Cochran v. Cochran

95 S.W. 731, 43 Tex. Civ. App. 259, 1906 Tex. App. LEXIS 64
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 17, 1906
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 95 S.W. 731 (Cochran v. Cochran) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cochran v. Cochran, 95 S.W. 731, 43 Tex. Civ. App. 259, 1906 Tex. App. LEXIS 64 (Tex. Ct. App. 1906).

Opinion

PLEASANTS, Associate Justice.

This suit was brought by W. B. Cochran, executor of the will of Mrs. C. E. Cochran, deceased, for the construction of the will and the partition of the property therein bequeathed. The beneficiaries named in the will who were living, and the heirs of those who had died subsequent to the death of the testator were made parties defendant.

*261 The facts disclosed by the evidence are as follows: On October 15, 1895, Mrs. C. E. Cochran executed a will in which she disposed of her property in the following manner:

"As life is uncertain and death is sure I feel it my duty as well as a privilege to write what I want done with what I leave, money or land, or stock of any kind. I want what I have to be equally divided between my five children, namely: Virgil E. Cochran, Mary Eanny Cain,
William Bannister Cochran, Benjamin F. B. Cochran, L. L. Cochran. I want Loneous L. Cochran to give bond for the amount he gets. I want his part for him for his life, and at his death, if he dies without lawful children, I want his part paid to my two grandchildren, Belle W-Cochran, Willie Cochran, D. J. Cochran’s children.”

After the execution of this will L. L. Cochran became indebted to his mother at various times and in various amounts, the aggregate of such indebtedness remaining unpaid at the death of Mrs. Cochran being $2,079.

Mrs. Cochran died in August, 1901, and the will above mentioned was thereafter duly probated in the County Court of Fort Bend County. W. B. Cochran was named in the will as executor, and had qualified as such before bringing this suit.

L. L.' Cochran died in August, 1903, leaving a will which has been duly probated, and by which all of his estate was devised to his wife, Zora Cochran. He died without issue, no children having ever been born to him. After the death of his mother he and his wife, Zora Cochran, adopted as their heir a minor named Fred Cochran, who was one of the defendants in the court below.

The defendants Belle W. and Willie D. Cochran answered claiming as remaindermen one-fifth of the entire estate free from the debts of L. L. Cochran, the life tenant.

The firm of Bussell & Williamson intervened in the suit claiming by purchase an undivided one-fourth of the interest of Belle and Willie Cochran in the estate, and asking that their interest be protected by the judgment.

Mrs. Zora Cochran answered and asserted title to the one-fifth interest in the estate devised by the will to L. L. Cochran. She also pleaded the statute of limitations in bar of the claims asserted against her testator, L. L. Cochran.

Fred Cochran, by his guardian ad litem,, filed an answer adopting as his own the answer of Mrs. Zora Cochran.

The court below held that the defendants Belle and Willie Cochran were entitled under the terms of the will to a one-fifth interest in. the estate, but that such interest should be charged with the debt due the estate by L. L. Cochran. Each of the four remaining children of Mrs. Cochran named in the will were decreed to be entitled to one-fifth of the estate, and each was charged with the amounts due by him to the estate. The interest of the interveners in the portion of the estate decreed to Belle and Willie Cochran was established. Mrs. Zora Cochran and the minor, Fred Cochran, were adjudged to have no interest in the estate. All of the property of the estate was ordered partitioned in accordance with the terms of the decree as above indicated, and commissioners of partition were appointed.

*262 Belle and Willie Cochran and Russell & Williamson have appealed jointly from this judgment.

Mrs. Zora Cochran has also appealed, her appeal being against all of the other parties to the judgment.

We will first dispose of the questions presented by the brief of Mrs. Zora Cochran. Her contentions are:

1. That the will of Mrs. C. E. Cochran bequeathed to L. L. Cochran in fee a one-fifth interest in the estate of the testator, and the subsequent provision of the will directing that he give bond for his portion, and declaring that she wants his part for him for life, and at his death, if he dies without lawful children, she wants it paid to her grandchildren, Belle and Willie Cochran, are too indefinite and uncertain' to reduce the estate in fee, given him in the previous clause of the will, to a life estate.
2. That under the express terms of the will, the estate bequeathed L. L. Cochran would revert to Belle and Willie Cochran only in event he died without lawful children, and the adoption by him of the minor, Fred Cochran, as his heir, constituted said minor a lawful child of L. L. Cochran as that term is used in the will, and therefore the contingency, which by the terms of the will would defeat the estate in remainder, occurred, and L. L. Cochran took a fee simple estate in the devised property.

She further contends that, in any event, she was entitled, as the sole devisee of L.L. Cochran, to one-fifth of all the net income of the estate which accrued after the death of Mrs. C. E. Cochran, and that her interest in such income could not be offset by debts due the estate by L. L. Cochran which were barred at the time this suit was brought.

We can not agree to the soundness of either the first or second of these contentions. While the language used by Mrs. C. E. Cochran to express her desires as to the disposition of her property is not well chosen, we think, when the paragraph of the will above set out is considered in its entirety, that it was clearly her intention to give L. L. Cochran only a life interest in one-fifth of her estate, with remainder to her grandchildren, Belle and Willie Cochran, in event L. L. Cochran died without lawful issue. The statement that she désires her estate to be equally divided between her five named children, if standing alone, would be construed to vest a fee simple interest to an equal one-fifth of the estate in each of said children; but when this statement is immediately followed by the expressions, “I want L. L: Cochran (one of the five children just previously named) to give bond for the amount he gets. I want his part for him for life, and at his death, if he dies without lawful- children, I want his part paid to my two grandchildren. Belle W. Cochran and Willie Cochran,” she makes plain her intention that L. L. Cochran is to have only a life estate in an equal one-fifth of her property, and if he dies without lawful children said one-fifth part of her property is to go to the appellants Belle and Willie Cochran. We think it equally clear that she did not intend that the estate in remainder devised to her grandchildren could be defeated by the adoption by L. L. Cochran of an heir. 'While it is true, as said by Judge Key in McColpin v. McColpin, 8 Texas Ct. Rep., 548, that adoption under our statutes entitles the person adopted to inherit at law as a child *263

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Nail v. Thompson
806 S.W.2d 599 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Ortega v. First RepublicBank Fort Worth, N.A.
792 S.W.2d 452 (Texas Supreme Court, 1990)
Vaughn v. Gunter
458 S.W.2d 523 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1970)
Van Hoose v. Moore
441 S.W.2d 597 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1969)
Delaney v. First National Bank in Albuquerque
386 P.2d 711 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1963)
Thomas v. Thomas
129 S.E.2d 239 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1963)
Cutrer v. Cutrer
345 S.W.2d 513 (Texas Supreme Court, 1961)
Hull Estate
13 Pa. D. & C.2d 17 (Lancaster County Orphans' Court, 1957)
Murphy v. Slaton
273 S.W.2d 588 (Texas Supreme Court, 1954)
Bradford v. Johnson
75 S.E.2d 632 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1953)
Howth v. Farrar
94 F.2d 654 (Fifth Circuit, 1938)
Mooney v. Tolles
149 A. 515 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1930)
Russell v. Musson
216 N.W. 428 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1927)
Ahlemeyer v. Miller
131 A. 54 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1925)
Casper v. Helvie
146 N.E. 123 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1925)
Miller v. Wick
230 Ill. App. 1 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1923)
Melek v. Curators of the University
250 S.W. 614 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1923)
Nickerson v. Hoover
115 N.E. 588 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
95 S.W. 731, 43 Tex. Civ. App. 259, 1906 Tex. App. LEXIS 64, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cochran-v-cochran-texapp-1906.