Jackson v. Jackson

Supreme Court of Alabama

Jackson v. Jackson

8 So. 664, 88 So. 664, 205 Ala. 419, 1921 Ala. LEXIS 472

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedApril 4, 1921

Docket2 Div. 735.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 8 So. 664 (Jackson v. Jackson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jackson v. Jackson, 8 So. 664, 88 So. 664, 205 Ala. 419, 1921 Ala. LEXIS 472 (Ala. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

ANDERSON, C. J.

Item 3 of the will gives Sallie Jackson all of the property, of every description, “during her life only.” This language is plain and unambiguous and leaves nothing open for interpretation. It is suggested, however, in brief of appellant’s counsel, that while this would be the case if item 3 stood alone, item 5 of said will is inconsistent therewith and being the subsequent clause should prevail; that while item 3 gives all of'the property to Sallie Jackson for life only, item 5 attempts to dispose only of so much of the personal property, or money, as may be left at tbe time of the death of said Sallie Jackson, thus giving her the right to dispose of the money before her death and thereby creating in her an absolute estate as to same. We cannot concur in this contention and do not think that item 5 is in conflict with or repugnant to item 3. It is true, item 5 makes a disposition to the remaindermen only of such money left after the death of Sallie Jackson, but this was in no sense intended to give her the right to dispose of the corpus, except in so far as it may be necessary to comply with items 1 and 2 as to the payment of debts and the erection of tombstones. The testatrix may have also felt that some of the money may have been lost, through no fault or responsibility of Sallie Jackson during her life, and made provision only for what was on hand at her death, but did not thereby intend to give her the absolute right of disposition during her life. We cannot say that the life estate expressly limited by item 3 was enlarged by an inference to be drawn from item 5, simply because it mentions the money remaining after the death of Sallie Jackson.

As Sallie Jackson is only entitled to the use of the property for her life, the remaindermen are, of course, interested in the preservation of the estate during her life, and upon the showing made by them, the trial court, sitting in equity, was justified in assuming control of the fund for the preservation of same and in directing the investment thereof for the benefit of all interested parties, in *420 case the life tenant did not elect to retain same by the execution of a proper bond.

The decree of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

McClellan, somerville, and Thomas, JJ., concur.

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

ANDERSON, C. J.

Item 3 of the will gives Sallie Jackson all of the property, of every description, “during her life only.” This language is plain and unambiguous and leaves nothing open for interpretation. It is suggested, however, in brief of appellant’s counsel, that while this would be the case if item 3 stood alone, item 5 of said will is inconsistent therewith and being the subsequent clause should prevail; that while item 3 gives all of'the property to Sallie Jackson for life only, item 5 attempts to dispose only of so much of the personal property, or money, as may be left at tbe time of the death of said Sallie Jackson, thus giving her the right to dispose of the money before her death and thereby creating in her an absolute estate as to same. We cannot concur in this contention and do not think that item 5 is in conflict with or repugnant to item 3. It is true, item 5 makes a disposition to the remaindermen only of such money left after the death of Sallie Jackson, but this was in no sense intended to give her the right to dispose of the corpus, except in so far as it may be necessary to comply with items 1 and 2 as to the payment of debts and the erection of tombstones. The testatrix may have also felt that some of the money may have been lost, through no fault or responsibility of Sallie Jackson during her life, and made provision only for what was on hand at her death, but did not thereby intend to give her the absolute right of disposition during her life. We cannot say that the life estate expressly limited by item 3 was enlarged by an inference to be drawn from item 5, simply because it mentions the money remaining after the death of Sallie Jackson.

As Sallie Jackson is only entitled to the use of the property for her life, the remaindermen are, of course, interested in the preservation of the estate during her life, and upon the showing made by them, the trial court, sitting in equity, was justified in assuming control of the fund for the preservation of same and in directing the investment thereof for the benefit of all interested parties, in *420 case the life tenant did not elect to retain same by the execution of a proper bond.

The decree of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

McClellan, somerville, and Thomas, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 So. 664, 88 So. 664, 205 Ala. 419, 1921 Ala. LEXIS 472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-jackson-ala-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack