific bequests in the last paragraph, not here involved.
An agreed narrative account of the proceedings before the chancellor was as follows:
'No testimony was adduced before the Court; and there was no express stipulation or agreement either in writing or orally of the facts, but the following were represented by counsel to be facts, same were not controverted by opposing counsel, and the court understood it was to treat same as the facts in the case and so did.
'The Court understood that all parties concurred with the Court's finding that the trust sought to be created for Anne C. Hughes was invalid, that the bequest and devise to 'charity' was invalid, and that the final paragraph of testator's will making certain specific bequests was a valid testamentary disposition.'
The will, as presented for probate, was as follows:
'Being in my right mind and fully conscious of what I do, my will is as follows,
'I will Anne C. Hughes to receive all interest from a Trust consisting of all my money, Bonds and other valuables for her life, after which it passes on to Virginia Hughes now Mrs. David H. Ruth and on her passing to her children, after which such trust ends, the money now provide for tomb stones in Spring Hill Cemetery, and money remaining after this I desire to go to Charity.
'I further wish that Ming eventually get the clock in dining room and it is my desire and wish that H. M. Blankenship receives my Marlin 32-20 Repeater Rifle and my S & W revolver 32 Calbrie revolver with any other of my fire arms that he may desire to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gill v. Gill
...231 Md. 69, 188 A.2d 559 (testamentary); Keller v. Keller, 49 Lanc.L.Rev. 49 (Lancaster, Pa.Com.Pl.1944) (inter vivos); Ruth v. Jester (1957), 198 Va. 887, 96 S.E.2d 741 (testamentary). See also Cope v. Cope (1887), 45 Ohio St. 464, 15 N.E. 206. This, is not a trust case, but is one in whic......
-
Jessup v. Jessup, 780827
...apply in construing a mutilated will. We must take the will as the testator left it and look at what remains. Ruth v. Jester, Adm'r, 198 Va. 887, 890, 96 S.E.2d 741, 743 (1957). The proponents of Miss Jessup's will contend that what is left of the August 1, 1960 writing is her last will and......
-
Ricks' Will, In re
...not be considered as an aid in its construction. While there appears to be no New York case directly in point, the case of Ruth v. Jester, 198 Va. 887, 96 S.E.2d 741, cited by the respondents supports this The respondents likewise point to the oft-repeated admonition that the testatrix' dir......
-
Etgen v. Corboy
...v. Jessup, 221 Va. 61, 267 S.E.2d 115 (1980); Timberlake v. State-Planters Bank, 201 Va. 950, 115 S.E.2d 39 (1960); Ruth v. Jester, Adm'r., 198 Va. 887, 96 S.E.2d 741 (1957); Franklin v. McLean, 192 Va. 684, 66 S.E.2d 504 However, this case is not usual. This case involves duplicate origina......