Swann v. Austell
Decision Date | 25 November 1919 |
Docket Number | 3405. |
Citation | 261 F. 465 |
Parties | SWANN v. AUSTELL et al. [1] |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Daniel W. Rountree and Clifford L. Anderson, both of Atlanta, Ga for appellant.
Charles T., L.C. & J. L. Hopkins, Eugene R. Black, Sanders McDaniel and King & Spalding, all of Atlanta, Ga., for appellees.
Before WALKER, Circuit Judge, and FOSTER and GRUBB, District Judges.
This is an appeal by Alfred R. Swann from a decree of the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Georgia, dismissing his bill, which he had brought in that court against W. W. Austell as the sole surviving executor of the will of Alfred Austell, deceased, W. W. Austell, Mrs Lelia A. Thornton, and Alfred Austell, Jr., children of the testator, and Earl Austell and Mrs. Idoline Austell Watts children of W. W. Austell.
Alfred Austell, Sr., died testate, a resident of Fulton county, Ga., in December, 1881. At the time of his death his heirs at law were his widow, Mrs. Francina C. Austell, and his four children, W. W. Austell, Mrs. Lelia A. Thornton, Mrs. Emma Jane Swann, and Alfred Austell, Jr.
The will of Alfred Austell, Sr., was duly probated in Fulton county according to the laws of Georgia, and the executors named therein were duly qualified; but all of such executors are dead, and have been dead for a number of years, with the exception of W. W. Austell, who is the sole surviving executor.
James Swann was the husband of Mrs. Emma Jane Swann, one of the children of the testator. Mrs. Swann died in April, 1893; James Swann, her husband, died in April, 1903; and testator's widow died in May, 1917.
Appellant is the sole devisee of his brother, James Swann, who was the sole devisee of his wife, Emma Jane Swann, and by this bill he seeks to establish his title to an undivided one-fourth interest in three certain tracts of land which form a part of the estate of Alfred Austell, Sr., and were disposed of under the will. These three tracts of land, for brevity, may be designated: (1) The home place, on Marietta street, in the city of Atlanta; (2) the north part of what is known as the Trout House lot, on North Pryor street, at the corner of what is known as Edgewood avenue, formerly called Line street; and (3) a farm in Campbell county, Ga., called the Lathem farm-- together with one-fourth of the rents, issues, and profits which have been received from said properties since the death of the testator's widow.
The theory of the bill is that a one-fourth undivided fee-simple indefeasible interest in each of said three tracts of land vested in Mrs. Emma J. Swann during her life, and therefore passed under her will to her husband, and under his will to appellant; it being conceded that if, at the time of her death, the interest had become vested in Mrs. Swann, it would pass under the successive devises to the appellant.
The home place, on Marietta street, was disposed of by item 1 of said will, which follows:
The Trout House lot was disposed of by item 2 of the will, which follows:
'I direct my said executors to collect the rents of the store houses, or other houses, as may be on said Trout House lot, and out of the rents so collected, that they pay my said wife the sum of two thousand dollars payable in equal quarterly payments, for each and every year of her natural life, whether she marries again or not.
'And my executors are directed to take the receipt for the same from herself alone and to pay it to no other person.
'My executors are further directed, after paying my said wife the sum of money aforesaid, to divide the balance equally between my said children, and after the death of my said wife to sell the said store houses and lot, and divide the proceeds of such sale among my children, share and share alike, the child or children of any deceased child of mine to take the share of their deceased parent.'
The Lathem farm was a part of the residue which was disposed of by item 9 of the will, as follows:
As having some bearing upon the construction of other items of the will, item 10 of the will should be considered. It is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Aberg v. First Nat. Bank in Dallas
...York v. Douglass, 143 Me. 150, 56 A.2d 633 (1948). Mississippi: Rose v. Rose, 126 Miss. 114, 88 So. 513 (1921). Georgia: Swann v. Austell, 5 Cir., 261 F. 465 (1920). Missouri: Crossan v. Crossan, 303 Mo. 572, 262 S.W. 701 (1924); St. Louis Union Trust v. Kern, 346 Mo. 643, 142 S.W.2d 493 (1......
-
St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Kern
...66 N.H. 584, 32 A. 160; In re Rogers, 97 Md. 674, 55 A. 679; Augustus v. Seabolt, 3 Met. 155; Rose v. Rose, 88 So. 513; Swan v. Austell, 261 F. 465, certiorari denied U.S. 579; In re Silsby, 229 N.Y. 396, 128 N.E. 212; In re Cooper, 86 L. J. Ch. (N. S.) 507; Foreman Trust & Savs. Bank v. Se......
-
Howth v. Farrar
...v. Harris, 176 N.C. 631, 97 S.E. 609, 5 A.L.R. 477; American Nat. Bank v. Chapin, 130 Va. 1, 107 S.E. 636, 17 A.L.R. 304; Swann v. Austell, 5 Cir., 261 F. 465, certiorari denied 252 U.S. 579, 40 S.Ct. 344, 64 L.Ed. 726; Foreman Trust & Savings Bank v. Seelenfreund, 329 Ill. 546, 161 N.E. 88......
-
Bass v. Moore
...51, 32 S.E. 377; Hill v. Hill, 159 Tenn. 27, 16 S.W.2d 27; Compton v. Rixey's Ex'rs, 124 Va. 548, 98 S.E. 651, 5 A.L.R. 465; Swann v. Austell, 5 Cir., 261 F. 465, certiorari denied 252 1.S. 579, 40 S.Ct. 344, 64 L.Ed. Foreman Trust & Savings Bank v. Seelenfreund, 329 Ill. 546, 161 N.E. 88, ......