Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffstatutewill
statutewill

Related Cases

Haley v. Commissioner of Public Welfare, 394 Mass. 466, 476 N.E.2d 572, Med & Med GD (CCH) P 34,585
View Case »
Clymer v. Mayo, 393 Mass. 754, 473 N.E.2d 1084
View Case »
In re Marriage of Mitchell, 181 Ill.2d 169, 692 N.E.2d 281, 229 Ill.Dec. 508
View Case »
New Brantner Extension Ditch Co. v. Kramer, 57 Colo. 218, 141 P. 498, Am.Ann.Cas. 1916B,1225
View Case »
Haslam v. Alvarez, 70 R.I. 212, 38 A.2d 158
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Crawley v. Kendrick, 122 Ga. 183, 50 S.E. 41

Facts

William B. Kendrick died testate in 1892, leaving a will that devised property to his three sons for life, with the remainder to their children as a class. William G. Kendrick, one of the life tenants, died in 1902, leaving one child, J. H. Kendrick, and a grandchild, the plaintiff, whose parent had died before the testator made his will. The grandchild claimed an equal share in the remainder, but the lower court ruled against this claim.

William B. Kendrick died testate in 1892, leaving a will that devised property to his three sons for life, with the remainder to their children as a class.

Issue

Whether a grandchild of a life tenant, whose parent died before the testator, can share in the remainder with the only child of the life tenant.

Whether a grandchild of a life tenant, whose parent died before the testator, can share in the remainder with the only child of the life tenant.

Rule

A devise to a life tenant and at their death to their children as a class vests the title only in the children in esse at the death of the testator, excluding grandchildren whose parents predeceased the testator.

A devise to a life tenant and at their death to their children as a class vests the title only in the children in esse at the death of the testator, excluding grandchildren whose parents predeceased the testator.

Analysis

The court analyzed the will and the relevant statutes, concluding that the term 'children' in the context of the will referred only to the first generation of offspring. The court emphasized that the law governing vested remainders has historically excluded grandchildren from sharing in the remainder unless their parent had a vested interest during the life tenant's lifetime.

The court analyzed the will and the relevant statutes, concluding that the term 'children' in the context of the will referred only to the first generation of offspring.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, ruling that J. H. Kendrick was the sole legal owner of the remainder under the will, and the grandchild was excluded from sharing in it.

The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, ruling that J. H. Kendrick was the sole legal owner of the remainder under the will, and the grandchild was excluded from sharing in it.

Who won?

J. H. Kendrick prevailed in the case because he was the only child of the life tenant in esse at the time the title to the remainder vested.

J. H. Kendrick prevailed in the case because he was the only child of the life tenant in esse at the time the title to the remainder vested.

You must be