Swain v. Bowers
Decision Date | 15 November 1927 |
Docket Number | 12,947 |
Parties | SWAIN ET AL. v. BOWERS ET AL |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Rehearing denied January 10, 1928. Transfer denied April 26 1930.
From Grant Circuit Court; J. F. Charles, Judge.
Suit to have the will of B. Elizabeth Miller declared void, brought by Sarah Swain and others against Beatrice Bowers and others. From a judgment for the defendants, the plaintiffs appealed.
Affirmed.
Wilbur E. Branyan, Fred H. Bowers, Milo N. Feightner, Lee M. Bowers and John R. Browne, for appellants.
Condo & Batton, O. F. Rhodes and Rhodes & Rhodes, for appellees.
OPINION
This is an action by Sarah Swain, Georgiana Fulton, Earl Bumgartner, Homer Bumgartner, Aubrey Fosnaugh, and June Fosnaugh to have the last will and testament of B. Elizabeth Miller declared void. The first four named plaintiffs are brothers and sisters of the testatrix, while the last two are the children of a deceased sister. The complaint alleges that the testatrix died the owner of personal property worth in excess of $ 100,000, and that, in the absence of a will, these plaintiffs, as heirs, would have inherited all of the property of which the testatrix died the owner. The court sustained a demurrer to the complaint, hence this appeal.
The will, in so far as the same is material, is as follows:
Item 7 requires the trustee to keep an accurate account, which shall be open to the interested parties or their parents. Item 8 gave the trustee power to appoint necessary agents, attorneys in fact, or trustees, in order to successfully manage the trust, and Item 9 appoints the First National Bank of Peru as executor.
It is to be noted that provision is made for two separate and distinct trusts, the cestui que trustent of one being the grandchildren of the deceased husband, while the cestui que trustent of the other are the children of the brothers and sisters of the testatrix.
Sections 12171 and 12172 Burns 1926 (§§ 6057, 6058 R. S. 1881), are as follows: (§ 12171) "No limitation or condition shall suspend the absolute ownership of personal property longer than till the termination of lives in being at the time of the execution of the instrument containing such limitation or condition, or, if in a will, of lives in being at the death of the testator." (§ 12172)
Appellants contend that the will is void for the following reasons: (1) It suspends the absolute ownership of personal property longer than the termination of lives in being at the death of the testatrix; (2) it provides for the accumulation of interest, income of money and other personal property for a time longer than lives in being at the death of the testatrix; (3) it provides for the accumulation of interest, income of money and other personal property for minors in being at the death of the testatrix, said accumulations not to terminate with the minority of the minors; (4) it provides for the accumulation of interest, income of money and other personal property to begin after the death of the testatrix and payable to minors, such accumulations not to terminate with the minority of the minors or at any time during their minority; (5) it provides for the accumulation of interest, etc., to begin at the death of the testatrix, to be held in trust for minors living at the death of the testatrix, which trust does not terminate with the minority of such minors, nor with the end of lives in being at the death of the testatrix; and (6) the shares of the legatees cannot be ascertained from the provisions of the will.
In support of these contentions, appellants first call attention to the provisions in the fourth and fifth paragraphs of Item 2, which provide that the trusts shall apply to the children of the named persons begotten either before or after the death of the testatrix, and insist that these provisions are in direct conflict with § 12171, supra, in that the clause in the fourth paragraph which provides that one-half of the property shall be held by the trustee for the benefit of the children of Kenneth and Merrill Miller "and their issue if any be dead," and which is followed by the expressed intention of the testatrix that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Britt v. Sears
... ... Swain v. Bowers (1927), 91 Ind.App. 307, 158 N.E. 598 ... Indiana statutes have also recognized the unborn infant as a child. The ... ...
- Swain v. Bowers