White v. Taylor
Decision Date | 25 January 1956 |
Docket Number | No. A-5470,A-5470 |
Parties | Beulah Ratcliffe WHITE et al., Petitioners, v. James O. TAYLOR, Independent Executor, et al., Respondents. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Kelley & Ryan, Coy U. Spawn, Jr., Houston, Bryce Swartfager, Santa Rosa, Cal., for petitioners.
Benjamin L. Bird, Tilley, Hyder & Law, Crowley, Wright, Miller & Garrett, Fort Worth, for respondents.
This suit, as originally filed in the trial court, involved the construction of the wills of Mrs. Edna Ratcliffe Taylor and Nearle Taylor Follett. The judgment of the trial court, construing the will of Mrs. Taylor, was accepted accepted by all parties and, therefore, is not involved here. We are concerned only with the will executed by Mrs. Follett. A jury having been waived, all matters in controversy, as well of fact as of law, were submitted to the court for determination.
Mrs. Follett and her mother, Mrs. Taylor, were in an automobile accident in which they were fatally injured. The controlling evidence consisted of a stipulation of facts and the will of Mrs. Follett. The facts, as stipulated, were as follows:
On March 30, 1954, at about 3:00 P.M., Edna E. Taylor and Nearle Taylor Follett were guest-passengers in the automobile of Lester Brenizer en route from Fort Worth to Wimberley; at about 3:00 P.M. on said day said automobile, then proceeding southward several miles south of Hico, Hamilton County, Texas, collied with an automobile proceeding northward. Edna E. Taylor and Nearle Taylor Follett were injured in this collision; both were taken by ambulances to the Hico City Hospital at Hico, Texas; Edna E. Taylor arrived at such hospital at 3:30 P.M., alive but unconscious, and died at 4:56 P.M. Nearle Taylor Follette was pronounced dead upon arrival at such hospital at 3:45 P.M. So far as is known, Edna E. Taylor never regained consciousness after the collision.
The Fourth and Fifth clauses of the will read as follows:
The trial court held that 'within the meaning of Section Fifth of the will, Mrs. Nearle Taylor Follett and her mother, Mrs. Edna Ratcliffe Taylor, died simultaneously; therefore, Section Fourth of said will is of no force and effect and the estate of Mrs. Follett passed as specified in Section Fifth of her will.' Judgment was rendered accordingly. The Court of Civil Appeals has affirmed. 281 S.W.2d 237.
The question for this Court to determine is: Do the facts show that the mother and daughter died simultaneously, or under circumstances making it difficult to determine which died first within the meaning of the will? The absolute gift and bequest of all the property of every kind and character to the mother, as provided in Section Fourth of the will, must be given effect, and the conditional devise to the contingent beneficiaries must necessarily fail unless we hold that the mother and daughter died simultaneously, or under such circumstances making it difficult to determine which died first. The devise to the contingent beneficiaries-respondents-was conditioned upon the happening of either of the events mentioned in Section Fifth of the will.
Respondents contend that both contingencies occurred. The Court of Civil Appeals, in reaching the conclusion that the mother and daughter died simultaneously, defined the word 'simultaneously' as meaning not at the same instant, but at substantially the same time. The Court then proceeded to hold that it was the intention of the testatrix that her estate should go to the contingent beneficiaries in the event she and her mother should die at substantially the same time. The Court further held that the testatrix used the word 'simultaneously' in lieu of, but in the same sense as common disaster or common accident.
We find no evidence in the record which would in the least indicate that any of the events named in Section Fifth of the will occurred. The evidence that Mrs. Follett was pronounced dead at 3:45 P.M., and that Mrs. Taylor died at 4:56 P.M., shows conclusively that the mother survived the daughter and that they did not die simultaneously. The intention of the testatrix must be ascertained from the words she used in the will. In 2 Schouler on Wills, Executors and Administrators (6th Ed.) 984, Par. 865, the rule of construction is stated as follows:
The petitioners and respondents have been unable to cite a case in this jurisdiction which involves the construction of a will wherein the word 'simultaneously' was used alone as it was in Section Fifth of the will under consideration. The parties cite cases from other jurisdictions involving wills which contained the words 'simultaneously', 'or approximately so', or some similar phrase. However, there is no case cited which involves the word 'simultaneously' standing alone.
The joint will involved in the case of American Trust & Safe Deposit Co. v. Eckhardt, 331 Ill. 261, 162 N.E. 843, 844, containing the clause, "* * * in the event that our deaths should occur simultaneously, or approximately so, or in the same common accident or calamity, or under any circumstances causing doubt as to which of us survived the other * * *',' the wife died at 2 o'clock A.M., and the husband died during the afternoon of the next day. The Supreme Court of Illinois rejected the contention that the two died simultaneously. The Court said:
* * *'
The Court concluded that the death of the survivor the next day after that of his wife was approximately at the same time as that of his wife, without the meaning of the will.
The cases in other jurisdictions which involved the construction of the Uniform Simultaneous Death Act or sections of the Probate Code wherein the word 'simultaneously' alone was used, uniformly hold that if there is any evidence of probative force that either party survived the other, even when the deaths occur at approximately the same time, the statute is inapplicable and the question of survivorship requires no higher degree of proof than any other fact. See Thomas v. Anderson, 96 Cal.App.2d 371, 215 P.2d 478, 482; 20 A.L.R. 237; In re Cruson's Estate, 189 Or. 537, 221 P.2d 892, 20 A.L.R.2d 219; Sauers v. Stolz, 1950, 121 Colo. 456, 218 P.2d 741, 742, 743; 16 Am.Jur. 32, Sec. 39, et seq.; 25 C.J.S., Death, § 12, p. 1071.
The case of Sauers v. Stolz, supra,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schmitt v. Pierce
...any other fact in the case.' See also Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Spain, 339 Ill.App. 476, 90 N.E.2d 256, 259; White v. Taylor, 155 Tex. 392, 286 S.W.2d 925, 927; 16 Am.Jur. 34, Secs. 42, 43, and appendix; Annotation 20 A.L.R.2d 235; 25 C.J.S. Death Sec. 12, p. Another contention of d......
-
McCurtis v. Life Ins. Co. of North America, Civ. A. No. 4:93-CV-29 (L) (N).
...Indeed, the evidence is sufficient "if there is any evidence of probative force that either party survived the other." White v. Taylor, 155 Tex. 392, 286 S.W.2d 925 (1956) (citations omitted); see also In re Moore's Will, 14 Misc.2d 85, 178 N.Y.S.2d 1000 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. 1958) (evidence is suff......
-
Sammons v. Elder
...Worth 1956, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The intention of the testatrix must be ascertained from the words used in the will. White v. Taylor, 155 Tex. 392, 286 S.W.2d 925, 926 (1956); Diemer, 717 S.W.2d at 162; In re Hite, 700 S.W.2d at 716; Bristol, 288 S.W.2d at 565. Words in general, whether tech......
-
Heirs of Ellis v. Estate of Ellis
...Am., 849 F.Supp. 1141, 1146, nn. 10-11 (S.D.Miss.1994); Smith v. Smith, 229 Ark. 579, 317 S.W.2d 275, 282 (1958); White v. Taylor, 155 Tex. 392, 286 S.W.2d 925, 928 (1956); In re Estate of Villwock, 142 Wis.2d 144, 418 N.W.2d 1, 3 ...
-
From book covers to domain names: searching for the true meaning of the Cliffs Notes temporal test for parody.
...See also Am. Sur. Co. of N.Y. v. Mosher, 48 Ariz. 552, 564 (1936); White v. Taylor, 281 S.W.2d 237, 240 (Tex. Civ. App. 1955), rev'd 286 S.W.2d 925 (Tex. 1956). But cf. Thomas v. Anderson, 96 Cal. App. 2d 371, 375-77 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1950). See generally Uniform Simultaneous Death Act [......