Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1899-10-23
IMPORTANT LEGAL VICTORY.
e. II. f. Boardman Success
ful in the Hambel VIII case.

Attorney 4. IL. f. Boardman Success
full in the Hambel Will Case.
Congratulations are being extended to
G.. II. h. Boardman upon his success in
the James Hambel will litigation, decid-
ed last Saturday by our supreme court.
This has been hard-fought contest,
extending for period of some three
years, over an estate estimated at
about $4,000. The supreme court decid
ed the case against Mr.. Boardman's eli
ent, and rendered lengthy opinion
which Invested Mrs. Hambel of any le-
gal title to the property. But upon oral
argument by c. II. f. Boardman before
the supreme court re-hearing was Sc
| cured and now the supreme court de-
| cides the case in favor of Mrs. Hambel,
| and gives the widow absolute title to
| the entire estate, thus not only revers-
| ing the district court, but absolutely re-
verses itself and makes its first pub
lished opinion no longer the law in
Iowa This is a noteworthy exception
to the usual rule in litigation. and
makes the case a very important one in
| principal as Well as amount.
4 The Des Moines Leader of Saturday
last states:
The court reversed decision of the
Marshall county court, Judge Obed
| Caswell presiding, in a will case, and
| in so doing makes an important rule as
| to the construction of wills. The rule,
according to the court, has heretofore
been established in other cases, but the
1 judge below, after examining all these
| cases, did not SO consider, and In the
supreme court two judges dissented.
/ The opinion above was written by Rob
inson, and Granger and Given dissent.
flames W. Hambel died, leaving a
will whose first provision was:
4 81 devise and bequeath to my wife,
Lucelia A. Hambel. all my property,
both real and personal, of every kind
and description, that may own at my
decease.'
This seemed an absolute bequest
carving the fee title. Following it,
however, were provisions for the divis-
/ ion of the property among the children
4 after the death of the wife, and pro-
i yiding different and immediate divis-
ion in case the wife should again mar
nv. The lower court held that this will
practically gave the widow a life in
terest in the estate; 1T held that she
i could make sales and transfers only In
so far as was necessary to her own
comfort, pleasure and convenience. OF
for the general benefit of the estate. Bu
1t did not give her absolute control OF
the estate, to do with as she might
please. In short, she was held to be
trustee for the benefit of the children
but holding life interest.
1.-The supreme court reverses this. u
holds that when an absolute devise. az
in this case, is made in one section of {
will, to be later modified by later pro
visions, then the latter provisions are
to be accepted, not as limiting the de
wise, but as merely predatory; that Is
in the nature of recommendations t.
the legatee as to the disposition to b'
made Of any remainder of the estate
after the legatee's death.
I'm this case some of the children
sued to SECURE an Interpretation. ant
the case has twice reached the suprem
court"
| George p. Powers drug store is tn,
i