ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

Thompson Bros. Lumber Co., Bledsoe v.

White v. State (Tex. Cr. App.). White v. White (Ky.)...

826

1

(Tex. Civ. App.)..

910

Thompson Bros. Lumber Co. v. Longini (Tex. Civ. App.)..

888

Thompson Bros. Lumber Co. v. Toler (Tex. Civ. App.)..... .1111 Thomson, Thomson's Guardian v. (Ky.)... 658 Thomson's Guardian v. Thomson (Ky.)... 658 Thornton v. Mersereau (Mo. App.)..... 212 Thurmond, Standard v. (Tex. Civ. App.).. 627 Todisman, Mayhew v. (Mo.). 436 Toler, Thompson Bros. Lumber Co. v. (Tex. Civ. App.). .1111 Tracy v. Buchanan (Mo. App.). 747 Trinity Oil Co., Rutlin v. (Tex. Civ. App.) 584 Turner, Burnett v. (Ark.). 249 Turner v. Gibson (Tex.) 793

[ocr errors]

Whiten v. State (Tex. Cr. App.).
Whorton v. State (Tex. Cr. App.).
Wiest, Hawkins v. (Mo. App.).
Wilcox, Riddell v. (Ky.)..
Wilhite v. Huntsville (Mo. App.).
Wilkerson v. State (Ark.).
Wilkin v. Simmons (Tex. Civ. App.).
Wilks, Publishers: George Knapp & Co. v.
(Ark.)
Willard, Employers' Indemnity Co. V.
(Tenn.)

.1182

300

789

25

232

518

Turner v. J. M. Brooks & Sons (Ky.).... 948 Tyson's Adm'x v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. (Ky.)

....1145 280 .1029 Williams, Home Protective Ass'n v. (Ky.) 361 Williams v. Kuykendall (Tex. Civ. App.).. 629 Williams, Packard Piano Co. v. (Mo. Âpp.) 211 Williams, St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. (Ark.)... .243 Williams v. School Dist. No. 5 (Mo. App.) 506 Williams v. State (Ark.)...

404

Williams v. State (Tex. Cr. App.). Williamson v. Harris (Mo. App.).

..

.1011 542 500

[blocks in formation]

Wilroy, Continental Lumber & Tie Co. v. (Tex. Civ. App.)...........

840

[blocks in formation]

Wilson, International Order of Twelve Knights & Daughters of Tabor v. (Tex. Civ. App.). . . .

320

Wilson v. Salisbury (Mo. App.).

194

Vance, Western Union Tel. Co. v. (Tex. Civ. App.).

Wilson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.).

804

904

Wilson v. Ward (Ky.)..

353

Vanderburgh, Byrd v. (Mo. App.).

184

Vidal, Davis v. (Tex.).

290

Wininger, Ft. Worth & D. C. R. Co. v. (Tex. Civ. App.)..

586

[blocks in formation]

Winn v. Kansas City Belt R. Co. (Mo.).. Wood v. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co. (Ky.).............

98

29

Violet v. Purdy (Ky.)........

920

Woods v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)..

296

Wortz v. Ft. Smith Biscuit Co. (Ark.).

691

Wabash R. Co., Mathis v. (Mo.)....

[blocks in formation]

Waddle v. Frazier (Mo.)..

[blocks in formation]

Wagoner v. State (Tex. Cr. App.).

Wald v. Wald (Mo. App.)..

313 Wright, Deposit & Savings Bank v. (Ky.) 679 786 Wright v. Groom (Mo.)..

465

Wales-Riggs Plantations v. Dye (Ark.)...

998

Wright v. State (Ark.).

990

Walker v. Metropolitan St. R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.).

.1142

Wyatt, Chambers v. (Tex. Civ. App.). Wyatt, Pye v. (Tex. Čiv. App.j...

864

.1086

Walker v. State (Tex. Cr. App.).

318

Walker v. State (Tex. Cr. App.).

822

Walkup, Crump v. (Mo.)..

709

[blocks in formation]

Walnut Lake Cypress Co., Alf Bennett

Young v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)..

1046

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Ward, Wilson v. (Ky.)...

Warner v. Michel (Mo. App.).

353 Z. Harrell & Co. v. Danks (Ky.). 159 Zinn v. State (Tex. Cr. App.).

13

[merged small][ocr errors]

REHEARINGS DENIED

[Cases in which rehearings have been denied, without the rendition of a written opinion, since the publication of the original opinions in previous volumes of this Reporter.]

KENTUCKY.

Campbell v. Dotson, 149 S. W. 1129.

Citizens' Bank v. Crittenden Record-Press, 150 S. W. 814.

Forrest v. Winter, 149 S. W. 981.

Royal Neighbors of America v. Hayes, 150 S. W. 845.

Tyler v. First Nat. Bank, 150 S. W. 665.

See End of Index for Tables of Southwestern Cases in State Reports

[blocks in formation]

THE

SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER

VOLUME 151

WHITE v. WHITE.

(Court of Appeals of Kentucky. Dec. 6, 1912.) 1. LANDLORD AND TENANT (§ 232*)-TIMEJUDGMENT for Rent.

Upon recovery of a judgment for an annual rent, each year's rent should bear interest from January 1st following its maturity.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Landlord and Tenant, Cent. Dig. §§ 935-939; Dec.Dig. § 232.*] 2. Appeal and Error (§ 1234*)—SUPERSEDEAS BOND-EFFECT.

Under Civ. Code Prac. § 748, the obligors in a supersedeas bond are expressly made liable for any judgment the Court of Appeals may order to be rendered.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. 88 4761-4777; Dec. Dig. 1234.*]

2. WILLS (8 616*)-CONSTRUCTION-BEQUESTS FOR LIFE WITH POWER OF DISPOSITION.

two houses and lots, to his wife for life, with A testator gave his property, including full power to sell it, or any part thereof, and invest and reinvest the proceeds, and gave one-half of all that might remain at her death in trust for a daughter, during her life, such one-half to include a specified one of the houses and lots to be occupied by her free of charge during her life. It further provided lot without the consent of the daughter and that the trustee should not sell such house and limitation upon the power of the wife to sell her husband. Held, that the will imposed no such house and lot during her lifetime.

[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Wills, Cent. Dig. §§ 1418-1430; Dec. Dig.

616.*]

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Chancery Branch, Second Division. Action between Moses Levy's executrix and others and Mary E. Leeds. From the judgFor former opinion, see 150 Ky. 283, 150 ment, the executrix and others appeal. Re

On petition for rehearing. Petition overruled.

S. W. 388.

HOBSON, C. J. [1] The sum of $500 is fixed in the opinion as the rent of the farm for each year, to be divided between the parties in interest. Each year's rent will bear interest from January 1st following its maturity as fixed in the judgment of the circuit court.

versed and remanded, with directions.

Alfred Selligman and Joseph Selligman, both of Louisville. for appellants. Harrison & Harrison and James S. Pirtle, all of Louisville, for appellee.

NUNN, J. This appeal is from a judgment of the second division of the chancery branch of the Jefferson circuit court, con

[2] By the terms of the supersedeas bond the obligors therein are liable for any judg-struing the will of Moses Levy. The case ment this court may order to be rendered. See Civil Code, § 748; also original opinion in White v. White, 150 Ky. 283, 150 S. W. 388.

Petition overruled.

LEVY'S EX'X et al. v. LEEDS.† (Court of Appeals of Kentucky. Dec. 5, 1912.)

was tried upon an agreed state of facts, which shows, among other things, that in 1902 Moses Levy owned a large estate, consisting of both real and personal property; that he made a will on that date; that he died leaving surviving him Henrietta Levy, his wife, and two children, a son, Frederick Levy, and a daughter, Lena, who married Emil S. Tachau; that he owned two lots fronting on First street in the city of Louisville; that during the lifetime of Moses Levy he, his wife and son, resided in one of these A testator's intention must be gathered, houses, and his daughter and her husband not only from the instrument itself, but from resided in the other. In the first clause of his relation to the parties in interest, the fam- his will he directed that his debts be paid, ily arrangements, and circumstances surrounding him; and in ascertaining the intention the and made many special bequests to charlanguage of the will may sometimes be chang-itable institutions. In the seventh clause ed, words discarded as surplusage, or other thereof he provided as follows: words supplied, and words and sentences transposed.

1. WILLS (8 441*) -CONSTRUCTION-ASCERTAINING INTENTION.

"(7) All the rest and residue of my estate

[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Wills, Cent. of every kind and wherever situated I give Dig. 958; Dec. Dig. § 441.*] and bequeath and devise to my beloved (wife)

For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes

Henrietta Levy, for and during her life, with full and complete power and authority to her, to sell, dispose of, convey, invest and reinvest the same, or any part thereof, or the proceeds thereof from time to time as she may deem proper, the proceeds in such case to be held and controlled by her upon the same terms and conditions and with the same powers and authority as the original estate under this will, but no purchaser or purchasers from my wife shall be required to look to the application, investment or reinvestment of said proceeds or any part thereof.

"I further authorize and empower my said wife in her discretion to loan or advance to my son, Frederick Levy, from time to time so as to enable him to continue or go into business, such sum or sums as in her judgment will not in the aggregate exceed one-half of what will be said Frederick's share of said residuary estate under the provisions of this will at the time of my wife's death. Said Frederick shall execute his promissory note or notes to my wife as executrix of this will for the amount of such loans or advancements payable at such time or times as she may direct and bearing interest from their date at five per cent. per annum payable at such intervals as she may direct, and he shall be charged with such loans or advancements in the final division of my residuary estate under this will.

ing the house and lot allotted my son Frederick as above on the north beginning [here follows description] which house and lot my said daughter shall be permitted during her life to occupy as a home free of charge. Said trustee shall have the duties, rights and powers concerning said trust estate hereinafter set forth," etc.

The will further provided that the trust company could not sell this house and lot situated on First street without the written consent of Lena Tachau and her husband, Emil S. Tachau.

It

After the will was probated, the widow and two children joined in a deed conveying the two houses and lots situated on First street to Mary E. Leeds for the consideration of $12,000. Mrs. Leeds took possession of them, and has rented them out, collected the rents, paid the taxes and other charges thereon from that time to the present. appears that Mrs. Leeds arrived at the conclusion that the will did not give Henrietta Levy, as executrix of her husband's will, the right nor power to sell the house and lot occupied by Lena Tachau; that she could not, therefore, pass a fee-simple title to it, as the husband of Lena Tachau did not join in the And it was for the settlement of this quesconveyance nor give his written consent. tion that the parties agreed upon the facts and presented them to the lower court for settlement, as required by the Code. There is no question about the title being in Mrs. Leeds to the place occupied by Moses Levy and his wife during his life, which was also the place Frederick Levy was to get under certain contingencies named in the will. The

Did a fee-simple title pass to Mrs. Leeds by the deed of the widow, Henrietta Levy, in her own right and as executrix of the will of her husband? If it did, the judgment must be reversed; if it did not, the judgment must be affirmed. To settle this question we must ascertain the intention of the testator from the entire will.

"I give, bequeath and devise all that may remain at the death of my wife of my estate given and devised by this clause to her as follows, to wit: One-half thereof I give and devise to my son, Frederick Levy, sub-only question for this court to consider is: ject to a charge for such sum or sums as may have been loaned or advanced to him as herein before authorized and remain unpaid at the time of her death, and in allotting such one-half to my son Frederick there shall be included therein as part thereof the house and lot now occupied by me as a residence, the same lying on the west side of First street in Louisville, Ky., beginning at a point. [Here follows description.] The other one-half of my estate given and devised to my wife by this clause and remaining at the time of her death I give and devise to the Fidelity Trust & Safety Vault Co. of Louisville, Ky., as trustee and in trust for my daughter, Lena Tachau, for and during her life, with remainder over upon my said daughter's death as hereinafter set forth.

"Said trustee shall pay the income of said one-half in quarterly-yearly installments to my said daughter, Lena, during her life and her receipts shall be sufficient evidence of the payment thereof to her. In allotting said one-half share as aforesaid, to said trustee, there shall be included therein as part thereof a house and lot now occupied by said Emil S. Tachau and Lena Tachau as a home, the same lying on the west side of First street in

[1] Appellee's counsel contend that the intention of the testator must be gathered from the instrument itself, as well as from the relation of the testator to the parties in interest, the family arrangements, and the circumstances which surrounded the testator at the time he made the will, and that, in order to ascertain his intention, it is sometimes permissible to change the language of the will, to discard words as surplusage when they appear to be without meaning as used, to supply words, to transpose words and sentences, and many authorities are cited to support this contention, among them being Buschemeyer v. Klein, 139 Ky. 124, 129 S. W. 551. This is the correct rule in the construction of wills; therefore appellee's counsel claim that the following language, "which house and lot my said daughter shall be permitted during her life to occupy as a home

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »