Weil v. King
Decision Date | 04 October 1907 |
Citation | 104 S.W. 380 |
Parties | WEIL v. KING ET AL. |
Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Henderson County.
"Not to be officially reported."
Action by Mollie Weil against Henry King and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded with directions.
Thos E. Ward, for appellant.
Montgomery Merritt, for appellees.
Appellant Mollie Weil, instituted this action against appellees, Henry King and others, for the sale of certain property in Henderson, Ky. which she alleged was jointly owned by her and appellees. The petition states that Henry B. Moore departed this life in the year 1876, after having first made and published his last will and testament, leaving him surviving his widow, Mrs. Hulda Moore, and his children, Mary Jane, who had married Thomas J. David and was then his wife, E. R Moore, Ann, who had married P. H. King and was then his wife, and a grandson, Charles Moore, only son of Charles Moore who had died before H. B. Moore; that H. B. Moore by his will devised to his widow, Hulda Moore, the property in question; that Hulda Moore was to have the property in question for and during her natural life, and at her death it was to descend to H. B. Moore's heirs; that prior to the death of Hulda Moore, which occurred in August, 1899, Mary J. David and E. R. Moore conveyed their reversionary interest in said property to Ann King, who thereby became the owner of three-fourths of said property, and that Charles Moore, grandson of H. B. Moore, owned the other fourth; that said Charles Moore died on 30th day of July, 1896, after having reached the age of 30 years, and without having been married, leaving his mother, the plaintiff, Mollie Weil, his only heir at law; that his undivided one-fourth interest in said property descended to and vested in his mother, the plaintiff, Mollie Weil, and that she is now the owner thereof. The petition then asks for a sale of the property in question on the ground that it is not susceptible of division, and that one-fourth of the proceeds thereof, after the payment of the costs of the suit, be paid to her. Following is the copy of the will of H. B. Moore, filed with the petition: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gardner v. Vanlandingham
...43, 132 N.W. 738; 40 Cyc. pp. 1675, 1677; Schofield v. Olcott, 120 Ill. 371, 11 N.E. 351; McHarry v. Kingman & Co., 111 Fed. 498; Weil v. King, 104 S.W. 380; Campbell v. Hinton, 150 Ky. 546, 150 S.W. 676. (3) The fact that the residuary estate of the testator consisted wholly of personal pr......
-
Gardner v. Vanlandingham
... ... 43, 132 N.W. 738; 40 Cyc. pp. 1675, 1677; ... Schofield v. Olcott, 120 Ill. 371, 11 N.E. 351; ... McHarry v. Kingman & Co., 111 F. 498; Weil v ... King, 104 S.W. 380; Campbell v. Hinton, 150 Ky ... 546, 150 S.W. 676. (3) The fact that the residuary estate of ... the testator ... ...
-
Brickell v. Lightcap
... ... (Del.) ... 397; Smith v. Winsor, 239 Ill. 567, 88 N.E. 482; ... Bunting v. Speek, 41 Kan. 424, 21 P. 288, 3 L. R. A ... 690; Weil v. King, 104 S.W. 380, 31 Ky. Law Rep ... 1010; Brown v. Lawrence, 3 Cush. (Mass.) 390; ... Abbott v. Bradstreet, 3 Allen (Mass.) 587; Dove ... ...
-
Lindenberger v. Cornell
...535; Williamson v. Williamson, 18 B. Mon. 368; Moore's Adm'r v. Sleet, 113 Ky. 600, 68 S.W. 642, 24 Ky. Law Rep. 426; Weil v. King, 104 S.W. 380, 31 Ky. Law Rep. 1010. Under section 2341, Ky. Stats., a contingent remainder of kind is the subject of a sale and conveyance, but the purchaser w......