Wintermute v. Heinly
| Decision Date | 17 October 1890 |
| Citation | 81 Iowa 169,47 N.W. 66 |
| Parties | WINTERMUTE v. HEINLY. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Muscatine county; A. HOWAL, Judge.
Action in chancery for the construction of a will. A demurrer to the petition was sustained. Plaintiff appeals.Richmon & Burke and E. F. Richmon, for appellant.
J. H. Monroe and Jayne & Hoffman, for appellee.
1. The petition alleges that plaintiff is an heir, devisee, and legatee of Joseph Heinly, her deceased father. She sets out a copy of the will, which, she alleges, is uncertain and ambiguous in its provisions, and doubtful as to its interpretation. The will is shown to contain divers devises and bequests to testator's heirs, but provides that the executor, who is made a defendant, shall hold the share of one of the heirs in trust, and that the entire income of the estate be paid to testator's wife; and that the devises and bequests take effect at the expiration of 10 years after the testator's death. The provisions of the will need not be further recited. It is alleged in the petition that the executor has advanced divers sums of money to certain heirs and devisees. The relief prayed for is that the will be construed if it be found valid as to plaintiff's interest, and, if found so uncertain and ambiguous that the testator's intentions cannot be discovered, it be set aside; and, if the will be supported, it is prayed that the executor be required to account for moneys paid by him, and that he be required to show what sums are due to plaintiff, and be required to pay the same. General equitable relief is also prayed for in the petition.
2. In a case quite like in its facts to the one before us this court has construed a will in an action brought by heirs, legatees, and devisees. Howard v. Smith, 78 Iowa, 74, 42 N. W. Rep. 585. That parties so interested in an estate may maintain such an action is recognized by other authorities. Wager v. Wager, 89 N. Y. 161; 1 Williams, Ex'rs, 294; 6 Wait, Act. & Def. 381; 3 Wait, Act. & Def. 146. Two New York and two Ohio decisions are cited to support a different rule. We think they are not in conflict with the rule recognized by this court. See Bailey v. Briggs, 56 N. Y. 407;Chipman v. Montgomery, 63 N. Y. 221;Corry v. Fleming, 29 Ohio St. 147;Bowen v. Bowen, 38 Ohio St. 426.
3. It will be observed that plaintiff is interested in the property of the estate as a devisee, legatee, or heir; that the executor has paid money of the estate to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Wilson v. Northern Pacific Railway Company, a Corporation
-
Wright v. Copeland
...its meaning cannot be determined it is held to be void. Roberts v. Roberts, 231 Iowa 394, 400, 1 N.W.2d 269, 272; Wintermute v. Heinly, 81 Iowa 169, 47 N.W. 66. Where the language of a will is such that interested parties may have reasonable doubts as to its true construction we have said s......
- Wright v. Copeland
- Wilson v. N. Pac. Ry. Co.