Court Opinion

ID: 9811443
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:20:57.366149+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:14:23.654767
License: Public Domain

BaRNhill, J.,
dissenting: In my opinion tbe testator expressed tbe intent that bis wife should take all bis property and that she might “do as she pleases” with all of it except tbe land. Tbe land was to go to her for life, and then to Sallie A. Hocutt for life, with remainder to her bodily beirs, if any, and if none then to bis kin and bis wife’s kin. If so, tbe will in effect reads:
“I give to my wife all tbe property that I own her lifetime, land and all, to do as she pleases with all of it except tbe land. At her death tbe land is to go to Sallie A. Hocutt for her lifetime and then to her bodily beirs, if any, and if none back to my kin and my wife’s kin. As to all my estate except tbe land my wife can do as she pleases with it.”
Under tbe construction of tbe majority opinion tbe gift of tbe land after tbe first life estate is meaningless. “At her death tbe land is to go to Sallie A. Hocutt for her lifetime and then to'her bodily beirs if any and if none back to my kin and my wife’s kin all except tbe land.” Tbe testator was here dealing only with tbe land. Thus, if tbe majority conclusion is correct be gave and be took away in tbe same breath.
Accepted rules of construction require us, if possible, to so construe tbe language used as to give effect to each and ev.ery part thereof. But tbe majority thus negates one of tbe most important provisions of tbe will.
*260It is to be noted that there was no gift over of the personal property. This evidences an intent that his wife should have the right to “do as she pleases” with it. On the other hand, there was a specific limitation over of the land, carefully guarding against any lapse for failure of a taker. This to my mind confirms the view that the wife was not to “do as she pleases” with the land.
The testator and his wife had no children. There was an adopted daughter, Sallie A. Hocutt. No doubt, as is so often the case, he and his wife had accumulated what estafé he possessed. Hence, if the gift to the adopted daughter failed he wanted his kin and his wife’s kin to share equally in the land, the fruits of their joint efforts.
It follows that I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs are cotenants and that the judgment below should be reversed.