Commercial Bank & Trust Co. v. Noble

112 So. 691, 146 Miss. 552, 1927 Miss. LEXIS 265

• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Decided: May 23, 1927
• Docket: No. 26489.
• Status: Published

Opinion

c+s± l-Jp' oo

oo oo KK C+C-b-

O^WoaoQPi^'i. OOctciOO - ®®^c!cíñpp^ NX.j-.pi^pP3?3!-.-PtE33fc¡ppr+<-¡PPPP ‘ ^- «. t —K-i wOX*P> Ppp^ »-á I^m^assgg MM-<3 *T4_f_jC-bc-b' •" PPg o ¡¡gaáSg^ gg^^gg' ~ ®o ZQü c+c+-pgpíw® ®cr& o C+C-t- QQ 3s£3 ^Pppg^gSSb H*«®£3Fttíí3ssK¡sg - ^Ppppp^SSgg ® ®2 23o® ®0 ~M H' OOpProMPPEtri^P h^BB^^wSBpP

PP M32 op.. GO GO HjH ®® SS 9£ ra PK OO H H CQCO PP HH « pop .... n*-i» ®®

PPffi^pp HjHfTi££-i * Q H^H PPpp'l'rC í¿®$£gg . 22 KK rorofsroj^J-!^bppb SP P® ® cq^ ®M®®h+rl PtPKSSS3 ^ ?='.'•

O CDCD UiXSX_* >«» ‘ í‘ *"Ci m££. _ tppp PP®® PPS9 ^

332+3®®"'"'°° ' ’~“2 -o oO oPÍpR Bp ®® <v,wBB fifi' 't7t=gO¡_ soOQrtcKHPPS^Krr^SC....Ktí.. . ^ppgg^Cóy O O' CO uQK K i_-,_i v"T“\ /*7“\ SCI® So o2 2Hi-?r<tTP gs ¡Eggp Bp I í 228 2£ fe Qj K® 2? ®B Bq QBppwj ; ¡.«T»-'ppooPPíípip^St3^^ BBoo pp§®£2®<M:^^®®&wkey;'-j+rfiP ggftexaOfcctu ^PíspP . ®®oooP2® jpíJ<¡<iBt^^pC^ less the income :,rom my property becomes insufficient less the.income ,;:rom mv property becomes? insufficient at any time tor tie support anxr education. ot suci pene-at-any time Tor. me support andreducation of snci ben&r neiarres, m which even; my real property may oe sold nciaries, m wEich event my real property may be sola ana me ’principar reanzed weretrdm, in so far •us neces-ani sa~ iaryt mj earn o eatl O-enencia. eneneia vivors, sJ one or inore ó: one or mqre,no-inter estsliall . interest snail ... fiare and snare ali-ose. 'in tpe event ose.r, Ei the event o:: >enenciaries, his or tneir ijanencianesL his p,r their me property ot me snr-tle property or the sur-

■World, s.r World, sEl guarcuhn o: guardian o • “ insurance policy .in the iinsurance-,1policy in, the . pe distributed to the sai i be, distributed to the sai, íe penepciaries m such po manes n; u ui me-jbene e considere-as a par as a par-proper proper fio not to be considere to herein.,, oodmen ot the oodmen, of the corporation, as corporation;, as cy named, and is icy named, and is —referred referred

~.e appellant contends that the phrase ‘.a; , jLi.e, appellant, contends, that tEe phrase ■& tunty;;as used m the wm is synonymous witJ ’ as- used in the, will is synonymous wif majority,;, while the appellees convene mai porfs simp ports simp pineq resi while pellees contend that f and character, me I- and character, tEe o-nrf DiTnfiQTirm ’ ot ma- , of, male term , me. term íaf it unit ím-com-com-Mmaic mea urity ot mu urity of.mniu __ op age, experience, and education.

In me interpretation of mé language ot ever , In tEe interpretation of, the dananage of ever he prime opieet is to ascertain me Tear intention .. lie, mime efrject is -:o ascartain.-fhe, real,intention o estator. The wore s of me will should pe .given .estator., The- words of the will should be given usual and ordinary meaning’. unless the clear intention usual and ordinary;.-meaning; unless the,clear intentjpn to use them in another seimé can pe game * . lang lanf ll one one o; minemin nsec usea.,. j. cepfauon eeptatipn; im' menu tiie’co” an in anot ox the wif e the: age Cju wj age of£tEe m_. prase ,, age of mafurr hrase “age of matur: invariante meaning. Livariable meampg; ,rom the confex :,rpm ‘_A_OT < t x0j-- maturity^ 7 in its or-„..„..„ . .— orts maturity of mind, character, i-rtsmaturity ^ ined r'’°-"l+ ,, as useí: inraawSl,-'i7s not ”, as used m a will; is not ns meaning’ must pe cfeter- . its meaning must, bendeter-e connection in wpicp. if is if ac-..._:_ ac- and judgment, tire .combined result ot a lion, ’ancf is not synonymous w: tipni and ys no ~~ TÍiefi— ' " atuiuty ot mind, character; and Tuü esuft oí age, experience, ánd educ udg-..rience-; and educar igal majority j;; and Wtieh iísedin‘á wil'i;Tirds"Words' sHoulCfle gxvraPfmnt usual when used m a willithes words should.be given their, usual anc ordinary meainng unless mere is something m me irdinary, meaning unless tEere is, sometEing, in the o indicate that the testator intended to use xhem m p indicate that tEe testator intended to use them m perene sense.

In the case of Convict's Executors v. King, 13 N. J. Eq. 375. ,thát the/word “maturity inra c^huse op a w^ was not synonymous in a clause ot a will was not synonymous wit majority,” but merely imported maturity of mind and character, the combined result of age and education; while, in the case of Carpenter v. Boulden, 48 Md. 122, where the will provided that a legacy should be paid to the legatee when she reached lawful age, with a limitation over in the event the legatee died “before maturity without issue,” the word “maturity” was construed to mean the same thing as the testator had expressed by the word “lawful age.”

In the case of Cruikshank v. Cruikshank, 39 Misc. Rep. 401, 80 N. T. S. 8, it was held that the word “maturity,” as used in the will there being construed, meant maturity in law or legal majority; but in that case the word was used in connection with the word “minority” in such a way as to clearly indicate that the testator intended to use it as synonymous with “legal majority,” as shown by the following language of the court:

“Thus we have the word ‘minority’ used in limitation of the term during which the income shall be applied to the ‘support, education, and maintenance of such issue,’ and then, when majority is reached — when minority is passed — such application of the net income shall cease. If the issue shall die before ‘maturity’ — an inapt expression, indeed, but this is the holographic will of a layman — the principal is to go to testator’s remaining children; otherwise to ‘such issue.’ The payment over of the principal is deferred until the time limited for the ‘support, education, and maintenance of’ the issue shall have lapsed, and hence the word ‘maturity,’ as used here, must be held to mean maturity in law, or when such issue shall have reached majority.”

In the case at bar, we find nothing in the will to indicate an intent oh the part of the testator to use these words in the sense of legal majority. There is about ten years’ [difference between the ages.'of the testator’s youngest child and the next oldest; the estate is small, and the income therefrom negligible; .and since there is nothing in the will to indicate an intent to use the words in other than their ordinary and usual sense, we think the court below was correct in construing the phrase to mean maturity in mind, character, and judgment. In the final decree, the court below found as a fact that the testator’s youngest child was seventeen years of age, and by reason of age, experience, and education had reached the age of maturity within the meaning of the phrase as used by the testator. It was further ordered that the property involved should be sold by the trustee, and the shares of the three adult distributees paid to them, and that the interest of the minor should be retained by the appellant in its capacity as guardian of said minor. We think this decree was in all respects correct, and it will therefore be affirmed.

Affirmed.