Case Name: In re WINANS' ESTATE. WINANS v. PROCTOR
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1939-04-04
Citations: 288 Mich. 482
Docket Number: Docket No. 42, Calendar No. 40,336
Parties: In re WINANS’ ESTATE. WINANS v. PROCTOR.
Judges: Btjtzel, C. J., and Sharpe, Chandler, and North, JJ., concurred with Wiest, J.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 288
Pages: 482–488

Head Matter:
In re WINANS’ ESTATE. WINANS v. PROCTOR.
1. Wills — Election of Widow.
Widow’s election to take same share of late husband’s estate as provided by law in ease he had died intestate did not destroy the will or render any part of the estate devised thereby intestate (3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 13085 [e], as amended by Act No. 242, Pub. Acts 1931).
2. Same — Statutes—Election op Widow — Devise on Balance op Estate to Others.
Widow who was entitled under the statute to one-half of late husband’s estate absolutely and to balance thereof subject to any devise or legacy which husband had made by will and who elected to take under the statute held, not entitled to any portion of remaining half where will had ordered entire estate sold and devised 50 per cent, of proceeds to widow and balance to others (3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 13085 [e], as amended by Act No. 242, Pub. Acts 1931).
Bushnell, Potter, and McAllister, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from Wayne; Simpson (John), J., presiding.
Submitted January 4, 1939.
(Docket No. 42, Calendar No. 40,336.)
Decided April 4, 1939.
Rehearing denied June 22,1939.
In the matter of the estate of Benjamin H. Winans, deceased. On petition of Myrtle Pfeifle and Roy H. Proctor for an order directing the executor to deliver one-half of the real estate to them. Judgment for petitioners. The widow appealed to circuit court. Judgment affirmed. The widow appeals.
Affirmed.
Jerome Mettetal for appellant.
Wilbur J. Danaher and 8. Beymont Paul, for appellees.

Opinion:
Wiest, J.
The judgment in the circuit court should be affirmed. The estate consisted mainly of real estate.
The widow elected to take "the same share or part of the said estate left by my late husband, as provided by law in case he had died intestate." This did not destroy the will or render any part of the estate devised thereby intestate. Kilgore v. Kil gore, 319 Ill. 298 (149 N. E. 754); Fife v. Fife, 320 Ill. 270 (150 N. E. 630); Suiter v. Suiter, 323 Ill. 519 (154 N. E. 337). See, also, In re Povey's Estate, 271 Mich. 627, 631 (99 A. L. R. 1183). Had there been no will, the widow, under the circumstances, would take the whole estate, but there being a will and an election by the widow not to take thereunder but have her share as provided by law in case of intestacy then the statute quoted by my brother in this instance operates as one of limitation by providing:
"That where the effect of such election on the part of the widow under this subdivision shall be to enable such widow to take all of the real estate of the husband [as in this instance], then her election shall be limited so as to enable her to take a one-half interest therein absolutely. . The other one-half interest in said real estate shall go to her subject to any devise or legacy which may be provided by the husband in his last will and testament." 3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 13085, subd. (c), as amended by Act No. 242, Pub. Acts 1931 (Comp. Laws Supp. 1935, § 13085, subd. [c]; Stat. Ann. § 26.234, subd. [c]).
Testator gave his wife one-half of the proceeds from the sale of his estate, whether real, personal, or mixed, and the other half he devised in equal parts to Myrtle Pfeifle and Roy H. Proctor.
Under the mentioned statute the widow, by her election, was entitled to one-half of the estate, and the other half, being devised to others by the will, was not subject to her participation. If there had been property not devised, then the widow would take. Subjecting the right of the widow in the other half "to any devise or legacy which may be provided by the husband in his last will and testament" does not permit subjecting such devises and legacies to an interest in the widow. The language "subject to" renders the widow's right inferior to that of the devisees. If the devise is of all the estate above one-half thereof, then one whose right to take is subject thereto can take no part thereof.
The judgment in the circuit court is affirmed, with costs to appellees.
Btjtzel, C. J., and Sharpe, Chandler, and North, JJ., concurred with Wiest, J.