Yott v. Yott

• Decision Date: 08 December 1914
• Docket Number: No. 9520.,9520.
• Citation: 265 Ill. 364,106 N.E. 959
• Parties: YOTT et al. v. YOTT et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

265 Ill. 364

106 N.E. 959

YOTT et al.

v.YOTT et al.

No. 9520.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 16, 1914.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 8, 1914.

Error to Circuit Court, Cook County; Jesse A. Baldwin, Judge.

Bill by Henry Yott and others against Eliza Yott and others. The bill having been dismissed for want of equity, plaintiffs bring error. Affirmed.James R. Ward, of Chicago, for plaintiffs in error.

Winston, Payne, Strawn & Shaw, of Chicago (John Barton Payne, Edward W. Everett, and R. S. Tuthill, Jr., all of Chicago, of counsel), for defendants in error.

DUNN, J.

The plaintiffs in error filed a bill to set aside the probate of the will of Francis Yott, whose heirs they were, on the ground that the will was abrogated and revoked by subsequent conveyances of all his real and personal estate, leaving nothing for the will to operate upon. The cause was submitted to the court, and this writ of error is prosecuted to review the decree, which dismissed the bill for want of equity.

The will devised and bequeathed all of the real and personal property of the testator to persons who were not related to him by blood. The subsequent conveyances transfered the title of all his property for the benefit of the same persons, but upon different limitations. These persons were defendants to the bill. The testator left no widow, descendant, or parent, and the complainants are his next of kin, who take nothing under either the will or the subsequent conveyances. Section 17 of the Statute of Wills, provides that:

‘No will, testament or codicil shall be revoked, otherwise than by burning, canceling, tearing or obliterating the same, by the testator himself, or in his presence, by his direction and consent, or by some other will, testament or codicil in writing, declaring the same, signed by the testator or testatrix, in the presence of two or more witnesses, and by them attested in his or her presence; and no word spoken shall revoke or annual any will, testament or codicil in writing, executed as aforesaid, in due form of law.’

The contention of the plaintiffs in error is that by the common law a will may be revoked and abrogated by implication by a conveyance of the property affected in the testator's lifetime, and that this rule is not abrogated by the section of the statute cited. Plaintiffs in error are not, however, in a position to raise this question. Section 7 of the Statute of Wills authorizes any person interested to contest the validity of the probate of any will. It is only by virtue of this section that the heirs of a decedent may institute such a contest. They are persons interested, because if the will were not valid they would inherit the estate. If, however, the will is invalid only because it has been revoked by a subsequent valid conveyance of the property involved, the heirs are not interested, because they would not inherit the estate, even with the will out of their way, but the property would go to the grantees in the conveyance. It is only upon the theory that the subsequent conveyances were invalid that the heirs could have any interest in the estate, and the plaintiffs in error averred their invalidity.

The cause was heard upon an amended bill, answer, replication, and evidence produced in open court. In both the original and amended bills the mental incapacity of the testator and the undue influence of Eliza Yott, one of the beneficiaries under the will and one of the grantees in the conveyances, was averred both at the time of the execution of the will and at the time of the execution of the conveyances, and it was averred that by reason of such mental incapacity and undue influence all of the instruments were invalid. The answer denied the mental incapacity of Francis Yott and the undue influence of Eliza Yott, and alleged that both the will and the...