Williams v. J. M. High Co.
Decision Date | 10 January 1946 |
Docket Number | 15361. |
Citation | 36 S.E.2d 667,200 Ga. 230 |
Parties | WILLIAMS et al. v. J. M. HIGH CO. et al. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Where a testatrix provided a life estate to her daughters with remainder over to grandchildren, in designated improved realty, and also that a named corporation, as long as it 'continues in business, * * * is financially successful and desires to occupy these properties, * * * shall have the right to occupy them at their fair market value for rent,' and set forth a plan for determining the fair amount of rent to be paid, such right of lease is not in violation of the rule against perpetuities.
(a) The conditions, above quoted, under which the corporation should have a right to occupy the premises, are not vague uncertain, or illegal.
(b) Where, in connection with the disposition of the premises referred to in headnote 1, the testatrix used the expression 'they are not to be sold,' such expression, when considered in connection with other items of the will and the will in its entirety, was not an attempt to violate the rule against perpetuities or the alienation of property.
2. So much of items 8 and 15 of the will as relates to the duties, or the tenure of office of the executrices, is not a requirement for them to serve in perpetuity, and does not violate or make illegal, void, or against public policy, the right of lease given to the named corporation.
3. As to the realty referred to in headnote 1, there is no restraint in the will on the sale by the life tenants or remaindermen of their respective interests. Each could sell her interest, or could join in conveying the entire fee, subject, in either event, to the right of lease by the named corporation.
This case involves the construction of the will, duly probated, of Hattie Wilson High, who died in 1932. The instrument provided for the payment of debts; for ten special legacies to be paid in cash; for the immediate sale of designated realty on East Hunter Street in the City of Atlanta, the proceeds to be added to such cash as she might leave and to a portion of her life insurance, and to be used to pay debts, taxes, specific bequests, expenses of administration; and for any balance left from this fund to go to her two daughters. The will directed that her real estate be equalized between her two daughters, Hattie May Williams and Dorothy Peteet, taking into consideration what she might have previously deeded to them, and, where less than a fee was bequeathed, in computing the value for equalization purposes the value of the entire fee was to be charged. To her daughter, Dorothy Peteet, the testatrix gave her home at 58 Fifteenth Street, N.E. in the City of Atlanta, and certain other described realty on the same street. She gave certain described realty to one of her granddaughters. Provision was also made for the disposition of a reversionary interest in realty previously deeded to the Atlanta Art Association. A trust fund of $100,000 was established for four designated grandchildren.
To her daughter, Dorothy Peteet, she gave a life interest in property on Carnegie Way and Cone Street, and also a certain Broad Street building which was formerly part of the old store of J. M. High Company. To her daughter, Hattie May Williams, she gave a life interest in property known as 142 Peachtree Street. After the creation of the above life interests, provision was made for the fee to vest in the respective children of the daughters, with additional direction for the vesting of the fee in the event either or both daughters died without issue. As to each of these life interests, provision was made for the sale of the property by the life tenant, but subject to be reinvested and held on the same conditions and limitations and with the same powers. The residuary clause provided for an equal distribution to the two daughters, on the same terms and limitation as those just stated in reference to the life estates in realty granted to each.
The daughters, Hattie May Williams and Dorothy Peteet, were nominated as executrices, with a provision for a succession in the event of the death of either or both.
The portions of the will for which construction and direction were prayed were as follows: Item 8.
Item 15. (After making provision for the executrices):
The executrices, in their petition for construction, named as respondents the two daughters of the testatrix, individually, the four grandchildren, and J. M. High Company. Guardians ad litem were appointed to represent the unborn interested parties as a class. The company in its response claimed, under the terms of the will, an interest in the realty on Whitehall and Hunter Streets, as follows: 'The nature of said estate is best described as a base or determinable fee, but, however described, it is a vested property interest of the kind and character described in the said eighth item of the will.' The daughters and grandchildren in their response denied that J. M. High Company has an interest in the property described in item 8, for the reasons: (a) that it would be void and contrary to law, in that the conditions attempted to be expressed as attaching to any interest are too vague, uncertain, and indefinite; (b) that so to construe it to be an interest would violate the rule against perpetuities; and (c) it would be contrary to public policy to require an estate to be held open in perpetuity. The daughters and grandchildren by amendment prayed that a declaratory judgment, as provided for by the act approved February 12, 1945, Ga.L.1945, p. 137, be granted, and that the rights, duties, and liabilities of the parties be determined.
Following a hearing, the court issued the following decree: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lattimore v. Fisher's Food Shoppe, Inc.
...is that a covenant for perpetual renewals is not forbidden by law and will be enforced by the courts. See, e.g., Williams v. J.M. High Co., 200 Ga. 230, 36 S.E.2d 667 (1946); Hull v. Quanah Pipeline Corp., 574 S.W.2d 610 (Tex.Civ.App.1978); R. Cunningham, W. Stoebuck, and D. Whitman, The La......
-
Chalkley v. Ward, 44252
...Ga. R. Co., 146 Ga. 406, 91 S.E. 471; Georgia Power Co. v. City of Decatur, 179 Ga. 471, 485, 176 S.E. 494; Williams v. J. M. High Co., 200 Ga. 230, 36 S.E.2d 667, 162 A.L.R. 1139; Smith v. Aggregate Supply Co., 214 Ga. 20, 102 S.E.2d 539, where it was held that a provision in a lease that ......
-
Farmer v. Argenta, 69716
...115 Ga.App. 842, 844, 156 S.E.2d 137. In this case the parties have agreed to give the seller a leasehold (see Williams v. J.M. High Co., 200 Ga. 230, 235, 36 S.E.2d 667 for an indefinite time, or a time determinable solely at the seller's pleasure or need. The absence of any provision dete......
-
Fisher v. Parsons
...lease, the lessor may alien or convey the real estate in question, but subject, of course, to the lease.' Williams v. J. M. High Co., 200 Ga. 230, 36 S.E.2d 667, 162 A.L.R. 1139, held that there was no perpetuity growing out of a provision of a will that "[t]he properties on Whitehall and H......