Richmond daily register. (Richmond, Madison County, Ky.) 1917-1978, 1921-05-13
DAVID IRVINE WINS
THE IRVINE FARM

the express ri ght to dispose OF ii
as she saw fit, which she did II
her will; and that she had made
William Irvine Grccnway her
rcsiduary legatce. and that nc
therefore inherited both her real
and personal property not other
wise devised.
Attorney John Noland, repre-
senting Mr.. Irvine, followed
Judge Lilly and pointed out that
the will lof VIM. Irvine gave to y.
Irvine White lis farm Of over zoo
acres for life and at death to go
in remainder to his son, David
Irvine White, Jr., on the condi-
ton that he drop the "Whitc .
from his name and be known as
David Irvine. Which condition,
Mr.. holland pointed out. had been
complied with by his client, He
argued that Mrs. Irvine took only
life estate in this farm. and that
the intent that it should go 10
David Irvine White, of Hunts
vile. Ala. for his life and then to
David Irvine. in remainder was
shown in both wills. He said that
in her will she made such changes
as she desired regarding her hus
bands will and as she was en-
power to make. but that she did
not change the bcquest of her
husband regarding the gift OF the
farm TO David Irvine He pointed
out that she had given large sums
in bonds, etc. to William Irvine
GrcenWay, but had let stand the
bcqucst OF her husband Of the
farm to her nephew, David Irvine
White and his son. David Irvine
Attorney Henry Duncan. OF
Lexington, representing the ia
thcr, David Irvine White. Of
Huntsville, Ala. and Mrs. Shelby
Walker. of New Orleans. refer
red the court to the will OF David
Irvine. father OF the late Mrs.
Elizabeth Irvine. Mrs. Walker i,
a daughter of the late Addison
White, and OF Mrs. Irvinc's sister
Some question is raised regard
ing l24 acres Of this farm, which
descended from David Irvine. and
regarding rcinvcstmcnt Of pro-
cccds by Mrs. Irvine. Judge
Shackclford said nc would hear
arguments Oh that point after
question OF disposition OF the
farm under the will of Mrs. Eli
zabcth Irvine had been disposed
Of, Attorney Duncan pointed out
that Mrs. Irvine did not revoke
bcqucst OF the farm as made bv
her husband: he argued that to
revoke his bcqucst she must give
it to some other which she did
not do.
Judge Carroll for Mr.. Irvine
made the most extended argu-
mcnt Of the case. and the most
comprehensive as to law and
facts. He asserted that when the
intention Of airv will is ascertain
ed. that controls absolutely: that
IT is the controlling and dominat-
ing factor OF every will; that it
has been 50 decided and so writ
ten many. many times by the
Court OF Appeals. He declared
that the intention OF the late
VIM. Irvine was clearly shown TO
have been thaN his wife should
have a life estate in the farm with
power of disposition. He point
ed out that a lcgatce Of a will.
concerns personal estate and a
dcviscc estate of real property.
He said that there was no ambi-
guilty in the will. Mrs. Irvine
had the power to change any or
all of the provisions of her hus-
bands will but she must show
the changes she desired and could
not do 50 by any sweeping
change. lie said that Wm. r.
vines will and Mrs. Irvine's will
read together plainly show their
intention. Judge Carroll point
out how Mrs. Irvine had changed
every one of the l3 bequests Of
her husbands will. except that dis
posing of the farm; he argued
that she never meant to change
the disposal Of the farm from the
way her husband had bequeathed
it; that it was the most valuable
item Of the property in their es-
tate and that surely she would
not have overlooked mention Of
it had she desired to change the
method of its disposition that he,
husband had provided for.
Judge Carroll further argued
that under the residuary clause OF
her will, Mrs. Irvine would not
pass the farm until she had first
annulled the disposition that her
her husband had made Of it in his