Court Opinion

ID: 9655081
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:59:40.083832+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:16.003679
License: Public Domain

Opinion on Petition to Rehear
Swepston, Justice.
A petition to rehear has been filed in behalf of J. Albert Kimbrough, et al., in his group of claimants. The petition is a reargument of. the same points fully discussed in the brief and fully considered by the Court in the study of the briefs and the authorities and for that reason does not comply with rules of the Court and must be overruled.
We hardly think it is a fair criticism of the opinion to say that it holds as a fact that the draftsman of the will was familiar with Frank v. Frank and other cases cited *499in the opinion which were decided after the will was drawn. What we did say, however, was that the draftsman of the will was familiar with the fact that in this State the term “next of kin” ordinarily refers to personal property and heirs to real estate but that this rule of construction does not apply where the contrary intention appears from the will.
Then we pointed out that where the expression “next of kin” simpliciter is used it simply means those nearest in blood relationship without regard to any statute of distribution or of descent. The question was settled at the end of the 18th century in England in the case of Withy v. Mangels, 8 Eng.Rep. 724, 10 Clark and F. 215; 10 L.J.Chy.N.S. 391. Then in the annotation referred to in 32 A.L.R.2d 296, are listed the more recent cases which, if read, will disclose that for many years back in those respective states the English rule has been followed. It is, therefore, incredible that a skilled draftsman of a will in 1918 in preparing an item dealing solely with real estate was not familiar with the rule above stated. Frank v. Frank is simply a judicial statement of what the rule has always been considered to be in the majority of jurisdictions including Tennessee.
The petition is overruled.