Wallace v. Wallace
Decision Date | 18 February 1929 |
Docket Number | 178 |
Parties | WALLACE v. WALLACE |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Howard Chancery Court; C. E. Johnson, Chancellor affirmed.
Decree affirmed.
U A. Gentry and Feazel & Steel, for appellant.
W C. Rodgers, for appellee.
Josiah H. Wallace, celibate, late of Saratoga, Howard County Arkansas, died testate, his will, omitting formal parts, and numbering the several paragraphs for convenient reference, being as follows:
The above will was duly admitted to probate. The testator's collateral heirs consisted of his brothers and sisters living at his death, W. B. Wallace, W. P. Wallace, Alice M. Wallace, Lelia A. Roach and Pattie F. Weatherford, Mrs. Sallie Wallace, widow of D. P. Wallace, deceased, mentioned in paragraph 5 of the will, by which she was made one of the testator's legal heirs. W. P. Wallace conveyed all his interest in the land in question to the other heirs above named, and has no interest in this controversy. Appellant is the son of said W. P. Wallace, and a nephew of the testator. Appellees are all the heirs, except said W. P. Wallace.
Appellant brought this action to have the will construed. He alleged that he was entitled to a one-sixth interest in the proceeds of a sale of a portion of the land, mentioned in paragraph 4 of the will, to the Arkansas Portland Cement Company; that, by agreement with appellees, the portion of the sale price claimed by him had been deposited in escrow pending a determination of his rights, and that he had executed a deed to the purchaser. He prayed that the money in escrow be decreed his property, or, if it be held that he is not entitled thereto, that it was the meaning and intention of the testator, as expressed in paragraph 4 of the will, that the McDaniel place and the Block farm be held intact and in trust for 25 years after the death of the testator, and that said property be decreed to belong to those parties who may be the testator's legal heirs at that time and not to those who are the admitted legal heirs at this time. A demurrer to this complaint was interposed and sustained. Appellant declined to plead further, and his complaint was dismissed for want of equity.
Counsel for appellant say that only two questions are involved in this appeal. First, did appellant have the right to maintain this action? and second, did paragraph 4 of the will create an enforceable trust that cannot be terminated until the expiration of twenty-five years? They say that a negative answer to the first question would remove the necessity for an answer to the second. However, we think the second question must be answered, even though the first be decided against appellant, as it is important to the appellees to know whether they have title to the land mentioned in paragraph 4 of the will.
Appellant contends that he is a contingent remainderman, and that, under the authority of the case of Watson v. Wolff-Goldman Realty Co., 95 Ark. 18, 128 S.W. 581, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 540; Horsley v. Hilburn, 44 Ark. 458; and Tatum v. Tatum, 174 Ark. 110, 295 S.W. 720, 53 A. L. R. 306, he had the right to maintain this action, having a contingent interest in the lands mentioned in § 4 of the will. In that section the testator said: It will be noticed that the testator used the term "my legal heirs" in two places, and at the end of the paragraph he used the term "my said heirs," which manifestly refers to the term theretofore used, "my legal heirs." The complaint charges that the testator's "legal heirs" were those persons heretofore named, brothers and sisters of the testator, including the widow of one brother, who was made a legal heir by the terms of § 5 of the will. Nowhere in the will is appellant referred to except in paragraph 2, where the testator said: "I also give and bequeath to my nephew, A. T. Wallace, to have in addition to his share in my estate, the following lands," describing them.
In a strict legal sense, a living person has no heirs. As said by this court in Gregley v. Jackson, 38 Ark. 487: * * * See also Carter v. McNeal, 86 Ark. 150, 110 S.W. 222.
In 29 C. J. 290 it is said: "In the strictly proper sense of the word, no one is an heir until after the death of the ancestor, and the word signifies one who has succeeded to a dead ancestor; it is used to express the relation of persons to some deceased ancestor, and cannot be applicable to one whose ancestor is living."
Appellant being the nephew of the testator and the son of W. P. Wallace, who conveyed his...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Walt v. Bevis
...with a postponement of their right to enjoy the possession thereof in severalty for a period of years. Similarly, in Wallace v. Wallace, 179 Ark. 30, 13 S.W.2d 810, it was held that a clause with reference to maintaining certain farms intact for 25 years did not prevent to vesting of the fe......
-
Gibbs v. Bates
...tenant and a remainderman, because the deed to Mrs. Gibbs did not undertake to create a life estate and a remainder. In Wallace v. Wallace, 179 Ark. 30, 13 S.W.2d 810 Justice McHaney, speaking for this Court, discussed remainders and how they were created: "'A remainder,' says Mr. Tiedeman,......
-
Fletcher v. Hurdle
...take effect either to a dubious or uncertain person or upon a dubious and uncertain event, the remainder is contingent. Wallace v. Wallace,179 Ark. 30, 13 S.W.2d 810. Where the right of the remainderman to succeed to the enjoyment of the estate depends upon some contingency which may never ......
-
Housley v. Housley
...to create a trust must be clearly expressed by the language of the will. Bloom v. Strauss, 73 Ark. 56, 84 S.W. 511; Wallace v. Wallace, 179 Ark. 30, 13 S.W.2d 810. 'On the principle that words which cut an estate down must be as clear as those which create it, an absolute and beneficial int......