Todd's Guardian v. Todd's Adm'rs
Decision Date | 09 October 1913 |
Parties | TODD'S GUARDIAN et al. v. TODD'S ADM'RS et al. |
Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Owen County.
Action between Fred Todd's Guardian and others and O. K Todd's Administrators and others. From the judgment, the guardian and others appeal. Reversed.
W. A Lee, of Owenton, for appellants.
Tomlin & Vest, of Walton, and Botts & Perry and Vallandingham & Alexander, all of Owenton, for appellees.
J. S Todd died in 1904 after having first made the following will, which was duly probated:
In 1912 O. K. Todd died intestate, leaving as his only heirs at law his two children, Fred and Mary Todd. The question for decision is, Did Mrs. S. J. Todd and O. K. Todd take the fee or only a life estate, with remainder to the children of O. K. Todd, in the estate devised to them by the will? The lower court held that they took the fee, and the children of O. K. Todd appeal.
The will, which was evidently written by the testator himself leaves in some doubt his intention as to the character of the estate he desired his wife and son to take; but, after carefully considering the entire instrument, we have reached the conclusion that his purpose, although rather awkwardly expressed, was to give his wife and son each a life estate and not the fee. It is very true that the estate is devised jointly to the wife and son, with power in them to sell and convey all or any part of it, and this investment of the title, together with the power of disposition, are the features of the will that influenced the lower court to rule that they took the fee; the ruling being based on the case of Clay v. Chenault, 108 Ky. 77, 55 S.W. 729, 21 Ky. Law Rep. 1485, which has been many times followed. In that case it was said: "It seems to us that the decided weight of authority, if, indeed, there be any to the contrary, is to the effect that a will or deed giving to the vendee or devisee full power to sell and convey passes the absolute fee, and that any (subsequent, contrary) provision or devise is absolutely void, for the reason that it is inconsistent with or repugnant to the fee, and it is wholly immaterial whether the power to sell or dispose of the property shall have been exercised...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Watkins v. Bennett
... ... Morgan, 148 Ky. 230, 146 S.W. 722; Todd's ... Guardian v. Todd's Heirs, 155 Ky. 209, 159 S.W. 702; ... O'Rear v. Bogie, 157 Ky ... ...
-
Todd's Ex'r v. First Nat. Bank
... ... J. Todd, the lands revert ... back to S. J. Todd as guardian for the bodily heirs of O. K ... At the ... death of ... ...
-
Greenway v. White
...Hancock, 82 Ky. 107; Commonwealth v. Stoll's Admr., 132 Ky. 234; Beckner v. Roth, idem 429; Nelson v. Nelson, 140 Ky. 410; Todd's Gdn. v. Todd's Admr., 155 Ky. 209; Knost v. Knost, 178 Ky. 267; Trustees Presbyterian Church of Somerset v. Mize, 181 Ky. 567; Commonwealth v. Manuel, 183 Ky. 50......
- Greenway v. White