Court Opinion

ID: 9688691
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:00:42.512316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:41.217127
License: Public Domain

MERRILL, Justice
(dissenting).
The testatrix died in 1941. At that time, Mrs. Brugh, Mrs. Bethany and the nieces and nephews were living and “in esse.” The law in effect at that time provided that the life tenants should have the income from the property, but the remainder-men, on the termination of the life estates, were and are entitled, under the will, to the undiminished body of the estate. To change this by giving effect to a statute which did not become effective until July 9, 1945, to me smacks of ex post facto, but since that term is generally used in connection with criminal law, it may be better said that certainly the act, as applied by the majority, is retrospective in application. I, therefore, dissent.