Opinion ID: 1549648
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Will.

Text: Petitioners contend here that the will creates a power in the two sons. It is not contended that the exercise of this power is mandatory under the will. If what has been said above concerning the meaning of the statute is accurate it is unnecessary to determine whether the character of power contended for exists or not. However, it seems to us that it does not. Petitioners base their contention as to the existence of this power upon two arguments. The first argument is that the probate court having this estate in charge has adjudicated that the power exists. The parties seem to treat the adjudication of the probate court to mean what petitioners contend for. The application and a portion of the order thereon of that court are in the record. The application was to sell certain property in order to realize money to pay the donation to St. Louis University and recites that the payment is in pursuance of the power in the will. The order of the court is for sale for that purpose and may be taken as an adjudication of the existence of the power because the effect of the order is to execute it. However, the application and order taken together reveal no direct consideration and determination of this matter but rather give the impression of an uncontested consent order wherein this particular matter was not directly called to the attention of the court. But taking the order as being an adjudication of the existence of the power, there remains the question of its binding effect upon a federal court in an action involving a federal taxing statute. The contention of petitioners is that this order of the probate court, which had jurisdiction and power to determine the meaning of the will, is res adjudicata in all courts and for all purposes. This is not the law. The applicable law as to federal taxing statute situations is expressed in Burnet v. Harmel, 287 U. S. 103, 110, 53 S. Ct. 74, 77, 77 L. Ed. 199, as follows: It is the will of Congress which controls, and the expression of its will in legislation, in the absence of language evidencing a different purpose, is to be interpreted so as to give a uniform application to a nation-wide scheme of taxation. See Weiss v. Wiener, 279 U. S. 333, 337, 49 S. Ct. 337, 73 L. Ed. 720; Burk-Waggoner Oil Ass'n v. Hopkins, 269 U. S. 110, 46 S. Ct. 48, 70 L. Ed. 183; United States v. Childs, 266 U. S. 304, 309, 45 S. Ct. 110, 69 L. Ed. 299. State law may control only when the federal taxing act, by express language or necessary implication, makes its own operation dependent upon state law. See Crooks v. Harrelson, 282 U. S. 55, 51 S. Ct. 49, 75 L. Ed. 156; Poe v. Seaborn, 282 U. S. 101, 51 S. Ct. 58, 75 L. Ed. 239; United States v. Cambridge Loan & Building Co., 278 U. S. 55, 49 S. Ct. 39, 73 L. Ed. 180; Tyler v. United States, 281 U. S. 497, 50 S. Ct. 356, 74 L. Ed. 991, 69 A. L. R. 758; see Von Baumbach v. Sargent Land Co., supra, page 519 of 242 U. S., 37 S. Ct. 201, 61 L. Ed. 460. There is nothing in the statute here involved, either in express language or necessary implication, which would require the federal court to accept the construction of this will by the probate court as determinative here. Therefore, this contention of petitioners is not well taken, and we come to their next contention, which is that the will should be construed to create this power. Construction of the will is ascertainment of the intention of the testator and each will presents its separate problem with little assistance to be gained from adjudicated cases. Smith v. Bell, 6 Pet. 68, 79, 80, 8 L. Ed. 322. First looking at this paragraph third alone, there are no words sufficient to create a legal power. Therein the testator expressly states that he makes no bequests for charitable gifts in the will, stating as the reason for not doing so that he has heretofore expressed to his sons his wishes as to certain charitable gifts and that he prefers that his sons shall make such donations within their sole discretion as shall seem to them to be best. There is no hint that he intends to bind his estate to such gifts, and there is, obviously, no legal obligation upon the sons to make any gifts at all. The situation is that the testator has made known his wishes to his sons and left the matter entirely to their discretion. Passing from this provision in the will to the entire will to ascertain other expressions which might throw light upon the matter under consideration, we find that other provisions of the will (paragraphs second, fourth, fifth, and sixth) make complete disposition of the entire net estate. The fourth paragraph expressly devises to the wife and to each of the two sons the entire net estate in equal shares. The fifth paragraph provides for the contingency of the wife dying before the testator in which case the third going to her is to be divided equally between the sons. Paragraph sixth takes care of the contingency of either son dying before the testator. Thus it is clear that other provisions of the will do not help a construction of the third provision, as creating a power, but have the opposite effect, since they completely dispose of the entire estate in express and indisputable terms. It is clear that there is no power, in a legal sense, expressed in paragraph third, but that it is merely the expression of a desire which is legally binding on no one. In addition it may be said that paragraph fourth of the will expressly devises all of the property constituting my net estate, both real and personal and wheresoever situated to testator's wife and two sons in equal shares. In this situation of a clear devise the estate so devised cannot be diminished unless there is a clearly shown intention to that effect and such showing must be made by more than an expression of a wish or desire. Snyder v. Toler, 179 Mo. App. 376, 166 S. W. 1059, 1062; Matter of Barney's Will, 207 App. Div. 25, 201 N. Y. S. 647, 649, affirmed 239 N. Y. 584, 147 N. E. 205. Also, since the donees of this power of disposition are the two sons to whom was devised portions of the estate in fee, such power would disappear as merged in the larger estate. Browning v. Bluegrass Hardware Co., 153 Va. 20, 149 S. E. 497, 499; Jennings v. Conboy, 73 N. Y. 230, 237; In re Luques Estate, 114 Me. 235, 95 A. 1021; 21 R. C. L. 772, 773; 49 C. J. 1248.