Source: https://openjurist.org/151/us/112
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 02:09:22+00:00

Document:
Henry B. B. Staples and Henry W. Smith, for plaintiff in error.
John H. Mitchell and J. K. Kelly, for defendants in error.
The principal questions presented by the record in this case are—First, whether, by the laws of Oregon in force in 1872, a testator was authorized or empowered to devise after-acquired real property; and, second, whether, if such power existed, the after-acquired real estate in controversy passed by the testator's will in the present case.
At the date of the will the testator owned certain real property in Portland, Or., and in January, 1882, some 10 years after the will was executed, he purchased, and at the time of his death owned, a parcel of land in the city of Portland, valued at $30,000, which is the subject of controversy in this suit.
Ellen E. Ray, the devisee under the third clause of the will, died intestate in 1873, leaving, as her heirs, Thomas L. Ray, Rachel L. Ray, Hylah E. Ray, and Mary E. Arbuckle, citizens of Oregon; John De Witt Ray, a citizen of Illinois; and Sarah A. Ray, a citizen of New York. Upon the death of the testator, these heirs of Ellen E. Ray, who, under the laws of Oregon, (section 3077, Hill's Ann. Laws Or.,) succeeded to her rights as devisee, took possession of the premises in controversy, as well as other real property in Oregon owned by the testator at the time the will was executed.
Herman R. Hardenbergh, a brother of the testator, claimed and demanded an interest in common with the heirs of Ellen E. Ray in the real property acquired after the execution of the testator's will, on the ground that as to those lands he died intestate. This claim was denied, and he thereupon brought an action at law in the nature of ejectment against Charles Sliter, J. C. Miller, and W. H. West, citizens of Oregon, who were in possession of the demanded premises as tenants of the heirs of Mrs. Ellen E. Ray.
Subsequently, on their own motion, these heirs were substituted as defendants in place of their tenants, against whom the action was originally brought, and by their answer set up that, by the law of Oregon, the land in question passed to them by the third clause of the will, and that the testator did not die intestate in respect thereto.
The heirs of Ellen E. Ray having thus made themselves parties to the suit, and one of them (Sarah A. Ray) being a citizen of the same state (New York) as the plaintiff, the point was made in the court below, and has been presented in this court, that the jurisdiction of the United States circuit court was thereby defeated.
This objection to the jurisdiction of the court is without merit, and was properly overruled by the lower court. When the original suit was brought against Sliter, Miller, and West, the persons in possession, the court acquired jurisdiction of the controversy, and no subsequent change of the parties could affect that jurisdiction. This is well settled by the authorities. Mollan v. Torrance, 9 Wheat. 537; Dunn v. Clarke, 8 Pet. 1; Clarke v. Matthewson, 12 Pet. 164; Whyte v. Gibbes, 20 How. 542; Phelps v. Oaks, 117 U. S. 236, 240, 6 Sup. Ct. 714. In this last case it was held that in ejectment against tenants in possession of real estate, whose landlord is a citizen of another state, the plaintiff has a real and substantial controversy with the defendant, within the meaning of the act for the removal of cause from state courts, which continues after the landlord is substituted and becomes a party for the purpose of protecting his own interests. The rule announced in this case clearly settles, in a case like the present, that, where the jurisdiction of the court has completely attached against the tenant in possession, the substitution of the landlord as a defendant for such tanant will in no way affect or defeat the jurisdiction of the court.
By stipulation of parties, the trial of the cause by jury was waived, and all questions of law and fact were submitted to the court for its decision. The court found the facts substantially as set out above, and the conclusions of law announced were to the effect that, at the time the will was made, the testator was empowered and authorized by the laws of Oregon to devise any real estate situated in that state, whether acquired before or after the making of the will, of which he might die seised and possessed; also, that the intention of the testator, as manifested by the will in the present case, was to devise all of his real estate situated in the state of Oregon to Ellen E. Ray, and that, under and by virtue of the devise, the demanded premises, on the death of the testator, vested in the defendants as her heirs, and that they were entitled to the exclusive possession thereof. 33 Fed. 812.
The present writ of error is prosecuted to reverse that judgment. The two assignments of error present the questions heretofore stated.
For the plaintiff in error it is contended that the testator died intestate in respect to the demanded premises, for the reasons that at the time of the execution of his will he possessed no teatamentary power to devise after-acquired lands, and because his will manifests no intention to dispose of such property. If either of these propositions can be sustained, the judgment of the court below must be reversed.
In support of the first proposition, it is urged, on behalf of the plaintiff in error, that the common law, with its limitations and restrictions upon testamentary power in respect to real estate, was in force in the state of Oregon at the date of the execution of the will, and up to the death of the testator. Without reviewing the authorities, it is well settled that, by the common law, lands were not devisable, except in particular places, where custom authorized it. This disability of the common law was partially removed by the statute of 32 Hen. VIII., which authorized persons having title to land to dispose thereof by will, and was construed as restricting the right of devising lands to such an interest, only, as the testator had at the time of the execution of the will. Under this statute, real estate subsequently acquired could not pass by devise,—in other words, under the statute of 32 Hen. VIII., the will, as to lands, spoke from the date of its execution; so that a general devise of all the testator's estate would comprehend and include all the personalty to which he was entitled at the time of his death, but would not embrace after-acquired land, though such might be the expressed intention of the testator. The reason given for the distinction between real and personal estate was that a devise of land was regarded in the same light as a conveyance, and, as a conveyance at common law would not vest for want of seisin, it was therefore held to be operative only on such real estate as the testator might have at the time of the making of the will,—that is to say, that a devise was in the nature of a conveyance or appointment of real estate then owned, to take effect at a future date, and could not, therefore, operate on future acquisitions.
While this strict and arbitrary rule of the common law has been modified by the statutes of most, if not all, of the states of the Union, it is contended for the plaintiff in error that the rights of the parties in the present case are controlled by it, for the reason that the legislature of Oregon did not confer, by statute, testamentary power to dispose of after-acquired real property until February, 1891.
Among the laws enacted by the first territorial legislature of Iowa, and thus adopted by the provisional government of Oregon, was the following act relative to wills: 'Section 1. Be it enacted by the council and the house of representatives of the territory of Iowa, that any person having an estate in any lands, tenements, or hereditaments, or any annuity or rent charged upon, or issuing out of the same, or any goods or chattels, rights, credits, and choses in action, or in possession, and property of every description, whatever, may give or devise the same to any person by last will and testament by him or her lawfully executed.' Laws of the First Session of the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Iowa, 1838-39, p. 471.
This statute was substantially the same as that of 32 Hen. VIII., under which, as settled by the decisions of the English courts, and by those of the states where that statute is in force, after-acquired real estate could not pass by will.
When the laws of Missouri were revised in 1835, it appearing that one section of the Virginia act gave to the testator the same testamentary power over his real estate that was given him in a separate and distinct clause over his personal estate, the superfluous words were dropped, and the testamentary power over both real and personal properties were united in the one section above quoted.
The Missouri statute thus adopted by Oregon was re-enacted in December, 1853, and took effect May 1, 1854, as a part of the Code of the territory. After the admission of the state into the Union, in 1859, the legislature of Oregon, in 1862, re-enacted without change the above-quoted section conferring testamentary power, which has since continued to be the law of Oregon. Hill's Code, § 3066.
The construction which the plaintiff in error seeks to have placed upon these statutes is that the territorial statute of 1849, copied from the Missouri statute, simply conferred the power to make a will devising real estate, which, under the rules of the common law, would not operate to pass real estate acquired after the making of the will, and that such testamentary power over after-acquired real estate was first conferred by the act of 1891.
This approval of the construction placed by the supreme court of Missouri upon the statute after its adoption by the territorial government, in connection with its re-enactment by the legislature of the state in 1862, after the date of the Missouri decisions, may be fairly considered as settling its proper interpretation by the courts of Oregon. If the same construction had been placed upon the statute by the courts of Missouri before its original adoption by the territorial government of Oregon, it is clear, upon the authorities, that that construction would have been adopted with the statute, and the same effect would seem properly to follow from an approval by the supreme court of the state of the construction placed upon the statute by the supreme court of Missouri, prior to its re-enactment in 1862 by the legislature of the state of Oregon.
If the later act of 1849, copied from the revised statutes of Missouri, is no broader in its scope and operation than the statute of 32 Hen. VIII., which was embodied in the Iowa statute adopted by the provisional government of Oregon in 1844, then there would be a lack of testamentary power to dispose of after-acquired real property. This is practically what the contention of the plaintiff in error comes to. But the power of testamentary disposition conferred by the act of 1849, (copied from the Missouri statutes,) and reenacted in 1853 and 1862, as construed by the courts of Missouri and Oregon, is more comprehensive in its provisions than the act of 32 Hen. VIII.,—confersa larger and broader power of disposition over real estate of which the testator may die seised and possessed, and extends to and includes after-acquired real estate.
In respect to the question of testamentary power of disposition over real estate, the Missouri act adopted by the territorial government, and re-enacted by the state of Oregon, was unquestionably intended to be as broad and comprehensive as the Virginia act of 1785, which conferred the testamentary power to devise after-acquired land, and was more comprehensive than the prior act of 1844, taken from the Iowa statute. As already stated, the language of the statute makes no distinction between personalty and realty. It confers the power to dispose of the realty as broadly as the personalty. The saving to the widow her dower is itself indicative of an intention to make the will speak as of the date of the testator's death, at which time the widow's right of dower would come into actual possession and practical enjoyment, whether the dower right extended to all lands owned during coverture or possessed by the husband at his death.
In conformity with this construction, the supreme court of Oregon has held in morse v. Macrum, 22 Or. 236, 29 Pac. 615, and 30 Pac. 73, that the will, as a general rule, speaks from the death of the testator, and not from its date, unless its language, by a fair construction, indicates a contrary intention, in this respect adopting the rule laid down by the supreme court of Connecticut in Canfield v. Bostwick, 21 Conn. 550, and Gold v. Judson, 21 Conn. 616, where it is stated to be the general rule that a will speaks from the death of the testator, where there is nothing in its language to indicate a different intention.
Having reached the conclusion that the act of 1849, adopted from the state of Missouri, (and since re-enacted,) as construed by the decisions of the supreme court of Missouri, and approved by the supreme court of Oregon, confers testamentary power to devise after-acquired real estate, it is not material to consider the statute of February 20, 1891, or to determine whether that statute was intended to be declaratory of the previous law, or was intended to prescribe a rule for the construction of wills in respect to which the authorities have been and are in great conflict, many of the cases holding, as in Smith v. Edrington, 8 Cranch, 66, that, even where the power exists to dispose of after-acquired real property, it would not pass unless such was the clear and manifest intention on the part of the testator; in other words, that the presumption in respect to such property was in favor of the heir at law. This rule of presumption or construction the Oregon statute of 1891 may have been intended to change by declaring that, unless it appeared clearly from the will it was not the intention of the testator, such after-acquired real property would pass.
On this branch of the case our conclusion is that the testator (Hardenbergh) possessed the testamentary power to devise the after-acquired lands in controversy.
The remaining question is whether, by the third and last clause of his will, the testator intended to dispose of all the real estate in Oregon, or elsewhere, of which he might die seised and possessed.
In Jasper v. Jasper, 17 Or. 590, 22 Pac. 152, the same rule is adopted, and, in ascertaining what the intention of the testator is, the words used are to be taken according to their meaning as gathered from the construction of the whole instrument. It is furthermore settled by the authorities that, when one undertakes to make a will, it will be presumed that his purpose is to dispose of his entire estate. Phelps v. Phelps, 143 Mass. 570, 10 N. E. 452; Pruden v. Pruden, 14 Ohio St. 251; Gilpin v. Williams, 17 Ohio St. 396; Leigh v. Savidge, 14 N. J. Eq. 124; Gourley v. Thompson, 2 Sneed, 387; Appeal of Boards of Missions, 91 Pa. St. 507.
Without going into any review of the authorities, special reference may be made to the case of Wait v. Belding, 24 Pick. 129, which arose under a will executed in 1797, before the Revised Statutes of Massachusetts went into effect, which devised to the testator's two sons the whole of his 'lands and buildings lying and being in the town of Hatfield.' By a codicil, dated May 2, 1812, he gave to the same sons lands, not enumerated in the will, purchased since then, in the town of Hatfield, or elsewhere. In construing this will, Chief Justice Shaw said: 'In general, a will looks to the future. It has no operation, either on real or personal property, till the death of testator. General words, therefore, may as well include what the testator expects to acquire as what he then actually holds. The term, 'all my property,' may as well include all which may be his at his decease as all which is his at the date of the will, and will be construed to be so intended, unless there are words in the description which limit and restrain it. We are then brought back to the particular description, 'the whole of my lands and buildings lying and being in the town of Hatfield.' There are certainly no words, and nothing in the will, showing an intent to limit it to the lands and buildings then held by him. No such intent can be presumed. Had it been 'all my lands and buildings in Hatfield or elsewhere' in the original will, the law would have equally restrained its operation to lands then held, not because it was the intent of the testator that it should so operate, but because, assuming that it was his intent that all should pass, such intent is in contravention of the rule of law, and cannot be carried into effect.
These views are directly in point in the present case, where the language is just as comprehensive, and manifests just as clearly an intention of the testator to devise all his lands in the state of Oregon.
It may therefore be laid down as a general proposition that where the testator makes a general devise of his real estate, especially by residuary clause, he will be considered as meaning to dispose of such property to the full extent of his capacity; and that such a devise will carry, not only the property held by him at the execution of the will, but also real estate subsequently acquired, of which he may be seised and possessed at the date of his death, provided there is testamentary power to make such disposition. 1 Jarm. Wills, (5th Ed.) 326, and other authorities cited.
From the foregoing considerations, we are of opinion that there was no error in the judgment of the court below, and the same is accordingly affirmed.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3066
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.