Court Opinion

ID: 6656007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 20:57:47.778959+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:59:55.502911
License: Public Domain

The following opinion on motion for rehearing was filed March 8, 1905. Motion denied:
Per Curiam :
The very earnest and quite able brief of the appellees on their motion for rehearing discusses the proposition as though the will were a devise of lands to the parties named. The opinion of the commissioner upon the second hearing construes the will to direct a sale of the land and a distribution of the proceeds. If this is the proper construction of the will the statute of frauds has no application. It is considered that all parties acquiesced in the long delay because of the unfavorable conditions for selling real estate which obtained for a large portion of the time at least, and that the final sale to Peterson and the Challbergs was a consummation of the provisions of the will acquiesced in by all parties. It is insisted in the brief upon the motion that the labor and good management of Henry Anthes had much to do with creating the values realized upon the sale of the land, and that the disposition of the case will deprive him of fair compensation for his services; and also that the widow will be deprived of her life interest, but there seems to be no ground for this apprehension, as in stating account the trial court *650can hear thé evidence and do complete justice to all the parties.
It is also insisted that the condition of the pleadings is such that this disposition of the case is not justifiable. The pleadings are not entirely satisfactory. Upon another hearing they can be amended, if found necessary. We think the facts pleaded show that the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief indicated in the opinion.
The motion for rehearing is
Overruled.