Court Opinion

ID: 9670083
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:14:26.682204+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:02.345104
License: Public Domain

On rehearing.
MERRILL, Justice.
Appellants insist that our opinion in this case is “in conflict with and contrary to the law of Alabama” and the opinion cannot “be reconciled with” Caverno v. Webb, 239 Ala. 671, 196 So. 723; Kaplan v. Coleman, 180 Ala. 267, 60 So. 885, and Hall’s Heirs v. Hall, 47 Ala. 290. Those cases hold the probate of a will is a proceeding in rem, fixes the status of the res, and is binding on all the world until revoked or vacated in a direct proceeding to that end, and, until then, a will as probated becomes a muniment of title in all actions between the parties wherein title is involved. The probate of a will is conclusive and binding and the court as well as all the world is conclusively bound by the fact of probate in an action for the construction of will.
There is nothing in our opinion which conflicts with that proposition of law. The will was properly probated, and it is not questioned here that it is binding on all the parties. The question before us and before the trial court was the construction of the will.
Both courts construed the will as it was originally written since tire attempted alteration by eliminating the words enclosed in parentheses was not effective under the statute.
This case is similar to Brizendine v. American Trust & Savings Bank, 211 Ala. 694, 101 So. 618. There, the will had been probated in the Probate Court of Jefferson County, but the circuit court was asked to construe the will. The testatrix had included a void condition precedent to the devise, and the court held the devise good even though the clear intention of the testatrix was that the son not inherit the property unless he complied with the void condition. The will in that case was probated with the void condition in the face of the will, but the proper construction of the will treated it as if the void condition had not been written into it.
We think the provisions in the will in the instant case are of such doubtful construction or of disputable solution as tó which rational minds may well differ and required a construction, Kaplan v. Coleman, 180 Ala. 267, 60 So. 885. Here, the appellants correctly filed the bill seeking a construction. The fact that the court’s construction was not the one sought by appellants neither augments or diminishes the existence of a probated will. The question was not over the validity of the will or its probate, but the construction and application of its terms and provisions.
The Application for Rehearing is Denied.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., SIMPSON and HARWOOD, JJ., concur.