Opinion ID: 1317683
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: N. Wilson, for the appellant.

Text: Victor J. Ashe, Martin A. Martin and James R. Olphin, for the appellees. Present, Eggleston, Spratley, Buchanan, Staples and Miller, JJ. 1. The judicial function in construing a will is to determine what the testator meant by what he said, not what it might be supposed he intended to say or should have said. If the meaning of the words is plain there is no room for construction. The property being the testator's, his will is the law of the court unless it be against the law of the land. 2. By will of plaintiff's testator, defendant was given a one-half interest in our business, and real and personal property, 'Morning Glory Funeral Home', . . . in fee simple. Plaintiff contended that under this clause defendant did not take certain money in bank to the credit of the funeral home, but the words of the clause plainly embraced testator's interest in all that belonged or pertained to the home as a going business. Testator's interest in the money came from his interest in the business of which it was a part, and the gift of his whole interest necessarily included the money. 3. Under the facts of headnote 2, plaintiff argued that testator's intention not to give defendant his interest in the money in bank was shown by the fact that there was not enough money, aside from that fund, to pay in full two cash bequests made by other clauses of the will, but it could as well be conjectured that he had sufficient money in his individual account when he made his will, or expected to provide money from other sources to meet the bequests, and speculations as to his intention were not admissible when the words of the will were plain. 4. Under the facts of headnotes 2 and 3, the gift to defendant, being a gift of a particular entity, was a specific legacy, while the cash bequests were general legacies. The latter were, therefore, first subject to any deficiency in assets to pay debts and abated ratably between themselves for that purpose. 5. A specific legacy is a bequest of a particular, individualized article or portion of testator's personal estate, set apart from the balance of his property. A general legacy is one which is designated by quantity or amount and which may be satisfied out of the general assets of the estate. 6. In the settlement of a testator's estate, when there are not sufficient assets to satisfy both debts and legacies, debts come first, and legacies abate, i.e., are reduced by the amount needed to pay debts. As between general legacies and specific legacies, the general legacies abate first, and pro rata among themselves. Appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of the city of Norfolk. Hon. Clyde H. Jacob, judge presiding. The opinion states the case. BUCHANAN