Court Opinion

ID: 9537311
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:15:39.896919+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:25.509937
License: Public Domain

JACKSON, Justice
(dissenting).
The difficulty I have in interpreting 84 O.S.1971, § 222, stems from its arrangement and substance. It is a one-sentence section and deals with two kinds of kindred and two different sources of an estate. In addition, as sometimes occurs, we find ourselves interpreting former decisions of this court as distinguished from interpreting the statute. Section 222, with numerals added, provides as follows:
(1) “Kindred of the half-blood inherit equally with those of the whole blood in the same degree, (2) unless the inheritance come to the intestate by descent, *1233devise or gift of some one of his ancestors, in which case all those who are not of the blood of such ancestors must be excluded from such inheritance.”
That part of the sentence identified as number (2) constitutes an exception to provision number (1) so that if we make a new sentence out of provision number (2) it would provide substantially as follows:
“If the inheritance come to the intestate by descent, devise or gift of some one of his ancestors, all those who are not of the blood of such ancestors must be excluded from such inheritance.”
In the instant case Lucinda Robbs died intestate leaving an estate consisting of personal and real property. The real estate was devised to her by her paternal uncle, William Wallace Robbs. Thus under the exception, identified here as number (2), Lucinda Robbs’ real estate which was devised to her by her paternal uncle, William Wallace Robbs, will descend exclusively to Lucinda’s heirs who are of the blood of her paternal uncle, William Wallace Robbs. Lucinda’s personal property, which I assume was acquired by her own industry, would descend as provided in the first part of Section 222. That is, “Kindred of the half-blood inherit equally with those of the whole blood in the same degree.” This can only mean that her nearest of kin will inherit the property acquired by her own industry whether of half-blood or whole-blood, pursuant to the provisions of 84 O.S.1971, § 213.
I believe the conclusion I have reached is in harmony with earlier decisions of this court as expressed in Thompson v. Smith, 102 Okl. 150, 227 P. 77, and in In re Long’s Estate, 180 Okl. 28, 67 P.2d 41.
Former decisions of this court and the history of Section 222 are thoroughly discussed by Albert R. Matthews (now of Muskogee, Oklahoma) in 13 Oklahoma Law Review 440-445. He appears to be of the view of that the doctrine of ancestral property should be abolished by the Legislature. I agree that the problem should be reviewed by our Legislature.
I would deny certiorari and thus affirm the judgment of the trial court and the decision of the Court of Appeals.
I am authorized to say that DAVISON, V. C. J., and HODGES, J., concur in the views herein expressed.