Peynado's Devisees v. Peynado's

82 Ky. 5, 1884 Ky. LEXIS 32
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
DecidedMarch 8, 1884
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 82 Ky. 5 (Peynado's Devisees v. Peynado's) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Peynado's Devisees v. Peynado's, 82 Ky. 5, 1884 Ky. LEXIS 32 (Ky. Ct. App. 1884).

Opinion

CHIEE JUSTICE HARGIS

delivered the opinion op the court;

By Ms will, after making various bequests, Edward Peynado, devised the residuary of his estate to his wife Ida B. Peynado during her life, and then made the following provisions:

“15. One year after her death the whole of my residuary estate shall be converted into cash, and together with all accrued interest, shall be invested as follows:
“16. Half of the money left by me after my wife’s-death to be used in erecting a building in the suburbs of the city of Malaga, (Spain,) to be under the patronage and care of the city authorities and under the su[7]*7perintendence of one or more Sisters of Charity, to foe Used, as an Orphan Asylum and School for as many-little poor orphan children (males) from respectable-families as can possibly be taken. The Sisters in charge-of said establishment should be well educated and well., versed in geography, mathematics, grammar, history and penmanship, so as to be able to teach the children, to become learned- and industrious. I.have no doubt, the institution will be .assisted and encouraged by the-good and wealthy citizens of Malaga, and will some day become a great institution. The other half of my capital or residue to be placed out on good security so-as to yield a semi-annual income, and shall be applied in paying the expenses incurred in keeping..up. said, boarding establishment. I also leave our pictures, two-oil paintings of my wife and myself, to the said institution.
“17. A true copy of this will will be sent to the then acting Spanish Minister of Spain, at Washington, D. C., by my executors, witli the request that he should see that an honest man be appointed to superintend and fulfill my wish -, a man who without any reward for his-services and only for the sake of doing good to my native city, will take willingly the responsibility and trouble necessary for such a task. The person so appointed will have to give security and also hand a semiannual statement of the condition of the institution to-the then acting civil authorities of Malaga. As -the children of the institution become of age, 1 mean able enough to make a living for themselves, the friends of the institution will be kind enough.to procure for them situations in commercial houses,' stores and factories * [8]*8■where they can earn an honest livelihood. This institution shall not, at any time, incur or owe a debt exceeding ($5,000) five thousand dollars.
“18. My executors will demand security from the Spanish Minister, or his representatives, that my will shall be carried out according to my wish, and they shall keep in trust, if they think proper, the whole of my residuary estate for three years after my death or until they are convinced of the fulfillment of my wish by the Spanish Minister and authorities of Malaga.
“19. If within three years after my death this bequest fail of execution from any cause, then the same shall lapse and be void, and the whole of my residuary ■estate, together with all accrued interest, shall be divided amongst the children of Francisco de P. Parra, Sr., Juan Jose Parra, Augustin Parra, Joaquin Parra, and Diego Parra, of New Orleans, La., and children of Jose Ma Parra and Jose Ma Yega, of Malaga, Spain.”

The will was probated and the widow renounced its provisions in her behalf. This action was brought to obtain a judicial construction of the above clauses of the will, the ultimate residuary devisees named in the 19th clause, the City of Malaga, and the acting Spanish Minister being made defendants.

The City of Malaga and the Spanish Minister by their attorney in fact, answered, separately, claiming that the will created a trust with sufficient certainty for the purpose of erecting an Orphan Asylum in the City of Malaga; that the City was designated as the trustee, and is capable, being an incorporated municipality, of accepting the trust, and, the widow having renounced the provisions of the will, entitled to the residuum and [9]*9ready to proceed, at once, to the performance of the ■duties prescribed by the will and according to its terms'.

The ultimate residuary devisees asserted claim to the residuum of the estate on the grounds—

1. That the trust'is too vague to be upheld and there is no discretion vested in any one to 'cure the uncertainty.

2. That the will requires the Spanish Minister to give security as a condition precedent to the existence or ■execution of the trust.

3. And if no security were required by the will, the ■court ought to exact it for their protection and to retain •effective control of the property represented .by the surety, in the event of non execution of the trust within three years after the testator’s death.

Each of these propositions was rejected by the learned chancellor in his construction of the trust •clauses, of the will, and a judgment rendered by him in ■contraposition to all of them and the proper interlocutory orders entered to carry out the charitable intention -of the testator. To test the legal virtue of that judgment this appeal was taken by the ultimate residuary ■devisees.

Their position has for its basis two propositions—

1. That there is no room for equity to interfere where there is no ambiguity in the testator’s declaration.

2. That there is no ambiguity in this will but simply •a non use of such terms as are essential to the creation ■of a trust.

It is not necessary .to the results of this opinion, that the first proposition, were it law in an unlimited extent .and suitable to all states of fact, which we are inclined [10]*10to doubt, should be combated, it is only indispensable that the assumptions of the second should be overthrown. '■

There is no ambiguity of intention in this will. - More-appropriate. language might have been used in the creation of such an important and worthy trust, but .when the language, whatever may be its purity or defects-, expresses the intention of -the testator in making a lawful disposition of his- property, -that intention will be the pole star to guide the court in .-interpreting the-meaning of his words and construing -the coinposition of his testament.

Where there is no ambiguity of intention ascertained by ali‘ of the language of the will, there can be no legal ambiguity attached to the will from particular expressions, defective description -of property, and constrained mandatory provisions, for they may be controlled, supplied or broadened by the context and general purpose of the will. Applying these simple, cardinal rules.to' this will, it becomes clear that there is no uncertainty as to the trust ahd no need of discretion upon the part of any one to render it effectual. The-testator did not intend that his estate should be converted into cash for investment as directed in- the 16th clause, until one year after his-wife’s death. This-purpose was based upon her anticipated acceptance of' the provisions of the will,-the object being to allow her the uninterrupted use during life of the property which he dedicated to the erection and support.of. the-charitable institution, plainly described and specifically located by the 16th and 17th clauses. The .reason for postponing the conversion of the residuary of. his es[11]

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

Related

Stoeer v. Meyer
147 S.W.2d 1041 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1941)
Baldwin's Coex'rs v. Curry
115 S.W.2d 333 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1938)
Breckinridge v. Breckinridge's Ex'rs
94 S.W.2d 283 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1936)
Hon v. Connelly
69 S.W.2d 23 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1934)
Gooding v. Watson's Trustee
31 S.W.2d 919 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1930)
Superior Oil Corporation v. Alcorn
47 S.W.2d 973 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1930)
Dwyer v. Leonard
124 A. 28 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1924)
Phelps v. Stoner's Administrator
212 S.W. 423 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1919)
Watkins v. Bennett
186 S.W. 182 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1916)
Lewis v. Reed's
182 S.W. 638 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1916)
Black v. Jones
264 Ill. 548 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1914)
O'Rear v. Bogie
163 S.W. 1107 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1914)
Green's Admrs. v. Fidelity Trust Co.
120 S.W. 283 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1909)
Elliott v. City of Louisville
90 S.W. 990 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1906)
Pennsylvania Land Co. v. Justi
90 S.W. 279 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1906)
Johnson v. De Pauw University
76 S.W. 851 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1903)
Franck v. Franck
54 S.W. 195 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1899)
Bedford v. Bedford's Administrator
35 S.W. 926 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
82 Ky. 5, 1884 Ky. LEXIS 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peynados-devisees-v-peynados-kyctapp-1884.