Wead v. Gray
Decision Date | 30 April 1883 |
Citation | 78 Mo. 59 |
Parties | WEAD, Appellant, v. GRAY. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals.
REVERSED.
W. B. Homer and Levi Davis for appellant.
M. L. Gray for respondents.
This is a suit in which plaintiff asks the cancellation of two deeds of trust on certain real estate in Kirkwood, St. Louis county, and the facts of the case are as follows:
Spencer Smith was seized of said real estate in fee, and, in July, 1861, he borrowed of Mrs. McLean $1,000, for which he executed his note and a deed of trust on said real estate to secure it. In 1866 he borrowed of M. L. Gray $2,482, for which he executed his note and a deed of trust on the same property. In 1870 Smith died leaving a will, by which he devised said real estate to his wife Rachel. The two notes above mentioned were at her death in March, 1874, owned by Mrs. Charlotte Wead, mother of Rachel Smith. She died testate, and the following is a copy of her last will and testament:
etc.
In August, 1874, M. L. Gray, respondent, was appointed administrator with the will annexed of said estate, and took possession of and holds said notes. Mrs. Smith survived her mother, and died in January, 1875, leaving a will, of which the following is a copy:
At her death there were other deeds of trust upon said real estate, executed by her husband in his lifetime, in which Charlotte Wead never had any interest. M. L. Gray, as administrator of the estate of Charlotte Wead, inventoried the two notes held by Mrs. Wead as assets of her estate, and, contending that they are subsisting claims against the said real estate, refused to deliver them to appellant, and, on the same ground, the Domestic Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and Ann S. Lear claim an interest in said notes as legatees under Mrs. Wead's will. The circuit court rendered a decree in favor of plaintiff, which, on appeal to the St. Louis court of appeals, was reversed, and plaintiff has prosecuted his appeal to this court.
The case turns upon the construction of Mrs. Wead's will, and the principal question is: What estate in the property mentioned in that will, did Mrs. Smith take? Respondents insist that, by the will only a life estate was given to her, and appellants, that she took an absolute unlimited estate. If the latter be the proper construction of the will, neither the Missionary Society nor Mrs. Lear has any interest in the estate, and the decree of the circuit court was right.
Respondents, for their construction of the will, rely upon a class of cases, in which express life estates were given by the wills with power of disposition over the property, in some instances as broad as that given by Mrs. Wead's will, in others more restricted; but generally, where no estate for life was created in express terms, the wills have been held to give the absolute property, notwithstanding a limitation over of what might remain undisposed of by the first taker. There are exceptional cases. Smith v. Bell, 6 Pet. 68, relied upon by respondents' counsel, is of that class. But that case has not been followed in this State. In Reinders v. Koppelmann, 68 No. 491, Judge Napton, delivering the opinion of this court, quotes what was said by Sir William Grant in Barford v. Street, 16 Ves. 135: and Judge Napton adds: “A party cannot give an unlimited dominion of his property to one, and at the same time, a limited right in it to another; in other words, a remainder cannot be engrafted on a fee.”
In the construction of a will, it is a question of intention, to be ascertained by construing all parts of the will together, and the intention, if not in contravention of some inflexible rule of law, is to control. It would be difficult to find words more apt to convey an absolute and unlimited ownership of personal property than those employed in Mrs. Wead's will, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cornwell v. Wulff
...v. Robins, 16 Johns. 587. In Gregory v. Cowgill, 19 Mo. 415, Judge Scott cites Ide v. Ide, 5 Mass. 500, with approval. But in Wead v. Gray, 78 Mo. 59, this court, after deciding that the first taker took an absolute estate, referred to the clause giving a remainder over to a designated char......
-
Middleton v. Dudding
...upon the statutes of this state, and all of the decisions of this court handed down since the delivery of the opinion in the case of Wead v. Gray, 78 Mo. 59; and, as I understand the opinion of Brother BOND, it is bottomed upon the rules of the common law as announced by this court in the c......
-
Gannon v. Albright
...Ill. 554, 33 N.E. 751; Ball v. Hancock's Admr., 82 Ky. 107; Combs v. Combs, 67 Md. 11, 8 A. 757; Hoxsey v. Hoxsey, 37 N.J.Eq. 21; Wead v. Gray, 78 Mo. 59; Van Horne v. Campbell, 100 N.Y. 287, 3 N.E. If we are right in this position plaintiffs can not recover. Let us next inquire whether an ......
-
Long v. St. Louis Union Trust Co.
...reason that the limitation is after the fee-simple title had fully vested in Mary Margaret Lewis (now Long) and her two children. Weed v. Gray, 78 Mo. 59; Chew Keller, 100 Mo. 362; Gannon v. Albright, 183 Mo. 238; Papin v. Piednoir, 205 Mo. 521; Jackson v. Little, 213 Mo. 598; Gibson v. Gib......