Court Opinion

ID: 9829187
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:03:39.873039+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:58.083303
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In appellants’ motion for rehearing we find this statement:
“This court erred in holding and stating in its opinion that appellants contended that, if the conditions in the will were either precedent or subsequent, the title never passed to the appellee, Fannie Mott Hall, for the reason that appellants’ contention, clearly stated in their pleading's and in their brief, was that the title would not pass and did not pass if the conditions were to be precedent, *but that if the conditions were held to be subsequent, and as to all of such conditions as were subsequent, the title would pass subject to forfeiture of the title for the failure of the appellee to comply with the conditions subsequent, and that, as the appellant Mary Belle Minor would have been an heir at law of the testatrix, she could claim a forfeiture of the title by reason of the failure, if any, of the appellee to comply with the conditions subsequent.
“The statement of the court in its opinion shows that the court took the view that the appellants did not distinguish between the legal results to flow from the two characters of conditions, and thereby placing the appellants in the attitude of having made another ‘absurd’ contention to the effect that the title would not pass to the beneficiary named in the will in the event the conditions were held to be subsequent. It was never contended by the appellants that the title would not pass if the conditions were subsequent, but it was insisted that as the appellant was an heir at law, in the absence of a will, she would have the authority to urge a forfeiture of the title, even if it has passed, on account of a failure to comply with the conditipns subsequent; but this court, inadvertently, no' doubt, has made the statement that the appellants made the contention that the title would not pass if the conditions were held to be either precedent or subsequent. This contention places the appellants in the attitude of urging a proposition of law contrary to all the accepted principles in reference to that question, and puts them in an attitude that they never took, and do not now take, and we therefore respectfully request the court to correct an error which is so palpably contrary to appellants’ contentions, and so damaging to them when spread upon the perpetual records of this court, whereby they will stand convicted of contending for an additional ‘absurdity’ to the one already found by the court in another place.”
We cheerfully admit that the above statement is correct, but, as we found that appel-lee Fannie Mott Hall had fully complied with all the requirements of the will of her mother, whether precedent or subsequent, the statement made would not affect the result of our conclusions, therefore we see no necessity for doing or saying more in answer to the complaint above set out than to admit our inaccurate statement. In our original opinion we also stated as follows:
“We cannot agree with the contention that the words quoted from the will could be con-' strued as requiring Fannie to pay Mary’s debts with her' (Fannie’s) money, or that such words created an ambiguity. This is especially apparent when such words are read in connection with words immediately following them. The sentence as a whole is as follows: ‘Pay all that is owed on Mary’s property out of her money, keep up her place, taxes, insurance, and the rest you will have to use for her.’ It would be absurd, it seems to us, to contend that Mrs. Swain required Fannie to pay Mary’s debts and obligations out of her (Fannie’s) money, and to use the rest of Fannie’s money for Mary.”
Counsel complains of the use of the word “absurd,” and characterizes its use by us as a “harsh and severe” criticism of their contention. We, however, disclaim any intention of being or appearing to be disrespectful to counsel. We only used the word “absurd” in the sense of unreasonable, and we still think the construction contended for by counsel would be unreasonable.
With the explanation above made, the motion is refused.