Penton v. Myers Park Place Corp.

108 S.E. 462, 152 Ga. 71, 1921 Ga. LEXIS 8
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedSeptember 15, 1921
DocketNo. 2135
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 108 S.E. 462 (Penton v. Myers Park Place Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Penton v. Myers Park Place Corp., 108 S.E. 462, 152 Ga. 71, 1921 Ga. LEXIS 8 (Ga. 1921).

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

A testator, a citizen of the State of New Jersey, died on April 26, 1884, leaving a will'which was duly probated in that State. By the terms of the will all the property of the testator, wherever being, was left to his wife for and diiring her natural life.” After termination of this life-estate, one half "of the income from the entire property was directed to be paid to Mary, the daughter of James Wayne Cuyler, a deceased son of the testator ; and the other half of such income was directed to be paid to Alice H. Cuyler, the mother of Mary and widow of testator’s said son, so long as she remained such widow. Should Alice H. marry again, '$10,000 from the corpus of testator’s estate should’be'paid to her in lieu of the “ income ” above mentioned, and from and after such marriage the whole of the income from the .rest of testator’s estate should be paid to Mary so' long as she should live. Should she die leaving a child or children or the representative of children, and should her mother, Alice H. Cuyler, be living and unmarried, the executors were directed to pay to her out of the estate of the testator the sum of $10,000, and to divide the Test of the estate equally among such child or children or the representatives of children of Mary, the 'daughter, that may be living at the time of her death. Should she die without leaving child or children Or the representative of children, leaving her mother, Alice H., alive and unmarried, then ‘Alice H. should receive the sum of $10,000, and all the rest, residue, and remainder of the estáte should go to the heirs at law of the testator’s two deceased, brothers, Eichard E. Cuyler and TelemoU Cuyler, to be equally divided among then!, [72]*72and to tlieir executors, administrators, and assigns forever. Should Alice H. not be alive or should she be married at the time of the death of Mary, and should Mary die without leaving child or children or the representative of children, all of the estate of the testator should be equally distributed to the heirs at law of his above-named deceased brothers. By a codicil Alice H. was nominated as coexecutrix of the will.

Only one of the nominated executors and Alice H., executrix, qualified. The executor subsequently died, leaving Alice H; as sole surviving executrix. The first life-estate terminated at the death of the testator’s widow on June 29, 1885. Mary, the daughter of Alice H., became Mary Edgerton by marriage; and there were three children, the issue of said marriage: Cecely, a daughter, who had attained majority prior to June 14, 1911; and'two sons, Philip and Howland, who died unmarried before said date, without leaving child or children. By a second marriage said Mary became Mc-Creery, and the issue of that marriage on June 14, 1911, was one child, Isabel, 8 years of age. Another child was born after the date just mentioned. There were living also, on June 14, 1911, one daughter and grandchildren and great-grandchildren of -the two deceased brothers of the testator. Of the property left by the testator there were certain lands in Chatham Countjq Georgia. On June 14, 1911, Alice H., never having married again, instituted a suit in the superior court of Chatham County, Georgia, in her individual capacity and as sole surviving executrix. Her daughter Mary and such of her children as were then in life, and the descendants above mentioned of the- testator’s' two deceased brothers, were named as parties defendants. All of the defendants except one, being non-residents of the State, were served by publication, and guardians ad litem were appointed for such of them as were minors, and they accepted the appointment and served as such. The resident defendant was also duly served. The petition alleged' all that is stated above; and further: “ Petitioner shows that all the above 200 acres of land is farming lands, and unproductive, save for small rentals. That some forty acres of said tract known as Cuyler lots No.. 7 and 8 became part of the City of Savannah about the year 1906, known as the south part of lot 8 Kehoe Ward, the north part lot 8 Oliver Ward, and all of lot 7 Oliver Ward, and shortly thereafter the property was assessed for taxes upon the basis [73]*73of city lots; and that petitioner, in February, 1910, paid $1,013.92 city taxes for the years 1907 and 1908, and, having gotten the assessment reduced, your petitioner thereafter has been compelled to pay in the neighborhood of three hundred and twenty-five &%oo dollars annually as city taxes on this property, not to mention the State and County taxes ninety-three & %0o dollars annually; and your petitioner avers that the income from said land, amounting to less than one hundred dollars annually, is wholly insufficient to pay the taxes, and that petitioner has been compelled to pay the taxes out of her own pocket, and the estate is now due her upon the item of taxes alone $3500.00, and said items will increase indefinitely unless this honorable court afford some relief to petitioner. Petitioner shows that an offer has been made to buy these forty acres, also one of the swamp lots, the north 15 acres of lot 26, at $150.00 per acre or $2250.00, and other offers will be made, these forty acres known as the south part of lot 8 Kehoe Ward, the north part of 8 Oliver Ward, and all of lot 7 Oliver Ward, for the sum of $22,500.00, of which $5000.00 is cash, .balance payable in one, two, three, and four years at 5 per cent, per annum. And your petitioner is advised and believes that this would be a good sale for the property; and she desires to sell from time to time all of said property and make title to the same in order to reimburse herself, and in order that the balance of the purchase-price may be preserved and distributed in accordance with the will of- John M. Cuyler, it being manifestly to the best interest of all concerned that this be done.” The prayer was: That the executrix be authorized to sell the said tract of about forty acres formerly known as 7 and 8 Cuyler lots, and that she be authorized to execute and deliver a deed to the purchaser as above stated. That the proceeds of the sale be applied to repay her for her advances. That the surplus be turned over to her as executrix under the laws of Georgia governing the distribution of funds to foreign executors, or upon such'terms as to the court may seem proper.”

The defendants appeared and demurred to the petition, on the following grounds: 1st. That said petition sets forth no cause . of action. 2nd. That, from an examination of the will exhibited with said petition, it appears that the executrix under said will is not clothed with any trust in relation to the title to said lands, and without being so clothed is without power to institute pro[74]*74ceedings for'the sale of said land: 3rd. That said petition-shows no facts- that would authorize the payment of taxes out of the funds arising from said sale, in the -event said sale can be made.” The demurrer was overruled. The answer admitted all of -the allegations of the petition, and added the following: “Further answering said-petition, your defendants "show unto the court, that, while they admit the facts shown in said petition and "that they are all of the parties interested'under said will, they deny that the said plaintiffs and particularly that the said executrix has any right or power to bring about the sale of the said property; for it will be seen from an examination of the will in said case that said executrix is not clothed with any trust "in relation to the title of said lands, and consequently said executrix cannot have or maintain said proceedings.” " '

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

Related

Kennedy v. Durham
138 S.E.2d 567 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1964)
Orr v. Orr
30 S.E.2d 900 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1944)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
108 S.E. 462, 152 Ga. 71, 1921 Ga. LEXIS 8, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/penton-v-myers-park-place-corp-ga-1921.