Case Name: FORREST v. JENNINGS
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1917-04-11
Citations: 107 S.C. 117
Docket Number: 9668
Parties: FORREST v. JENNINGS.
Judges: Messrs. Justices Hydrick, Fraser and Gage concur in the opinion of the Court.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 107
Pages: 117–124

Head Matter:
9668
FORREST v. JENNINGS.
(92 S. E. 189.)
1. Wii.ls — Construction—Rights op Creditors op Devisee. — Where one clause of the will devised to the husband of testatrix all her property for his use and benefit forever without any limitation or restrictions, and a subsequent clause provided that, in the event her husband died seised and possessed of property received from her estate without having made provisions as to who should receive it, it should go to the nephew of testatrix, the clauses were consistent and gave the husband the use and enjoyment of the property with power to sell during his life, but gave property not sold during his life to the nephew, and property not sold by the husband was not, after his death, subject to his debts.
2. Wills — Construction—Rights of Creditor of Devisees — Sale by Devisee. — The proceeds of property sold by the husband during his lifetime became his absolute property, and after his death were liable for his debts.
Before SkASB, J., Saluda,
December, 1915.
Reversed.
Action by B. Frank Forrest, as administrator of the estate of W. L. Parkman, deceased, against John D. Jennings, in his own right and as administrator with the will annexed de bonis non of the estate of Rosanna Parkman, deceased. Decree for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Mr. C. J. Ramage, for appellant,
cites: As use of technical terms by testator: 6 Rich. Eq. 26; 1 Rich. Eq. 396; 44 Am. Dec. 229. Effect to entire will: 3 Strob. Eq. 211. Inconsistent bequests: 1 Hill Ch. 360; 27 Am. Dec. 422. Last declaration prevails: 21 Am. Dec. 21; Gardner Wills 374; 159 Mass. 252; 34 N. E. 266.; 73 Iowa 564; 35 N. W. 676. Intention governs: 2 McC. Ch. 260. Entire will: 2 Jarman Wills 49; 1 DeS. Eq. 237; 48 Am. Dec. 766; Grammatical Construction, 3 Jarman Wills 707; Black Interpretation of Daws 141. Power to be exercised during life of donee: 22 A. & E. Enc. of D. (2d ed.), 1132; 57 Hun. (N. Y.) 386. Naked powers: 8 Wheaton 174. Life estate: 5 D. R- A. (N. S.) 281; 130 Iowa 611. With power of disposal: 6 D. R. A. (N. S.) 1186, 1193, 1194; 128 Iowa 746; 1 D. R. A. (N. S.) 782; 102 Md. 131; 14 Am. St. Rep. 130; 86 Va. 876; 19 Am. St.. Rep. 919; 25 Am. St. Rep. 614; 38 Am. St. Rep. 857. Subsequent words in will reduces first gift: Douglas 306, 309, 253; Grimke Exors. 107, Í09; 124 Ind. 27; 169 111. 365; 61 Am. St. Rep. 183; 67 Conn. 390; 52 Am. St. Rep. 285; 141 Mo. 55; 25 Am. St. Rep. 614; 153 Mass. 126; 38 Am. St. Rep.. 857; 158 Pa. 651; 40 Cyc. 1587, 1417.
Messrs. B. W. Crouch and B. W.'Able, for respondent,
submit: The devise over to Jennings was void as inconsistent with fee given Parkman: 40 Cyc. 1587; 16 Cyc. 649 ; 4 Strob. Eq. 37; 2 Bailey 231; 2 Hill Eq. 244.
April 11, 1917.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Watts.
This is an action against the estate of Rosanna Parkman by creditors of the estate of W. L. Parkman. Mrs. Parkman left her will in due form, and the will is in the following words, which raise the questions to be determined by the Court:
"Second. I will, devise and bequeath unto my beloved husband, W. R. Parkman, all my property, real and personal and mixed, that I may own at the time of my death, wherever the same may be situate, for his use, behoof and benefit forever, without any limitation or restrictions of any kind whatever.
"Third. In the event that my said husband, W. R. Parkman, shall die seised and possessed of property received from my estate without having made provisions as to who shall receive the same or leaving no specific directions as to what shall be done therewith, I will and devise and bequeath the same unto my nephew, Tom Brown Jennings."
The case was tried before Judge Sease on the agreed facts, and the question was:
"Did the will of Mrs. Parkman cover the debts contracted by her husband ?"
Judge Sease found that the will covered the debts contracted by the husband, Parkman. From this decree of his Honor the appellant appeals, and alleges error and asks reversal. The' appeal raises the sole question: Was his Honor in error in so holding? We think his Honor was in error.
The second and third clauses of the will are consistent. Under the will he could use and énjoy it or sell it. Under the will he was given the use of the property with power to dispose of it during his life. Failure to sell- or dispose of it while he was alive and exercise the power to do so during his life could not defeat the provisions of the will as to- where it would go after his death. Then the property went under the terms of the will to the party named therein, and is in no way liable for the debts contracted by the husband in his lifetime. His failure to use the power conferred upon him by the will during his lifetime cannot be extended to pay his debts out of the estate after his death.
The record shows, however, that W. L. Parkman sold some of the real estate in his lifetime, and that the proceeds of the sale are in the hands of defendant. Upon the sale the proceeds became the property of W. U. Parkman and belonged to his estate. Therefore, the defendant must account to his administrator therefor.
Judgment reversed, and case remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent -with the views herein announced.
Messrs. Justices Hydrick, Fraser and Gage concur in the opinion of the Court.