Opinion ID: 1122251
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Right of Widow To Dissent From Will After Statutory Time.

Text: The action in equity heretofore mentioned to permit the widow to dissent from the will was brought by Pearl Hartt, widow of testator, on November 4, 1953. She alleged in substance that she did not know of her right to elect to take against the will of the deceased; that she did not know the extent and value of the estate; that she was ignorant of the impact of Federal taxes on the estate; that she was not advised of her rights by the executors of the estate in whom the testator and plaintiff had reposed trust and confidence, nor was she advised of her rights by any one else. All of the daughters of testator and Pearl Hartt, except Marjorie Higley, filed their answer admitting the allegations of the petition, and consented to the court granting the relief prayed. Marjorie Higley, a daughter, and the executors answered and in substance denied the right of the widow to dissent from the will after the expiration of the time fixed by statute. For convenience, Pearl Hartt and the daughters joining her in her petition will frequently be referred to as respondents. The court, by decree dated July 16, 1954, granted the widow the right to elect to take against the will, which she did on July 20, 1954. From the decree Marjorie Higley and the executors have appealed. The statute,] 6-301 W.C.S. 1945, so far as applicable here, reads as follows: Any person of full age and sound mind, may dispose by will of all his property except what is sufficient to pay his debts, or what is allowed by law to husband and family or wife and family; provided, however, that in case any married person shall hereafter by will deprive his or her husband or wife of over one-half of his or her property remaining after the payment of his or her debts, it shall be optional with the surviving spouse after the death of the testator or testatrix to accept the condition of such will or one-half of the estate, real and personal, of the deceased spouse. Such option shall be signified by an instrument in writing, signed by the surviving spouse and acknowledged before some officer authorized by the laws of this state to take acknowledgments, and filed in the office of the clerk of the district court in which such will is admitted to probate within six (6) months after the probate thereof. In default of the filing of such instrument duly executed and acknowledged as aforesaid within said period of six (6) months, the will shall govern and control in the distribution of the testator's estate   . The question before us is as to whether or not Mrs. Hartt, the widow, has a right to elect not to take under the will, when she did not do so within six months after the probate of the will, and have relief in an action in equity. The case is one of first impression in this court, and is, on account of future cases, of utmost importance. It is stated in Annotation, 81 A.L.R. 757, that the authorities on the question are in conflict, without pointing out the reasons for conflict. The decisive decisions on the point, pro and con, are absolutely irreconcilable, although we have diligently sought some ground on which they could be reconciled. The reasons for the irreconcilability will be pointed out later. There are but few points on which the courts are generally agreed, namely, when fraud and the like appear by reason of which the widow has been silent, relief may be granted, for fraud vitiates everything. No fraud or the like appears in the case at bar. So, too, the courts hold that if the widow wants to change her mind during the period fixed in the statutes, she may do so. See cases cited in In re Zweig's Will, 145 Misc. 839, 261 N.Y.S. 400, 419. There also may be very exceptional circumstances under which the time fixed by statute is not controlling. Mann v. Peoples-Liberty Bank & Trust Co., Ky., 256 S.W.2d 489. Counsel for respondents think that we have in principle decided in favor of their contention in Merrill v. District Court of Fifth Judicial Dist., 73 Wyo. 58, 272 P.2d 597. We there relieved a party from default in a procedural matter and stated that courts have inherent power to relieve parties from default, which, of course, is true in so far as procedural matters are concerned. But that case involves a substantive, a property right, and a method of acquiring property, and the case has no bearing herein. A number of other cases, cited by counsel for respondents, are not in point herein. Thus New Mexico and Oklahoma have no statute fixing the time in which an election must be made. In re Woolley's Estate, 96 Vt. 60, 117 A. 370, and Hathaway v. Hathaway, 44 Vt. 658, are not in point for the reason that the statute expressly authorized the court to extend the time without apparently fixing any limit to that time. That appears to be true also in the case of Town of Raymond v. Goodrich, 80 N.H. 215, 116 A. 38. See Revised Statutes, New Hampshire, 1942, p. 1542,] 14. The Kansas and Ohio cases cited may be distinguished by reason of the fact that there the probate court is required to explain to the widow her right of election against the will. Porter v. Spring, 250 Mass. 83, 145 N.E. 52, is distinguishable because there the surviving spouse filed an election both under and against the will by mistake. Primeau v. Primeau, 317 Mo. 828, 297 S.W. 382, too, is distinguishable because it involves the election by an insane person. Nor does Waggoner v. Waggoner, 111 Va. 325, 68 S.E. 990, 992, 30 L.R.A. (N.S.) 644, from which counsel quote at length, support the position that the widow in this case should be permitted to now elect against the will. In that case the husband undertook to devise property to the widow which belonged to her, and for that reason the court held that the statute limiting the time in which she might elect was not applicable. See comment on that case in 2 Pomeroy's Equity Jurisdiction, § 513a, p. 447, n. 4. So the statement in Waggoner v. Waggoner, supra, that the rule of ignorance of the law excuses no one is not applicable to the mistakes of persons as to their own private rights and interests can be held to be applicable only as to the facts in that case, and cannot be held to state a universal rule. Smart v. Waterhouse, Tenn., 10 Yerg. 94, is based on fraud. Other cases cited by counsel for respondents are explainable by reason of their particular facts. We need not comment on all of them. In some instances courts do not seem to have been consistent throughout. Take for instance In re McCutcheon's Estate, 283 Pa. 157, 128 A. 843. We have not been able to reconcile some of the statements contained in that case with a later decision from that jurisdiction cited hereafter. There are, however, left a number of cases which hold, or the excerpts from which state, that an election by a widow is not binding unless made with knowledge of her legal rights. See for instance Dick v. Taylor, 124 Kan. 646, 261 P. 579; Hanson v. Clark, 246 Ill. App. 496; In re Donovan's Estate, 409 Ill. 195, 98 N.E.2d 757, 29 A.L.R.2d 215; Tolley v. Poteet, 62 W. Va. 231, 57 S.E. 811; Merchants Nat. Bank v. Hubbard, 222 Ala. 518, 133 So. 723, 74 A.L.R. 646. These cases are irreconcilable with the cases cited by appellants that a widow is not allowed to change her mind after the expiration of the time fixed by statute. The reason for the difference is clear. The former class still adhere to the common law rule of election. For illustration of that see 28 C.J.S. 1098. The latter class of cases do not adhere to the rule holding that the statute is mandatory and that equity follows the law. Thus we are compelled to make a choice. The rule of the latter class of cases seems to have two sources. In the first place we have the general rule that mandatory statutes must be obeyed and that the courts have no right to make a law contrary to that prescribed by the legislature. In the second place the beginning at least of considering statutes mandatory in cases such as before us is clearly found in the fact that such statutes were enacted for the express purpose of remedying the evils of the law of election in such cases under the common law. That has been somewhat obscured in later years, although some reference to it is found in the case of In re Stitzer's Estate, 103 Colo. 529, 87 P.2d 745, 120 A.L.R. 1266. The earlier cases are clear on the subject. Stephens v. Gibbes, 14 Fla. 331, 357, 358, discusses the common law at some length. It points out that at common law no election was necessary except in certain cases; again that there was no limit of time in which an election by a widow was necessary to be made. The court states that anyone who knows anything about the history of election in such cases knows the mischief that existed at common law, and that the enactment of statutes by the legislature on the subject originated in the desire and necessity for curing the evils incident to the common law rules upon these subjects. The case was brought to have dower assigned. It points out the statute providing that the widow was bound to take under the will unless she made an election to the contrary within the time specified. The court states among other things: Under this statute, it is impossible that the practice prevailing in a court of equity upon the subject of election can obtain. If the effect of the failure to dissent is in law an election to take the will, that is an end of the matter, because a court of equity except upon the ground of fraud, or some other like ground, cannot give a construction which will defeat the plain result of the statute. And if the effect of the law is not such an election, it has no effect at all, as the whole matter is left just as it was before. The reasoning of the case is flawless. From a logical standpoint at least it is impossible to disagree with it. And because the law makes an election in such case, other cases in which the widow makes an affirmative election one way or the other are probably distinguishable, since in the latter cases the common law rule could probably be more readily applied. No case, however, has discussed that feature. So we speak with some diffidence on this point. But it might well be said that if the law makes the election, what power has the court to permit a different one to be made? Collins v. Carman, 5 Md. 503, 530, 531, 532, discusses a like statutory provision in the light of the common law. That case was an action in equity to elect against the will, after the expiration of the statutory time, on behalf of a widow who was insane, presenting if any fact could, an equitable reason for allowing the renunciation of the will. But the court would not allow it. The court states among other things: Every valid devise or bequest is, therefore, made an effectual bar, unless it be removed by a renunciation. And until that is made the bar remains. The law admits of no excuse for a failure to renounce. If she makes no election within the time prescribed, the law makes it, without stopping to enquire why or for what reason she made none. (Italics supplied.)    The law clearly gives to the husband the power by his will to bar, or extinguish the common law rights of his widow, unless she thinks proper to quit all claim to the property conferred upon her by the will. And to effect the husband's object the wife need not declare her assent; if however, she desires to defeat it, she must manifest her intention to do so, by an express dissent. And such dissent is an act, which by the very terms of the law, must precede her becoming entitled to or vested with, those rights which she might have claimed but for the will; for the act declares, she shall be barred of those rights, if she does not renounce and quit claim to the devises and bequests, and make her election to take in lieu thereof her dower, or legal share of the estate. It is this election which vests in her the right of dower or legal share, in lieu of what the will had given (See 2 Devereux's Eq.Rep.,344). Whether from design, neglect, or from other cause, the widow fails to make such renunciation, the result is the same.    To acquire such rights in opposition to the will, the law makes the renunciation a necessary act. The non-performance of this act, is therefore, not a forfeiture of existing rights, but prevents the acquisition of those rights, which, by its performance, might be secured.    When the law directs an act to be done, or a condition to be preformed for the purpose of conferring a right, that right cannot be acquired if the act is left undone, or the condition is not performed. And if no exception is made in favor of insane persons, courts of justice have no more power to decree to them the allowance of such rights, because of their mental incapacity to comply with the requisites of the law, than they have to decree in favor of sane persons failing to comply. If the law makes no exception the courts can make none, whether they be courts of law or equity; for where the construction of a statute is before them, the rules of construction are the same in both courts. The case was cited with approval in Bish v. Bish, 181 Md. 621, 31 A.2d 348, 350. In McDaniel v. Douglas, Tenn., 6 Humph 220, 230, the court also considered the common law rule of election. It held that in the absence of fraud the widow was bound by the provisions of the will. The court aptly stated: The case bears no analogy to some of the cases of election at common law; that is said to be a `gentle nursing mother,' but the statute is stern and inflexible and exacts obedience. The statute has existed for more than sixty years; and there has been no case in North Carolina or Tennessee, which sanctions the principle of construction in this instance contended for. To yield to the present application, would be a virtual repeal and abrogation of the statute. It is better that a few widows should be permitted to choose ignorantly and injudiciously, and to their loss, than that we should have no rule. The common law rule of election was also considered in Craven v. Craven, 17 N.C. 338, 344, 345, 347, in which it appears that a statute similar to ours was passed. The court stated among other things: Where the language of a statute is free from ambiguity, there is much hazard of misconstruction by departing from it in search of the supposed policy of the Legislature. If however we are to suppose that the Legislature intended to establish a more general and precise rule of election, than that which theretofore prevailed, when a demand of dower by a widow conflicted with the will of her husband, this supposition will conduct us to the same result as is indicated by the literal construction of the statute.    The Legislature substituted a new rule, more absolute and universal.    And to remove all dispute as to the fact of her election, they declared her to have elected to take under the will, unless her refusal so to take was manifested within a prescribed time, by a solemn dissent in open court.    The law has defined the time, and prescribed the mode when and how, this fact can be certainly known. The most obvious considerations of public policy forbid, without the clearest warrant, judicial exposition which will have a tendency to defeat this great purpose of the law. Thus the reason for the adoption of statutes such as ours on the subject before us is clear, and pulls strongly to have us arrive at the same result in this case. And that is even more true when we come to consider other authorities. 2 Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence, 5th Ed., the standard book on equity, is in accord with the rules laid down. The author in section 512, etc., discusses the comon law rules, similar to those asserted to be the rules by counsel for respondent. But the author expressly states in § 511 that these rules govern in the absence of a statute on the subject, limiting the time in which an election must be made. In § 513a, the author states as follows: These purely equitable rules, at least so far as they affect widows electing between testamentary benefits and dower, have been greatly modified by legislation in this country. In very many of the states statutes have been passed which prescribe definite periods of time within which the right of election between dower and a provision made by will must be exercised. Courts generally have held that legislative acts of this character are simply statutes of limitation fixing a definite time after which an election, if filed, cannot be considered. If dissent is not indicated within the prescribed time and in the manner required by law, the widow is conclusively presumed to have elected to take under the will, no matter how hard the decision in a particular case may seem to be. This is so except in cases of fraud, and perhaps under some other exceptional circumstances. And in § 519c, the author, though also citing cases to the contrary, states: Ordinarily, in the absence of a showing of fraud, and where no laches appears, a widow's petition to revoke an election between the provisions of her husband's will and her statutory rights must be presented within the period within which she is required to signify her election. Following the line of reasoning of the foregoing authorities, the Colorado Supreme Court in In re Sheely's Estate, 102 Colo. 194, 78 P.2d 378, 379, held that failure to renounce the will within the time fixed by statute, namely six months, is conclusive of her duty to take under the will and the statute is mandatory. Counsel for respondents think that the case is not in point because that statute provided The failure to make and file such election within said period of six months shall be conclusive evidence of the consent of the surviving wife or husband to the provisions of such will. We think our statute means exactly the same as the Colorado statute. This appears more clearly when we consider other cases. In Indiana the statute provides that the widow takes under the will unless she shall make her election to retain her rights in the husband's estate given to her under the laws of the state of Indiana, which election shall be made in the manner hereinafter provided. It may be noted that this statute is not nearly as explicit as our own, yet the construction put upon it is the same as on the Colorado statute. In Haas v. Haas, 121 Ind. App. 335, 96 N.E.2d 116, 119, the court said: These statutes have been construed to mean that in all cases where there is a will, the widow is conclusively bound by it unless she renounces its provisions and elects to take under the law in the manner pointed out in the statute. Fosher v. Gilliams, Executor, 1889, 120 Ind. 172, 22 N.E. 118, Collins v. Collins, 1891, 126 Ind. 559, 25 N.E. 704, 28 N.E. 190.) To put it another way, on the death of a husband who made testamentary provisions for his wife, the failure of the surviving widow to make her election to take under the law instead of the will within six months after the probate thereof raises a conclusive presumption that she has accepted the provisions made for her in the will. Easterday, v. Easterday, 1938, 105 Ind. App. 80, 10 N.E.2d 764. In Tennessee the statute provides: A widow may dissent from her husband's will: (1) Where a satisfactory provision in real or personal estate is not made for her; in which case, she shall signify her dissent in open court, within one year after the probate of the will. It may be noted that this statute, too, is not as explicit as ours, but the same construction is put upon it as upon the Colorado statute. In McGinness v. Chambers, 156 Tenn. 404, 1 S.W.,2d 1015, 82 A.L.R. 1492, 1493, 1494, the court stated among other things, after referring to the statute, and quoting from another case: `In looking at the language of the Code, it will be seen that it involves the idea necessarily that the widow is prima facie bound by the will of her husband, but that a privilege is conferred on her by which she may avoid its provisions as to herself, and she may dissent from it. She is not required to assent to the will, but the will is binding and conclusive on her as to its dispositions, unless she shall signify her dissent in open court within one year after the probate of the will. In other words, the will is a perfected act, vesting rights and fixing title as to the widow, which may be defeated and rendered nugatory, so far as she is concerned, by dissent, signified in open court within the twelve months after probate of the will. These principles have been repeatedly held by this court, and such is the plain meaning of the statute. It is even held, and conclusively settled as the law, that if the widow fails to dissent within the time allowed by law, it will be presumed conclusively that the provisions are satisfactory to her, and she having thus, by failure to dissent from the will, elected to take under it, can not be allowed to share in the estate of which her husband died intestate, and can only receive the property given to her by the will.' Waterbury v. Netherland, 53 Tenn. (6 Heisk.) 512. And in the late case of Pinkerton v. Truman, 196 Tenn. 448, 268 S.W.2d 347, 350, the same court, after citing the statute, stated as follows: It is settled law in this state that `if the widow fails to dissent within the time allowed by law, it will be presumed conclusively that the provisions are satisfactory to her, and she having thus, by failure to dissent from the will, elected to take under it, can not be allowed to share in the estate of which her husband died intestate, and can only receive the property given to her by the will.' Wrenne v. American Nat. Bank, 183 Tenn. 247, 256, 191 S.W.2d 547, 551, opinion by Mr. Justice Gailor. The opinion goes on to say, `This has been the law in Tennessee from very early times, as is evident from many reported cases', citing cases. The first reported case is that of Malone v. Majors, 27 Tenn. 577, decided in 1847, opinion by Mr. Justice Turley. In other cases, the courts have held that a statute like ours fixing the time in which a surviving spouse must dissent from the will has been held to be a statute of limitation, and it is said that a court of equity may not give relief from such a statute no matter what hardship may be created, unless, perhaps, it be by reason of fraud or the like. In re Zweig's Will, 145 Misc. 839, 261 N.Y.S. 400. Thus the Colorado Supreme Court which, as noted, held the failure to elect to be conclusive on the rights of the widow, in the later case of In re Stitzer's Estate, 103 Colo. 529, 87 P.2d 745, 120 A.L.R. 1266, designates the statute as a statute of limitation. Other cases to the same effect are Schweer v. Schweer, Mo. App., 86 S.W.2d 969; Ludington v. Patton, 111 Wis. 208, 86 N.W. 571; In re Zweig's Will, 145 Misc. 839, 261 N.Y.S. 400; Akin v. Kellogg, 119 N.Y. 441, 23 N.E. 1046. Thus it is said in Palmer v. Voorhis, N.Y., 35 Barb. 479, 483: The devisees and grantees of the husband are under no obligation to give the widow notice of the provisions made for her by the will, and to require her to make her election. This is not the purport of the statute. It imposes no such duty on them as a condition of exonerating their lands from the burden of her claim. She is presumed to know, as well as any one else, when the death of her husband occurs, and although she may not become apprised of the contents and provisions of his will within the period of a year after his death, she is bound to know that if she omits for that space of time to enter upon the lands, or commence proceedings for the recovery or assignment of her dower, her claim will be barred if there is a will with a pecuniary or other provision made for her in lieu thereof. In this respect the statute operates as a limitation of her right of action; so that if the conditions upon which it applies actually exists, unless she commences her action within the time limited, the right to recover is barred as effectually as it would be, in the absence of a testamentary provision, by the omission to commence her action within the twenty years mentioned in the 18th section of the act. Numerous cases announce the rule that under a statute similar to ours, the surviving spouse must dissent from the provisions of the will within the time fixed by statute, excepting cases involving fraud or the like. Thus it is said in First Nat. Exchange Bank of Roanoke v. Hughson, 194 Va. 736, 74 S.E.2d 797, 804: This paramount right to share in the estate under and as allowed by statute must be exercised within a year of the time of admission of the will to probate to become effective. That limitation, however, merely restricts the time in which the right may be availed of and does not lessen its certainty, Yet within the year the widow or widower must elect to take by the will or against it, and election to take under the statute forfeits all rights enjoyed and provisions made for him or her in the will. Mitchell v. Johnson, 1835, 6 Leigh 461; Kinnaird, Ex'r. v. Williams' Adm'r. 8 Leigh 400; Findley's Ex'r. v. Findley, 11 Grat. 434, 52 Vr. 434; and Nelson's Adm'r. v. Kownslar's Ex'r., 79 Va. 468. In Stearns v. Stearns, 103 Conn. 213, 130 A. 112, 116, the court stated: The statute is too plain to require construction. The will did give to the husband a portion of the estate of testatrix. The husband made no election in writing as to whether he would accept or reject the provisions of the will in lieu of his statutory share as husband of the testatrix. The terms of this statute are explicit, and however unfortunate the result, the facts of record bring the case exactly within the statute and require us to hold that the husband `shall be taken to have accepted the provisions of the will, and shall be barred of said statutory share.' In re Daub's Estate, 305 Pa. 446, 157 A. 908, 911, 81 A.L.R. 735, the court stated: No matter how hard the decision in a particular case may seem to be, if a widow does not make her election within the statutory period, the courts, because of that act, must declare that she is deemed to have made an election to take under the will, for this `statute here fixes the time as definitely as does that relating to taking appeals, and both are mandatory.    In view of the positive provisions of the statute we are not persuaded that relief could be granted ex gratia.' In re Minnich's Estate or Sherwood's Estate, 288 Pa. 354, 358, 136 A. 236, 237.    A different conclusion will, of course, be reached in cases where actual fraud has been committed to obtain the widow's election, and no laches appears, for fraud vitiates everything it touches. And the court further held that a misrepresentation of one executor without intent to defraud is no ground for permitting a widow her election to take under the will. Similar in effect, aside from the cases already cited, are: Hamilton Nat. Bank v. Haynes, 180 Tenn. 247, 174 S.W.2d 39; Bunker v. Murray, 182 Mass. 335, 65 N.E. 420; Morgan v. Christian, 142 Ky. 14, 133 S.W. 982; Landers v. Landers, 151 Ky. 206, 151 S.W. 386; McGlaughlin v. McGlaughlin's Legatees, 43 W. Va. 226; 27 S.E. 378; In re Broad's Estate, 325 Pa. 541, 190 A. 872; In re Zweig's Will, 145 Misc. 839, 261 N.Y.S. 400; In re Goldstein's Estate, 176 Misc. 366, 27 N.Y.S.2d 288; In re Paskievitz' Estate, 184 Misc. 320, 55 N.Y.S. 2d 595; In re Brown's Estate, 69 N.Y.S.2d 864. In 173 A.L.R. 999, we find an annotation dealing with extension of time in which to accept or renounce the provisions of a will. Numerous cases are cited. The fundamental principle involved in all, or most of these cases is the same as the principle involved in the case at bar, and substantially all the cases cited and quoted hold that when the surviving spouse fails to elect within the time fixed by statute, she must take under the provisions in the will of a testator. Notwithstanding this great array of authorities, in which the courts have considered the statutory provisions to be mandatory, counsel for respondents contend that we should follow the common law rule of election, in which time is not considered to be of the essence, and that equity will give relief. We have already seen that Stephens v. Gibbes, 14 Fla. 331, and Collins v. Carman, 5 Md. 503, followed by another Maryland case, hold the contrary. Perhaps the leading case on the subject before us, because of the comprehensive discussion of all the phases on this subject, is In re Zweig's Will, 145 Misc. 839, 261 N.Y.S. 400. Counsel for respondents say that the case is distinguishable because the probate court of New York has no equitable jurisdiction. But it has jurisdiction, by statute, to extend the time within a limited period, which itself seems to be equitable in its nature. Further the court expressly considers the subject of whether or not a court of equity can give relief after the expiration of the time fixed by statute, and states that courts of equity are powerless to vary the direct mandate of legislative enactments as are courts of law, and that this has been determined on innumerable occasions. The court cites many cases. In re Freer's Estate, 353 Pa. 351, 45 A.2d 47, 49, the court states: Since the will of the decedent was probated in Franklin County and no appeal from this probate was taken it follows that if the surviving husband wished to elect to take against his wife's will, it was incumbent upon him to manifest this election by a writing signed by him and duly acknowledged and delivered to the executors of the estate within one year after letters testamentary were issued. His failure to do so is legally deemed an election to take under the will. Courts have no power to extend the one year statutory limitation. In re Broad's Estate, 325 Pa. 541, 190 A. 872. In Moise v. Moise's Ex'r, 302 Ky. 843, 196 S.W.2d 607, 608, the syllabus is as follows: A chancery court has no power to grant testator's widow additional time to determine whether to renounce will after expiration of statutory period for renunciation thereof, unless application for extension of time is made within time prescribed by statute for such election. And in that case the court also stated: But no case has been called to our attention where, the twelve month period having expired, the Court approved the allowance of additional time to determine whether or not to renounce. On the other hand, the reasoning contained in the opinion of McGinnins v. McGinnis' Ex'r, et al., 300 Ky. 759, 190 S.W.2d 323, which we feel constrained to follow, forces us to the conclusion that the Court is without authority to grant additional time for renunciation, unless requested to do so before the expiration of the time prescribed by Statute   . A widow's failure to renounce the will within the statutory period of time is tantamount to a formal declaration that she has elected to take under the will, and is as solemn and binding upon her as a renunciation would have been, if made. It seems to us that, if the Court is without power to permit the withdrawal of a renunciation after the period for renouncing has expired, it likewise is without power to grant additional time to determine whether or not to renounce, unless application be made therefor within the time prescribed by Statute for the election. In other cases wherein Statutes limit the time in which acts may be done, we have held that the Court may not extend such time, unless application therefor shall have been made before expiration of the time allowed by Statutes. In Shelton v. Sears, 187 Mass. 455, 73 N.E. 666, 668, the court stated in part as follows: It is suggested that she may have relief in equity against the operation of the statute, on the ground of accident or mistake in not earlier asserting her claim, and that she should be allowed by amendment to change her writ of dower into a bill in equity. But the form of procedure cannot change the result. Not only is no fraud or concealment shown, but she knew of the contents of the will and of its admission to probate, and at the time was acting under legal advice. Motherway v. Wall, 168 Mass. 333, 338, 47 N.E. 135. The only excuse offered for her inaction is that she was ignorant of the law, but this is not sufficient in equity, any more than at law, to overcome the express limitation fixed by statute within which she must act or be forever barred. Upham v. Wyman, 7 Allen, 499, 502; Currier v. Studley, 159 Mass. 17, 33 N.E. 709. In Allen v. Hartnett, 116 Mo. 278, 22 S.W. 717, 719, the court under a statute similar to ours stated in part: This right is purely statutory. It did not exist at common law. Then, to entitle the widow to its benefits, she must bring herself within its provisions. Equity can afford her no relief. Admitting all the evidence introduced in her behalf to be true, then she did not comply with the statute. That she intended to do so there can be no question. It devolved upon her to see that her election was not only duly and timely executed, but that it was also filed in the office of the judge of the probate court of St. Charles county within 12 months after the granting of letters of administration on her deceased husband's estate.    Such instruments are not filed, however, until deposited in the proper office, and the far-reaching arm of a court of equity, however willing it may be to do so, is not long enough to furnish relief in case of the defective execution of a statutory power, or dispense with any of the formalities required thereby for its execution. Houx v. County of Bates, 61 Mo. 391; Moreau v. Detchemendy 18 Mo. 522. When the statute specifically prescribes the manner in which a certain thing shall be done, it is strictly construed. Hyde v. Goldsby, 25 Mo. App. 29, and authorities cited. The case was expressly approved, quoting part of what is quoted above, in Wash v. Wash, 189 Mo. 352, 87 S.W. 993. In Akin v. Kellogg, 119 N.Y. 441, 23 N.E. 1046, 1047, 1048, the court stated: I think, even if we assume the truth of these charges of her complaint, that her right to relief in equity is most doubtful. She does not ask for relief against some positive act of her commission, procured by the fraud of another. She asks for it because, through reliance upon the statements of others, she remained inactive, and thus suffered the period of time to expire within which she should have been diligent to ascertain and to secure her rights. Now, equity does not interfere to grant relief when one has failed in diligence, or in the performance of an obvious and imperative duty imposed by law. It does not rise above the common law and the statute. Its office is not to relieve against a hardship, merely as such; nor should its interference be moved by mere opinion in the judge. I do not think the equitable powers of a court can be properly invoked to interfere with the established rules of law.    This being, then, a statute of limitation upon the widow's right to enforce her claim to dower, the policy of the law in such a case, as in all cases involving the operation of such a statute upon a person's rights or demands, forbids the granting of relief against its provisions. The statute has acted, and the right has gone. Nor is this the ordinary case of election, where knowledge is necessary in order to make it validly; and hence, where there was a mistake of facts, or a misconception as to rights, relief in equity is allowable. Here the statute does not offer or create the election. That existed already. The office of the statute was to impose a limitation of time upon the exercise of the power to elect, and to bar any subsequent exercise of it.    She was bound to know that the law compelled her to make her election as to whether she would abide by the will or not within a year. Ignorance of that law is no excuse. In Ludington v. Patton, 111 Wis. 208, 86 N.W. 571, 578, the court stated among other things: No further discussion of this subject seems necessary. The decisions cited to our atttention in the briefs of counsel for appellant, to sustain the theory that a court of equity has power to relieve a widow from the effect of an election or failure to elect to take the provision made for her by law instead of the one made for her by her husband's will, because of mere ignorance or mistake on her part, cannot be followed. They are out of harmony with the doctrine of this and most courts. We think we are constrained to hold that our statute hereinbefore quoted is mandatory, and that Mrs. Hartt had no right to dissent from the will after the expiration of six months mentioned in the statute. However, in order to show that the result of applying the statute is not nearly as drastic at least as applied to this case as counsel for respondents would have us believe, we shall, as briefly as possible, examine some of the facts that appear in the record and some of the law applicable in that connection. And we must remember that equity is not always at odds with the law. We have no doubt that when the legislature enacted § 6-301 W.C.S. 1945, it thought that it was treading in the path of equity. We cannot say that is not true. Courts have no exclusive claim to that path. The evidence in the case at bar shows that Mrs. Hartt, the widow, was present when the will of the testator was executed, so that she must have had at least a general idea what the will contained. The will was read with the widow present, after the death of testator. At that time Mr. Bible read to the widow and most of the daughters from a statement containing substantially an inventory of the estate. He valued the estate at slightly more than the sum at which it was subsequently valued in the inventory filed in the case. The will was admitted to probate. No objections on the part of the widow were heard until the summer of 1953, when Bible bought some stock in the sheep companies from Mrs. Hartt's brother and part of which was distributed to Marjorie Higley, one of the daughters, and to her husband. Mrs. Hartt did not like Marjorie's husband. She testified that she was angry when she found that Mr. and Mrs. Higley got hold of some of the stock. Thereafter she consulted Mr. Senior of Salt Lake City. Soon thereafter we find such a barrage of lawsuits in connection with this estate as finds few parallels in the law books. Two of these have already been decided by this court. See Hartt v. Brimmer, 74 Wyo. 338, 287 P.2d 638 and 74 Wyo. 356, 287 P.2d 645. Mrs. Hartt testified that she did not know that she had the right to dissent from the will. As already stated, she was present at the time the will was executed. For more than two years from that time she had the opportunity to investigate her rights. She alleges that she relied on Bible and Brimmer. She talked with the former nearly every week after July 1952 until she left Rawlins. She did not manifest any sign that she was in the executors should have advised her of her rights. It any way dissatisfied with the will. She contends that is stated in 90 C.J.S. 225 that: By accepting the trust, a trustee (executors are trustees) becomes bound to administer it, or to execute it, in accordance with the provisions of the trust instrument and the intent of the settlor. In determining his duty, the intention of the testator is of controlling importance. Robinson v. Elston Bank & Trust Co., 113 Ind. App. 633, 48 N.E.2d 181, 49 N.E.2d 348. Hence the first and primary duty of the executors in this case was to see that the intent of the testator was carried out. It was not their duty, in fact it would have been a violation of their duty, to do anything that would nullify the provisions of the will. True the executors had no right to defraud the widow or by chicanery induce her not to dissent from the will. But no fraud or chicanery is shown herein. The court in Stephens v. Gibbes, 14 Fla. 331, 356, stated: Neither the executors, the other devisees or legatees, nor the creditors, are in any legal sense under an obligation to give the widow notice of the provisions of the will. The law presumes her knowledge of the will and its contents as well as her knowledge of her right of dower and its nature, and she is bound to know that if she omits for the space of one year to signify her dissent, she cannot claim dower. That, of course, applies as well to her right to take under the statute of descent and distribution. In Ludington v. Patton, 111 Wis. 208, 86 N.W. 571, 579, the court laying down the same rule stated: The contention of respondents' counsel that the executors of the estate of Gov. Ludington had a legal and equitable right, if they saw fit, to remain passive for the year subsequent to the admission of the will to probate, conscious that by so doing the appellant, through her ignorance, would lose her widows rights under the law, and that they and the Ludington children would be greatly enriched by such loss, must be sustained. The foregoing conclusion goes as far in sustaining the contention of counsel for respondents, that the trial court erred in deciding that Patton and Van Schaick breached their duty to appellant in failing to inform her or put her in the way of informing herself as to what was the best course to pursue as regards her husband's estate, and in dealing with her to her disadvantage, as any of the authorities upon which they rely. See also Akin v. Kellogg, 119 N.Y. 441, 23 N.E. 1046, from which we have heretofore quoted; 2 Bancroft's Probate Practice, 2d Ed., § 278; Zottarelli v. Pacific States Savings & Loan Co., 94 Cal. App.2d 480, 211 P.2d 23; Reiner v. Fidelity Union Trust Co., 126 N.J. Eq. 78, 8 A.2d 175; Annotation, 39 A.L.R. 329. Under the provisions of § 6-301 W.C.S. 1945, a widow to whom less than half of the estate of a testator has been left has the right to choose to take one-half of the estate, provided that she so chooses within six months after the probate of the will, and presumably takes the one-half by absolute title. Mrs. Hartt did not file her dissent from the will within the time fixed by statute, but waited for over 14 months in which to petition the court for permission to file her dissent. In such a situation a principle of equity enters the case, assuming that she had any right to dissent from the will at that time. The basic thought underlying the cases which hold that a widow may change her mind after the expiration of the time fixed by statute is that the widow had been treated unfairly, and that an injustice should be remedied. In other words she seeks equity. Now counsel for the respondents go upon the theory that the widow has not been treated equitably and fairly unless she receives the one-half of the property by absolute title. But is that assumption justified? We are now in a court of equity. We have found no case in which this question has been discussed. Neither have we found any cases in which a will disposes of substantially a million dollars in the manner in which it was done in the case at bar. So we have an entirely new question before us, and we must dispose of it as a court of equity should, again assuming that the widow has any right at all at this time to change her mind. The widow in this case was left the entire income of the property left in trust, together with the right to consume all of the corpus, if necessary. And the question before us is: Is that an unfair and unjust will, so far as the widow is concerned? Even at first glance, let alone after long deliberation which we have given the point, we think the unqualified answer must be in the negative, unless it be in connection with Federal taxes against the estate, which we shall mention later. We presume that when equity intervenes to permit a widow to dissent from a will after the expiration of the statutory time, the fundamental purpose is not so much to give her a certain additional number of dollars or a certain amount of property, but to give her an additional amount of protection so that she may live in greater ease and in greater comfort in her old age. We know of no more effective way to protect a widow of rather advanced age and of rather limited business experience, as is true in the case of Mrs. Hartt, than to give her the whole of the income of a comparatively large estate, plus the corpus, if necessary. It is difficult to perceive why a court of equity should interfere with the provisions of a will of that kind. Trusts are well known. Provisions for a widow through a trust are frequent and it is in fact a common method in connection with large estates. The testator knew his wife, her strength and her weakness, whether or not she would be unduly influenced by one or more of her daughters and thus perhaps fritter away her property and possibly ultimately leave her penniless. It is rather hazardous for a court to substitute its judgment as of greater wisdom than that of the testator who had known his wife for fifty years. There is testimony in the record that she could, if she received one-half of the property, give each of her six daughters the sum of three thousand dollars each year. That but accentuates what we have said. The welfare of the daughters is wholly irrevelant on the question before us. The testator, if of sound mind and not under undue influence, had the right or privilege to do with his property as he wished so far as the daughters are concerned. And no question of testamentary incapacity enters into this case. Five of these daughters are dissatisfied because the principal of the estate, left after the death of the widow, goes to them only after the expiration of 8 years after the widow's death. All of the daughters are mature women, the youngest being above thirty years of age, so in view of that fact the provision is rather unusual. But the court has no power to eliminate it, unless, perchance by and with the consent of all interested parties. We might add as an explanation of this provision that the testator perhaps wanted to provide for his daughters after middle or old age when their or their husband's earning capacity had decreased. If so, the provision was perhaps wise, rather than unwise. W.P. Farthing, an attorney, who has given special attention to Federal taxation, testified that if the widow would elect to take against the will, there would be an immediate saving of Federa lestate taxes of about $135,000; that if she died immediately, her estate would then be required to pay about $102,000, making a saving of only about $33,000; that if she lived out her expectancy of life, made no gifts, and saved about $5,000 per annum, her estate would then pay from about $119,000 to about $151,000. This witness did not know whether the Bureau of Internal Revenue would recognize an election made after the statutory time had elapsed, thus leaving the question whether there would be any tax saving altogether problematical. We can readily understand the anxiety of the trial court in this connection, feeling as all of us do the onerous burden of Federal taxation, hoping that the $135,000 might in the first instance be saved the estate, and doubtless figuring that a bird in hand is worth two in the bush. It is not improbable that this fact, more than anything else caused it to enter the judgment permitting the widow to dissent from the will, as well as removing the executors, feeling that they were responsible for not saving this sum at this time. It might be suggested that this amount of $135,000 might well have been taken by the widow and advantageously invested in an annuity. There is, however, a flaw in that suggestion. If she dissented from the will she could not take that sum from the estate, but would have to take it out of her one-half. She could not have taken it out of the share of the children. We, too, should be glad to have the foregoing sum saved, if it could be done consistent with the wishes of the testator. The contention that the executors should have informed the widow of the effect of the Federal estate taxes is not well taken, as we have already seen. They did not have the duty to advise her to do any act which would nullify the will. And the contentions of the respondents, if sustained, would result in that. The trouble in this whole matter is that the respondents try to shift the burden of not saving the foregoing sum at the present time on the wrong shoulders  on those of the executors. The testator is no longer here to defend himself, so respondents try to find a scapegoat. The responsibility in this connection rests solely and exclusively on the shoulders of the testator, and on those of no one else. Appellants offered to prove that the testator consulted an expert on taxation before or at the time when he executed his will. The court refused to permit that testimony. That is not important. Testator was as tax-conscious as every business man is. He is presumed to have known the law. In fact we may well assume, without violating any legal rule, that he, with his business acumen, fully informed himself of the amount necessary to pay Federal taxes and deliberately made his will in the face of that fact. He had a legal right to do so. Should or can a court of equity say that he did not have that right? Moreover, we may well revert to the question asked before: Can a court of equity, under the facts confronting us, say that the widow was treated unfairly and unjustly, and substitute its judgment for that of the testator? We think we should give the same answer which we gave before. Who, in this uncertain world, is so wise as to be able to look into the future and say that the provisions made by the testator were unwise? We do not pretend to be seers, but, if this state keeps on being developed as it has in the past, it is not unlikely that we may have in the future numerous men with considerable wealth who may want to provide for their widows in a like or similar manner as the testator did in this case despite the laws on taxation, and for the reason, as already indicated, such method i sone of the most effective methods for the protection an dwelfare of a widow of advanced years and of limited business experience, when the amount involved is not small. It hardly behooves our courts to deter them from so doing by not guarding such wills against untimely dissent, or cause them to go to other states with more liberal rights of testation. Counsel for respondents want us to consider the statement of K.N. Llewellyn in 46 Columbia Law Review, p. 167, to the effect that a decision should make sense in simple terms of life and justice. The trouble in this case is that respondents and their counsel look at equity and justice from too narrow a standpoint. Not a single voice is raised in testator's behalf by any member of his family except that of his daughter Marjorie Higley. The others consider this case from their own standpoint alone, ignoring the wishes of the testator. We recall but one sentence in the voluminous briefs of their counsel which makes any reference to the testator's wishes. Practically speaking, they take the position  which they would disavow  that the wishes of the testator must be disregarded if they conflict with the wishes of those upon whom he bestowed his bounty. We do not, of course, blame them. Everything in their view must be determined in favor of the living; the testator is in his grave; his wishes are no longer of importance. We, along with at least many of the courts, think that is too narrow a view; that the testator's wishes must be carried out, if within the bounds of law, as they are in the case at bar. After all, it is his property with which we are dealing. He accumulated it; he could have given it away in his lifetime and left his widow practically penniless; he could have disposed of it in his will as he desired, if not contrary to law, as it is not in this case. It is, and for many centuries has been, a common thought in our economic system, that to execute a last will and testament is the most solemn and sacred act of a man's life. It is not our province to make light of that. It would not be becoming of us to give men and women to understand that as soon as they are lowered in the grave, those upon whom they have bestowed their bounty may engage in a scramble over the property at will. To say that would, we think, be poor public policy, contrary to the interests of society and should not be encouraged.