Rittgers v. Rittgers
This text of 9 N.W. 188 (Rittgers v. Rittgers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The provisions of the will involved in this case are as follows:
As matter of law the court found:
“ 1. That the said Catharine Eittgers is not bound to re[220]*220linquish the possession and control of the real and personal property of the decedent, prior to the time that Mary, the youngest daughter, shall attain the age of fifteen years, before she can renounce the provision made for her in the will, ■and elect to take her share under the statute; but that she has a right to hold the possession and control, such property till the said Mary attains the age of fifteen years, in trust for the raising, support and education of the said minor children.
“ 2. That the said Catharine Rittgers is entitled to have one-third in value of all said real estate set apart to her in fee.
“ 3. That the remaining two-thirds of said real estate, and the profits therefrom, remain in the possession and control of the said Catharine Rittgers, in trust, till the said Mary attain ■the age of fifteen years.”
We think the court placed the proper construction upoil the terms of the will. It does not devise tbe profits of the real and .personal property to the widow absolutely, ■but for a particular and specified purpose. The devise is “ for the purpose of raising, clothing, and educating the children born to us.” The children are the beneficiaries. The widow is the mere trustee for the purpose of executing the trust. It is clear to us that the children referred to have a right, under the provisions of this will, to insist that all the profits arising from tbe property in question shall be applied to their raising, clothing, and education. The widow could not waive the right to have the profits so applied, and hence this provision in the will is not inconsistent with her right to have her distributive share assigned under the law. Ap-' pellants concede if the use and profits of all the real estate and personal property of the decedent, between the time of his death and the time when the youngest child, Mary, shall become fifteen years of age, are, by the terms of the will, given to the widow, in trust, and she can have no personal advantage therefrom,- that she is entitled to have one-third [221]*221of the real .estate set off to her, without relinquishing the trust. It is claimed, however, that the bequest of all the property for the term mentioned, and of the use and profits therefrom, is to the widow individually, and that she is to have the benefits thereof. This construction does violence to the language of the will, and ignores the portion, which declares the purpose of the bequest.
It is claimed that the terms of the will are too indefinite and uncertain to create or be construed into a trust. Without elaborating this point we are of opinion that the will is not so indefinite or uncertain but that it may be enforced. The court properly held, we think, that the beneficiaries of the will are the minor children, yet. to be raised, and for whose clothing and education the parents were responsible.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
9 N.W. 188, 56 Iowa 218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rittgers-v-rittgers-iowa-1881.