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

plaintiffwill
defendantwill

Related Cases

Duncan v. Vassaur, 550 P.2d 929, 1976 OK 65
View Case »
Reinman v. City of Little Rock, 237 U.S. 171, 35 S.Ct. 511, 59 L.Ed. 900
View Case »
Predham v. Holfester, 32 N.J.Super. 419, 108 A.2d 458
View Case »
In re Estate of Smith, 685 So.2d 1206, 21 Fla. L. Weekly S332
View Case »
Purity Extract & Tonic Co. v. Lynch, 226 U.S. 192, 33 S.Ct. 44, 57 L.Ed. 184
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Le Sourd v. Leinweber, 412 Ill. 100, 105 N.E.2d 722

Facts

William M. Miller died testate on March 16, 1897, leaving behind a will that devised his real estate to his daughter Hannah A. Kehl for life, with a remainder to her children. After the deaths of Miller's widow and daughters, a dispute arose regarding the interpretation of the will's provisions concerning the heirs. The plaintiffs, Ollie F. Le Sourd and Vera B. Langley, claimed their interests through the deceased daughters, while Nancy B. Leinweber contended that she was entitled to the entire fee-simple title as the only living heir at the time of the life tenant's death.

The complaint asserts that the defendant Nancy B. Leinweber acquired her interest as one of the heirs-at-law of the testator at the time of his death, and as the niece of Cynthia B. Taylor, deceased.

Issue

The main issue was whether the term 'my heirs' in the will referred to the heirs determined at the time of the testator's death or at the time of the life tenant's death.

The question presented for construction is whether or not this provision in the fifth paragraph of the will was intended to mean heirs of the testator as determined at the date of the death of the life tenant, Hannah A. Kehl, or heirs determined as of the date of death of the testator, William M. Miller.

Rule

The court applied the principle that the term 'heirs' in a will typically refers to those who are the heirs at the time of the testator's death, unless the language of the will clearly indicates a different intention.

Ordinarily, the word ‘heirs' is used to designate those persons who answer this description at the death of the testator.

Analysis

The court analyzed the language of the will and determined that the testator's intent was to designate his heirs as they existed at the time of his death. The court found no clear indication in the will that the testator intended for the heirs to be determined at the time of the life tenant's death. Therefore, the court upheld the lower court's interpretation of the will.

We have given careful consideration to the language employed by the testator in his will, keeping in mind the applicable principles of testamentary construction herein announced, and are unable to discover any manifestation of intention on his part to designate those persons who would have been his heirs had his death occurred after that of his daughter, the life tenant.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the Circuit Court, concluding that the interests of the respective parties were correctly determined according to the will's provisions.

The decree of the circuit court of Mason County correctly construed the will of the testator, William M. Miller, and properly declared the interests of the respective owners of the premises described in the fifth paragraph of his will.

Who won?

The prevailing party was Ollie F. Le Sourd and Vera B. Langley, as the court found that the will's language supported their claim to the partition of the real estate.

You must be