Joiner v. Joiner

Stephens, J., delivered the opinion of the court. «Mí 8B ,aíliw «.«irní&íioo m íbíü si il .r^KiuomsIo ycúifl iy construing the will and codicil ox J. P. Joiner, ,d.ej- ai«oNa!2r wife’ .ÉgMMmBWoteíii-hF§«& Is9mk }®iF4tste3f,<PpmeF;>4EJ«airiis «%Ms§doí^? osMmMip i P|i %ii Wff Holly Grove Plantation and,M^a knd 41) WbiiiW -ííEv sjytm JC.ÍU <{■•! axunitu. xk>\>x jvj ?-v>idí.jLi»Uü».?» tu siy>jj *&isíM^w^I m wfcsfto £?á¿ M. M? vd bevo lam os «*/ ..+ml i oq bu gini 1 iaJlA<.* JAA^XA.IZ JUjJUJ r/JJi, MO'JUWUJJ*. O t OMiV ' .< 1AA J .«VJ síi w^bMimssm m&fmpmm «*% apjsuwjm m w^»nw»»Mí A» tafeáis #s« wwtim ■zaffli&'h níi4e» M rntrn w» I^o&SPo^ •if'Vi i\jj¡.iíjcjííj -tt.ua liajuumwxjf) xxiw iityllkW ííüai:Mf\?&/K>.£> Xujjlj jl ml 1 l i “Item 2. .1 hereby give, devise and bequeath, -to my -¶ i n -v -y • -r — v ,t T** iT rt 11 ''J/il Jit li. ■ ,Jeal hm MiphUi^r -a - Umi*,««.<>um wm> sMtiptf acres, said land being that bought troñi PereyaJtay.qnd — 515 — iwáif'ts; \tteíoIí6r^es? ivía3go:qsíx'aról ofá¥H&n^«ámpd% ita>eid^ÍÍBÍiBdaot .allshf Íke>^.fera®uailpj@peiítiy wwvcxarisaid. pjkeeofi a’lcfieJ (ObiaynnnB tboo: yo Jo, ,301915 yind iuorií? “Item 3. I give, devise and bequeath fiajííüwiasiM ¡üeaíhe^iJoined, í®B?'©l .ihm m^sttefíl1 andipfer-soiiaidqarapwit^. uádffi$fepd9f^3befe¿nin.í6 ^rbiudO X .1» ”i<»‘ ^ííáippeiiiii ^s:>fihpcntDhOofd'thM w-Sbcmiy d>feilay©díswM-£Í NfesmH ^thuJoiHfflqñaiíd ibie^efepj;efe^ríb@ir im&$ gávéhg am^ibokd:teg®kdi^k«G|i±ríi|x.r9íss ^ílsrrpo o'isia ot ,iqqra ‘ ‘JnHBsfinpsicsQi^Meetf^íIa%B:eo^i®Me<|fJ |®M»led'.sí5f¿d de<dahed8fHHíjn^taí.ngifintvasinIy !la8ts'#4l ¡ag^ jtqstaltíént ifívsaiddcopmtyd thtóMhe rdSfeh ídapcoífaiEehfiíhr^-ílfrM) e'úf WdtnessqM;8í l¥'ffi^rjthfe)''tbftd«fl§|ngili Mtnfes^qrkblií by sign as subscribing vutfies^ds^iabrft^.'tBbbttestRjíf ¿íhl abovemamfedJíest'ator, J. P. Joiner, and have signed in yd'noii ^aasgontiw bgngrsmbíro odi ,dW JaJ&aJiOiicWiU hiid piEeséneepíandíÉte in QBEr^faaiftval^nrditb@ííp?naencq'g|£ eáchoí(¿heB.vBíí bus ,;n>nroT, /I .1, ,"xoisiaei bomart-ovodn NdM'tóse-fttíeolBtMdájy fofeipehnEaijyfííISItfe feímoao‘íq gixi .dlQí Al .A /lodoirA') to xsih ,tal.2 oiflGfej®. nsnasA& dl ,A“ ■ '“A. F. G-abdNeb.” , “LáhfeAÜiMaáS. Jffiátament of J. P, Joiner, Deceased, ©odicMfi ííiw' iBirrgho adt iti ladi iaovioado ad Ifiw il ;-iírU, J¡;:)PíqJainerf¡íqfí'Dqflo'aié’ cbuu%>, Miss&s®i|xpb h®ite¿ of csünxídíaifdidisp:o singeáiiafcl, aiMfe®yhríthí®í agelBlstweifty? ©neifeairs^rsfídqdssiMílg Í6f:)hpakin¿,iaKeo0icflíb.rtojdihe .yróifi Ndketpfqteírgseíaitfdb!^ fi®®- qnrtth© -ikS4hsíi0Í9'F®MiluÍ^;,5 lí$l5fi$&oma]íd, |calflishoiái(jiTdei!la'ife'xftis1<2ofli'ciIqt©lbsáád last will and testament of said date, to witevna -joAJasi 'io'íItiffi.iiO^tndíI ^«bipbani fesis^niáife) uésidéntíe láhd grblmdis htteched" therétoujandaiofeíocéupie&íb^ lme- and ^ya^lbriM! Hk8oF<P oobntyy'oMfssfssippi, y donsifciingi e# s0h§e,3>$ftte| (S®<^teíc^r.eÉ,.áÍo3i%3iaád'atófe5/i Mark? Madihi StrÉ^JoiñMe^fnwía isort to in tmaxs ydjot io gmiaia “Item Two.n I desire to change, ahdqJpidtweiB^ ehasag© — 516 — give and devise to my said son, Dorsey Joiner, what is known as the R. L. Portwood place, consisting of about forty acres, at"or near Sunnyside, Leflore county, Mississippi. “Item Three. I hereby give and devise to my nephew, J. J. Church, and my nephew, Ben L. Joiner, what is known as the Lower Holly Grove place, consisting of about seven hundred acres, in Leflore county, Mississippi, to share equally, said property being that heretofore devised by me to my said son, Dorsey Joiner; “In witness whereof, I have signed, published and declared this instrument as a codicil to my last will testament, dated the 18th of February, 1915, on this the 21st day of October, A. D. 1915. J. P. JOINER. “Witnesses: We, the undersigned witnesses, hereby, sign as subscribing witnesses, at the request of the above-named testator, J. P. Joiner, and have, signed in his presence, and he in ours, and all in the presence of each other, this the 21st day of October, A. D. 1935. ° . “A. F. GARDNER. “R. C. McBee.” It will be observed that in the original will the testator disposes of all of his personal property. The codicil makes no reference whatever to personal property. In item 3 of the original will appellant is given “all the remainder of my real and personal property not disposed of herein.” In item 2 of the codicil the testator says: “I desire to change and do hereby change item 3 of my said last will and testament . . . and in lieu thereof hereby give and devise to my said son, Dorsey Joiner what is known as the R. L. Portwood place, consisting of forty acres at or near Sunnyside, Leflore county, Mississippi.” Appellee, the widow, filed her petition, asking for a construction of the will and codicil and particulárly item — 517 — 2 of the codicil, and claims that as to the personal property bequeathed in item 3 of the will the testator died intestate, or, in other words, that item 2 of the codicil revokes the devise of the personalty as originally made in item 3 of the will. Appellant answered the petition, taking issue with Mrs. Joiner upon her construction of the will, and contending that the will and codicil should he so construed as to prevent a. partial intestacy as to the personal property bequeathed in item 3 of the original will, and that the primary object and purpose of item 2 of the codicil is simply to alter the devise of real estate. The primary question, then, for decision is whether J. P. Joiner died intestate as to the personal estate bequeathed in item 3 of the will. The chancellor ruled that the codicil revoked the devise of the personalty to appellant, and that as to said personalty J. P. Joiner died intestate, and the same descended to his heirs at law. In construing the will and codicil, it is the duty of the court to ascertain the controlling intention of the testator; and, in arriving at the testator’s intention, effect should be given as far as possible to all the provisions of the will and codicil, read as one document. A devise contained in the will should not be upset unless the words employed in the codicil show a manifest intention to revoke the gift contained in the will, or unless such intention to revoke is necessarily inferable from the words of the codicil. In the present case appellant is the only son, is one of the two heirs, and the natural object of testator’s bounty. In the original will, the son by item 3 was made the residuary legatee and devisee of both personal and real estate. The testator had two nephews, neither of whom is mentioned in the original will. It appears that the codicil serves more than one purpose in this case. By item 1 of the codicil the mansion house of the testator is devised to his wife. By item 3 the Lower Holly Grove plantation, — 518 — ©|®¥Ísii4e^«C)iqaítótit)fe®i65elsi[haíi¿@á> átOTesfrModBvá^dotb Sfeé&tw^ote^liéflíái, i&wJsxOMsrdSi ;&»# BéxfjMl'IWp.srf. v$3© i«f>dk<P#cl®iB ctosdgeteí Ae¡ stei(gffliab#¿llj:ikat) tÍDáfctwithi-AífeíTái^Ktissi.'iBliiéS opl§8íO¥ntfei^vKfe& jbaMNSbe náily»ñí®<ei:W (áaái^éÉatraá) á>asa^B^fcffilI^|<|Éem.IKv0fej(£BLeí®dSMWt: im bnKfMgM@nt>itftei sí@£pfi(jaaít£<tíiafe‘JtHfe iéséato*¡cdo;es;á©.t Mfynín. Iftófe>!2 tefe tiév/cQdici]0ít]ia®r.tteTír!'e®®k6stát@rf¿;vV'3si(!)f efele'íi’oj^gáMtewiiríiííSi® Matempntl m: Mtf'ffladssir© &ó díángeítiiiS} dbokfetóeliy fetoáfag^iiéá^iS^o'^ÍTÍelEogteps)!^ laidíabf'ííe^ufe.sél Jfi@¿íi®.pp®lteéicppail tMi laingujúgw' ‘Mkl lí@a 1b¿é?£S¿@lB’0ííIti-áMBcolit'el3|te(J tháitMIMso&ngnkgeois ^am>iamií:)iiH]a¿hbig‘aéiis,fíaÍBÍ9til2at''ifk.e;íixajrti)afírar .d'évfe® itála^SasI) feéIVillíH'Ifi)4kii(5cSaiifeeai¡ioai is9dtem%>tlieiif>tlie -festatefr tMüM b®íH3Eák©rffis|»3Dálti«rLBfi:y)s pdístail jKíbp-.éítyy ^¿ftnaap®ftikl£;áaééstec^:i5#á fcaodjieadfeqiffei isí aiSfe-g¡elh®í BMprPtotteoflfliat éHé l®s'iaí®b?Bfeyi'iiliiá)ü¿Mixálíi®ár tended to revoke Ms gift of personalty to M&sfecte. ¡j'ffibé intrddtctoí'y ^láñs^iíbBotk&íW'iMrdeeHír^aftMfaatke nflés-tótoMsat<flssftra'u@iiKÍÍmá]smg raijw'ftlidltyawMek tb’cdisp©íáfe ,®f>ÍMyi‘i®ár.tMyí jptesá essíénsíi ’ -gifDtíertesáátofcrstanteidí i oaat fo’offlqlcedá Inlbknfliñoiffliíf lete:ídfepnsétiroirg @fí Bs/ptfo^erBya In MssomgMJalswiilpliEefaies'OlpId.ifeMdjiMdirffiSBitt lo ancla aSiOSie Jesspi isdntto'^jfim4t idíffifflaltypibijtnBíJ'íeon.S'trMníg •iáieféofcSbitfí‘mHM feib^nsteiiediafesaoliKDt) of jila® wáH -toi’wMcIllife' BaíátiácBedíwteréo MgcMiijt gMms. oüneéfiioi. áMdMBád^kmBsaddittónsdrvsnpptemeñM'átaia rfeidlí, and, -iplemiáttnsfcaftf' ewáítaáii ikpfoesss#oMsf)o6\vre¿ócaiíáo)'ii aj^EoaibJmiísaiai'fe'iesiSfcilg aroHls/ jifeodo-@fe®.otítv©írkn-aiírq-hs®íégiiffli,od±cepíf toyfibecjt‘eeíse4egi¿eiit*ttii£É>ífJife) iátention •c^dliec'testáteK adJifefojffipHMmédM&Ü qdpn^sedifinjffite rffficiloisii^éeoneñaMd.emdié^coüssiktEaatovratfcMñiiÉtáafen!'-iiwíMairfcíliiíásíteéíH: fepasgji&ied jBMérybesforít ■'shoarM lbHbmaéá}téniée©nK2Ílfq.álM[ prBMsfimágófo allüthé s#iñaa.g& ¡amé; t^TgivEBíefleMJtol kkeH|;unp,ot©í spHéfeo’wMh aB.o&espjr£feiaonptotálife fHÜilxHsaparlsiof'.stíieasaníé £bstei)-taoíísj'aj3fq ovoaB yílolí towqJ exit 8 motó \ñ .g'iiw aid — 519 — 1 Apkoif .i§ ®ag%34% i'Uw YJ rfoMw od<‘íft i§,riw,§ll.í5§#tíeid sfefc# •ambi^qig-i tgrpts :ip ftsifnii ^^^t>^b^r|P6yi^e<|3d?»a#SIÍ doi^qbyíi^mijgp^Fs hp^r Qii mc^^ííá&W^geaS^i^ eodieit.^ 9X{j sj^naoi ^{.h) si bren '■qfefSv^P&^fias.ejsw^vMieygvNS ¿bjf ft^eíVftfit mefttMSf EuléSodoí iWÍ^X^loedia^drítMtHÍ^ií.!- %§@Stjus m jfcft ^#^-yb5|: $t0^ik© reppphfilGíl {^a]f>Á^)WS£>!?Éí3% i fifi #£ e$$i®jl isro¿ri¿^y AfiiV^'0 evSbfiíMo^4r^ttf>gdÍfee%<M't ÍS jppfe, ’ ífi mdify/)£liai*ger; 0^£al,f§^)tlplílfigffiAbWjlfe:}OTd ;%t a codicil r^ajp.rps^andi:fegii^li§;hg§(dhgr[w-jfl. r., ¿uad will ar^ppstra'e^/tog^t|i&Pf-|a|1-,,qji§}jp^flip9?li':aiQ(i. in =therAgfet ,<¿ these ¡,i?nle§sg|.^gngtruRtio^«t1.^9u|dfd^ pear in*^..gasg, ;a,t the GOidi<gl .gy$s. t©--. d^^t%-?aPpeila^)-^-| sppcjg#)f$rty /appe?f;of (iiprd iin¿li.§p , .gf ja <gqngjgl padeapilp r^iduag^iiiags^rt iM^iPE’jfií ..iOTJ ■c,ou3&;-ip Dli&(xi&6:6 qq Ivifiss^, d(^6jj.{1> /that: lM§§&r#¥ 4^§ix%«te49#t5?rA%. ^dpg must be equally clear and explicit in order to wqjjk^ •*^191$%$' r id' f'',,L«.fvIo r iobm ‘úoá.añ lo irfuh.oñT1* wiéígiite &?f fell Clll LllfcJ tdi5v6 d-cílfefe» ,. ill dxxiictxx .fell V Y H-iwj « v fe-l*. _l p 179 it is said- :bmr Glií 0R,1,) hull -ul- ¿MkWimf, hef/> oeíírf-Awñ'Sgfft^isÁlNllt fe >^['f88*“^n ft'^^sKcwlSíWV^MÍi laíif; esfatAwáidde^iWdrt$ M te^^í’^ffiaí-mviáe•lid^p^e^l' '|iwfe?,Í8y4‘5-í¥r life, '#itáfiaHei'iíativb-íííoiSiilg’éAtí¥eÁ!á5ndb¥^ Aifi h^fb^iid-ren and her coll3tJé9a?Krl®áftid;nfá5^%Éti(íf^f¿M^df>0Á?&''^í& :héld aidilMfl dpttliheuffegis'infeteá'dr'xjíltlígi dte^ise éff'Tthe f'theüsddieil^ií — 520 — posing of the ultimate fee. And where a trust fund, which by will was given to the children of A. living at a stated period, with a power of advancement in the .trustees, was by codicil ‘in lieu of such disposition’ given to the children of A. living at a different period, and in other respects the will was confirmed, it was held that the power of advancement was not revoked.” Under this authority the expression “in lieu thereof” may or may not mean the total substitution according to the circumstances and the other language employed. iSee, also, on this point Schouler on Wills, vol. 1, par. 437; Theobald on Wills (7th Ed.), p. 750. And in Underhill on Wills, vol. 1, par. 251, it is said: “The provisions of the later will or codicils will prevail over those of the former, but only so far as they are inconsistent and irreconcilable with them.” A case in point is In re Estate of Chas. Sigel, Deceased, 213 Pa. 14; 62 Atl. 175, 1 L. R. A. (N.S.) 397, 110 Am. St. Rep. 515, holding as indicated by the headnotes: “A gift once made by will is not to be cut down by a subsequent codicil, unless the intention of the testator to that effect appears clearly or by necessary implication. “The right of an heir under a clause in a will directing the residue to be divided between testator’s heirs is not cut down by a subsequent codicil giving him a specific legacy, ‘and no more.’ ” In that ease the codicil read: “I give to my sister, Matilda Sigel, of Kirchheim, .Germany, Mary Schmidt, of East Orange, N. J., and Mary Schudt, of West Seneca, N. Y., each one thousand ($1,000) dollars, and to Gus Schudt, my nephew, two thousand ($2,000) dollars, and no more.” The court by Pottbe, J., among other things, said: “All three legatees were heirs at law of the testator, and, in the absence of the codicil, would have been en — 521 — titled to share in the distribution of his estate under the residuary clause of his will. . . . Appellant claims that this construction of the will is erroneous, and that, by the use of the words ‘and no more’ in the codicil, the testator expressed his intention that the amounts there given should be all that the legatees named should receive, and that the residue of his estate should he divided among his remaining heirs, to the exclusion of the three named in the codicil. In such a case as this, where a will and codicil are to he construed, the rule is well settled that they must he regarded as parts of one and the same instrument, and that the codicil is not to be allowed to vary or modify the will, unless such was the'plain and manifest intention of the testator. ... We cannot accept the view that the words ‘and no more’ in the codicil clearly and necessarily apply to the provisions of the will and cut down the gift there made. To apply them only in limitation of the amounts named in the codicil as additional gifts seems to us quite as much in line with the probable intention of the testator as the other suggestion.” Within the spirit of the authorities mentioned, we can safely paraphrase the language of the testator in item 2 of the codicil as follows: ‘ ‘ I desire to alter item 3 of the original will by making a specific devise of real estate in place of the general devise to my son in the original will, and in lieu of the disposition made of the remainder of my real estate in item 3 I hereby devise to my son the Portwood place, consisting of about forty acres,” etc. So understood, the codicil leaves intact the disposition which the testator made of his personalty, prevents a partial intestacy, and accomplishes the primary purpose indicated by the testator in the introductory clause of his will; that is, of making full disposition of all his earthly possessions. The personal property was clearly disposed of by the will. It is nowhere disposed of by the — 522 — ewákáfe, o3S3ffiat,aifiem^ dMrttoe'itesftiat©* mteMoShotildldite» c5Máií©f{jít? . To upMóM ttíef eteteatioro of;/app:ellee gMj' ímtBfcíb^rsaidí tHáfr tía# tkstatdia revoked /tíaíé ¡Mi^ositikrlo tífefi'^acwétiltto^nO'O'íí'e^fíTMd’tcfe; taiMyjisí'hoitdilieoiesuttí'wlñote-ke'pEDtexided-’-tíy amdómjpliMlí» Tliei^aíeraili rtileboi! Uoi$slrfi’étó:o¿f: isoflmf t 5 aiifeleaxogiifci catato* tfél latoidtew® b|B dnjB tabsQqutataxwtadsf''. Ttafessu thdy sliosriia'íi ^qáallyííQteaifííipiteiitíioai.&b biiHfr rmJMwis?a Jspjfauty Üi®8 J^yÜb83.aiíW«t oraiP®tíTtli'6}'tptegéii't<cas'eidii¿ii'tí> tHe>-r^éi®g^:'o©dnída®iíigSí®£>{tíi&íaí)dS.cil áiriítilwa;pí-‘fo %allw> b'0'th.í>s¡felBj®Hds4offitiit tp'-íitkMé:déíÍB'{ít:,b'ia'nd9'by»°eo')id'©iíi^'i fi'iiEf aifd}fef£e^uat'efttiie'íl6G'l'aií6'dáaiteiitioii,::of -the £festat®»ij MasmlftM, ^bsmtotpvi’!Mmdiki)y'&&yMi ¿MEq. 3-2&I diTl®s)íd@®teé reV'éráed) aMntherídaá^eí*6mtardBd\ »W . . . .loísiaoi «BflUaapa»