Tracy v. Atwell
Decision Date | 01 April 1929 |
Docket Number | No. 4715.,4715. |
Citation | 32 F.2d 392,58 App. DC 397 |
Parties | TRACY v. ATWELL. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
R. F. Downing, Jos. J. Malloy and Francis P. Brassor, all of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Charles F. Diggs, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
This is an appeal from a decree of the lower court dismissing the bill of complaint filed by appellant as plaintiff. The issue in the case calls for a construction of the last will and testament of Maud L. Atwell, deceased.
On August 4, 1925, the decedent, who was a resident of the District of Columbia, departed this life testate, without living issue, survived by her husband, Frank L. Atwell, and by a brother, A. Lester Tracy, who is the appellant herein. Her last will was duly admitted to probate, and in conformity with its terms her husband was appointed executor.
The disposing paragraphs of the will read as follows:
Accordingly, testatrix directs that all of her lawful debts shall first be paid. She next devises her residence No. 1641 Hobart street, together with certain other property, to her brother, A. Lester Tracy. And finally she bequeaths to her husband, Frank I. Atwell, all stocks, bonds, notes, and personal property of whatever kind of which she may die possessed, subject to certain minor exceptions.
The present controversy arises from the fact that at the time of testatrix's death her residence, No. 1641 Hobart street, was incumbered by a mortgage indebtedness of about $3,000, and her brother as devisee of the property claims that the debt should be paid from the personal assets of the estate, whereas her husband as residuary legatee contends that the property was devised cum onere and that the debt should be paid by the devisee.
The record discloses that testatrix purchased the realty in question from one Breuninger subject to the mortgage indebtedness aforesaid, and received a deed of conveyance therefor in the year 1914. The deed specifically refers to the mortgage indebtedness, and recites that the grantee "assumes and agrees"...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
JOHNSON v. MARTIN, 87-1205
...unencumbered by the deed of trust. See Union Trust Co. v. Brendlinger, 59 App.D.C. 294, 296, 40 F.2d 806, 808 (1930); Tracy v. Atwell, 58 App.D.C. 397, 32 F.2d 392 (1929); O'Meara v. Shreve, 58 App.D.C. 220, 26 F.2d 998 (1928); In re Estate of Miller, 127 F. Supp. 23, 26 (D.D.C. 1955); Brid......
-
Owen v. Lee
...Shaw, 22 Del. Ch. 47, 194 A. 24; Hoff's Appeal, 24 Pa. 200; O'Conner v. O'Conner, 88 Tenn. 76, 12 S.W. 447, 7 L.R.A. 33; Tracy v. Atwell, 58 App.D.C. 397, 32 F.2d 392; Union Trust Co. v. Brendlinger, 59 App. D.C. 294, 40 F.2d 806; Barlow v. Cain, 146 Ark. 160, 225 S.W. 228; Higinbotham v. M......
-
Martin v. Johnson
...127, 129, 94 F.2d 252, 254 (1937); Union Trust Co. v. Brendlinger, 59 App.D.C. 294, 296, 40 F.2d 806, 808 (1930); Tracy v. Atwell, 58 App.D.C. 397, 398, 32 F.2d 392, 393 (1929); O'Meara v. Shreve, 58 App.D.C. 220, 222, 26 F.2d 998, 1000 (1928); In re Tunison's 75 F.Supp. 573, 574 (D.D.C. 19......
-
Sheehy v. O'DONOGHUE
...rule of exoneration is in effect in the District of Columbia. O'Meara v. Shreve, 58 App.D.C. 220, 26 F.2d 998; Tracy v. Atwell, 58 App.D.C. 397, 32 F.2d 392, 393; Union Trust Co. v. Brendlinger, 59 App.D. C. 294, 40 F.2d 806. It is also well settled that the intent of the testatrix determin......