Williams v. Eason

114 So. 338, 148 Miss. 446, 55 A.L.R. 574, 1927 Miss. LEXIS 31
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 3, 1927
DocketNo. 26551.
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 114 So. 338 (Williams v. Eason) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Williams v. Eason, 114 So. 338, 148 Miss. 446, 55 A.L.R. 574, 1927 Miss. LEXIS 31 (Mich. 1927).

Opinion

*450 ANdíeírsoN, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a contest in the matter of the administration of the estate of D'avid J. Williams, deceased,' pending-in the chancery court- of De Soto county, between his heirs, on the one hand, and the heirs of his widow, D. L. 0. Williams, on the other hand, for the proceeds of a war risk insurance certificate held hy the deceased at the time of his death, as a soldier of the United' States in the World War. The chancery court decreed the proceeds of the war risk insurance to the heirs of the widow of the deceased. From that decree the heirs of the deceased appeal to this court.

The cause was tried on-agreed facts, in writing, and made a part of the record, the material parts of which follow:

*451 “It is stipulated and' agreed that Dlavid Jack Williams, deceased, in his lifetime; was a regularly enlisted soldier in the service of the government of the United States during the recent World War, and as such soldier he secured and there was issued to him by the War Risk Insurance Department of the United States, an insurance certificate No. T-3882635, on his life for the sum of five thousand dollars, and that the same became effective August 1, 1918, copy of which is hereto attached, and agreed to be correct.
“That the said 0!avid Jack Williams because of disease contracted during the period of his service in the United States Army was awarded permanent disability compensation by the Veterans’ Bureau of the War Risk Department, but that no part thereof was paid to him in his lifetime, and that subsequent to his death, which occurred on the 28th day of July, 1920, the said S. W. Eason, as administrator of the estate of the said David Jack Williams, received from the said Veterans’ Bureau the sum of one thousand four hundred eighty-six dollars and ninety-four cents, as the disability compensation so awarded, and that he has paid out and distributed the same as shown by his final account filed in this court in cause No. 4710, the files and records of which may be introduced in evidence on the trial of this cause, by any of the parties in interest to such extent as they may be determined by the court to be competent, but it is agreed that after payment of expenses, etc., in the said cause No. 4710, the balance remaining in the hands of the administrator of the said fund was paid to D. L. 0. Williams, the widow of the said David Jack Williams.
“It is further agreed that when the said certificate of insurance was issued that the said David Jack Williams was not married, but that, after he was discharged from the army and returned to his home in De Soto county, Miss., he was on the 11th day of September, 1919, married to D. L. 0. Garrett, and that she has since died, and that her death occurred on the date hereinafter stated. It is further agreed that the said David Jack Williams *452 had no children horn to him by his said wife, B. ,L. 0. Williams, nor by any former marriage, and that at his death the said D. L. 0. Williams (his widow) was his sole heir at law.
“That beside his said wife the said David Jack Williams was survived by his mother, Jennie Williams, his father, Strong Williams, a brother, Joe Williams, and three sisters, Esther Williams, Lenora Williams, and Clara Smith, all of whom, except the said Jennie Williams,-are parties to this cause and agreement.
“It is further agreed that the said David Jack Williams died intestate on the said 28th day of July, 1920, in De Soto county, Miss., at the home of his father, and that he was a resident and citizen of De Soto county, Miss., at the time of his death, and that said insurance certificate was then in force, and that his mother, Jennie Williams, who had been designated by him as the sole beneficiary of said insurance and that she survived him and after his death she received from the said Veterans’ Bureau thirty-six monthly installments of twenty-eight dollars and seventy-five cents each on said insurance certificate amounting to the sum of one thousand and thirty-eight dollars, and that said payments continued to the time of her death.
“That the said Jennie Williams died intestate on the 24th day of December, 1924, and that she was survived by her husband, Strong Williams, and her children, who are named above as the sisters and brother of the said David Jack Williams.
“That after the death of the said Jennie Williams, the said D. L. 0. Williams (widow of the said David Jack Williams), to-wit, on the 4th day of April, 1925, waived her right to appointment as administratrix of her said husband, David Jack Williams, in favor of S. W. Eason, and that he on the 12th day of June, 1925, by proper order of this court, was appointed as the administrator of the said David Jack Williams as shown by the records and files in cause No-. 5088 in this court, which said files and records may be introduced in evidence by any of the *453 parties in interest in this canse to the extent of their competency, etc.
“That under the appointment of the said S. W. Eason as administrator, last aforesaid, he made application to the said Veterans’ Burean for payment of the balance due on the said certificate of insurance, and that on September 16, 1925', there was issued to him by said Veterans’ Bureau, check No. 3, 678,368, payable to him as such administrator, in the sum of three thousand nine hundred sixty-two dollars, and that said check was issued during business or office hours, which closed at four thirty p. m., in the city of Washington, on the date aforesaid, and that the same was on said date mailed to S. W. Eason, administrator, and was received by him on the 18th day of September, 1925, and was deposited in De Soto County Bank, and now said money is held there to his credit as such administrator.
“That D.. L. .0. Williams (widow of the said David Jack Williams) died intestate in Memphis, Shelby county, Tenn., at eight o’clock p. m. on the 16th day of September, 1925. That she left no children and that her sole heirs at law are her mother and father, sisters and brothers, to-wit, Henry Garrett (father), Susie Garrett (mother), Lester .Garrett (brother), Leo Garrett Bobo (sister), Lillabell Garrett Echols (sister), Ada Garrett Coleman (sister), James Garrett (brother), Irvin Garrett (brother), Myrtle Garrett (sister), and Raiford Garrett (brother)'.
“That all of the matters of fact herein stated may be-accepted on the trial of this cause as true, and that no further proof thereof shall be required, but that any and all record proof desired by any of the parties in interest may be introduced on the hearing.
“The contention of the parties on the one part is that the fund in the hands of the said administrator, S. W. Eason, should be distributed and paid to the heirs at law of the said D. L. O. Williams, or to the said W. H. En-trikin, her administrator, and on the other part that the said fund should be distributed and paid to Joe Wil *454

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

Related

Moyse v. Laughlin
171 So. 784 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1937)
Porter v. Watson
181 S.E. 680 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Schwall v. Deering
10 P.2d 1013 (California Court of Appeal, 1932)
Estate of Young
8 P.2d 846 (California Supreme Court, 1932)
Singleton v. Cheek
284 U.S. 493 (Supreme Court, 1932)
Mason's Administrator v. Mason's Guardian
39 S.W.2d 211 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1931)
Turner v. Thomas
30 S.W.2d 558 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1930)
Wade v. Madding
28 S.W.2d 642 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1930)
In Re Hogan's Estate. Mulherin v. Evans
297 P. 1007 (Utah Supreme Court, 1930)
Root v. Childs
226 N.W. 598 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1929)
National Union Bank v. McNeal
145 S.E. 549 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1928)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
114 So. 338, 148 Miss. 446, 55 A.L.R. 574, 1927 Miss. LEXIS 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-eason-miss-1927.