Court Opinion

ID: 9831290
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:59:46.402564+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:33.579426
License: Public Domain

HIGGINS, Justice
(after stating the case as above).
Considering the will of Mrs. Miller as' a whole, we are of the opinion-it was her intention the land in controversy should go to her son, W. H. Finklea, in the event Ollie Herman Dorn should die before he reached the age of 21 or should later die without a family of his own. In either event, the intention was that the land should pass to Finklea rather than to the father and half-sisters of Ollie Dorn, who were strangers in blood to Mrs. Miller.
In St. Paul’s Sanitarium v. Freeman, 102 Tex. 376, 117 S.W. 425, 426, 132 Am.St.Rep. 886, Judge Gaines said: “But when the death of the first taker is coupled with other circumstances, which may or may not ever take place, as, for instance, death under age or without children, the devise over, unless controlled by other provisions of the will, takes effect, according to the ordinary and literal meaning of the words, upon death, under the circumstances indicated, at any time, whether before or after the death of the testator.”
This case, we think, falls within the rule thus announced.
Other cases supporting our ruling are Nowland v. Welch, 88 Md. 48, 40 A. 875, and Holcomb v. Lake, 24 N.J.L. 686.
Reversed and judgment here rendered in appellant’s favor for the land sued for.
Reversed and rendered.