Court Opinion

ID: 9827457
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:34:16.422402+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:31.645620
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
At a former day of this term the judgment of the lower court in this cause was in part affirmed and in part was reversed, and the cause remanded, as will appear from the original opinion now on file. Both parties have filed motions for rehearing in this court, the appellants contending in their motion that we were in error in our construction of the will of George P. Rains, as shown by our original opinion, and the appellees contending in their motion that we should set aside our former disposition and now affirm in part and in part reverse and render.
We have given careful consideration to appellants’ motion for rehearing, but we have not changed our views as to the proper construction of the will of George P. Rains, as shown by our former opinion, and therefore appellants’ motion for rehearing has been overruled.
In our former opinion, relative to the remand of the cause, we said:
“The only question of fact, as we understand the record, to be determined upon another trial, is as to who constituted the testator’s family at the time of his execution of the will in question, as well as who were the members of such family at the date of the death of Mrs. Parker. If this fact should be determined in favor of the appellants, judgment should be rendered in their favor for one-half of the community interest in the two tracts of land described in tracts 2 and 3 in plaintiffs’ petition, and as to all the other property in controversy judgment should be rendered in favor of the appellees therefor.”
As pointed out in the motion of appellees, we believe that it is shown by the pleadings in this case and by agreement between the parties that the appellants, who were defendants below, constitute the members of the “family” of George P. Rains, as the expression “family” was used in his will, and that therefore there is no necessity of remanding the cause to have that fact determined. Among other things, appellants, as defendants below, alleged in their answer the following:
“The defendants aver that the defendant M. M. Rains is a brother of the said George P. Rains, the defendant M. A. Norton is a sister of the said George P. Rains, the defendant Mrs. Lula Rains is the surviving wife of John Rains, deceased, who was a brother of George P. Rains, and the defendants Yaughn Rains, Otto Rains, Inez Bush, Letta Callahan, Lila Ross, Merta Ross, and óleo Terry are the only *549children of the said John Rains; that Geo. Bryan and John Bryan are the only children of Virginia Bryan, who was a sister of George P. Rains. The said Virginia Bryan is dead, and the husband of Virginia Bryan died prior to her death. John R. Herndon, Idela Daniels, Thomas Herndon, Valerie Bedell, and P. JVI. Herndon are the only children of America Hern-don, who was a sister of George P. Rains and who is dead. The husband of America Hern-don died prior to her death, and Thomas Hern-don died after the death of America Hern-don, his mother, and left surviving him E. A. Herndon and his children, Henry I. Herndon, Effie Mae Southard, Ernest Herndon, and Lorimer Herndon. T. C. Edwards was a sister of George P. Rains, and she is dead, having died after the death of her husband and left no children or descendants. The defendant Joseph Edwards claims to be the adopted son of T. C. Edwards. Eliza Fletcher was a sister of George P. Rains and she is dead. Her husband died .before she did, and the defendants in this cause (other than those mentioned in this paragraph and the Marshall National Bank) are the children and descendants of said Eliza Fletcher. The said George P. Rains had no brothers or sisters except those named in this paragraph and the children of these descendants mentioned in this paragraph.”
It was then alleged:
“That these defendants are the family of the said George P. Rains and the persons he intended to designate as his family under the terms of said will.”
Thereupon the appellees here, who were the plaintiffs below, pleaded, among other things, as follows:
“And, if necessary to' further answer herein, these plaintiffs would come and for further answer to said defendants’ amended original answer and cross-bill of said defendants these plaintiffs say that the persons named in said original answer and who answered therein are the heirs of George P. Rains, deceased, who, with the defendant Edwards, are the heirs and only heirs at law of George P. Rains, deceased.”
Also we find in the statement of facts the following agreement between the parties:
“It was agreed by all parties hereto, in open court, that the last will. and testament of George P. Rains, deceased, dated June 27, 1881, was written entirely in the handwriting of the said George P. Rains; * * * that the father and mother of Geo. P. Rains died prior to the date of his will, and that at the time of his will and at the time of his death his nearest relatives were his brothers, M. M. Rains, John Rains, his sisters, Mrs. M. A. Norton, Mrs. America Herndon, Mrs. Virginia Bryan, Mrs. T. O. Edwards, and Mrs. Eliza Fletcher; that, after the death of George P. Rains, Mrs. America Herndon, Mrs. Virginia Bryan, Mrs. T. C. Edwards, Mrs. Eliza Fletcher, and Mr. John Rains died intestate; that the defendants M. A. Norton and M. M. Rains are the only brothers and sisters of George P. Rains who were living at the time of the death of Mrs. M. E. Parker; that the other defendants, except the Marshall National Bank, are the only heirs at law of the deceased brothers and sisters of George P. Rains.”
After further consideration of the point, we are convinced that it appears from the above-quoted pleadings of the parties and their agreement that the appellants in this cause, who claim to be the members of the family of George P. Rains, as the expression “family” was used in his will, are such, in fact, and that there can be no necessity or reason for remanding the cause for a determination of that fact. Therefore that part of our former judgment remanding the cause is here now set aside, and judgment will be here rendered in favor of appellants for an undivided one-fourth interest in those two certain tracts of land described as tracts Nos. 2 and 8 in the plaintiffs’ second amended original petition in this cause.