Citation Numbers: 52 Mich. 398
Judges: Campbell, Other
Filed Date: 1/15/1884
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 9/8/2022
The controversy in this case is whether Chester B. Turner, one of the heirs at law of Isaac Turner, deceased, is deprived of his right to share in the residue of the estate, after paying legacies, by reason of the grant to him of certain land by a deed which stated as one of tlie considerations the relinquishment of all right to his father the grantor’s estate, as heir or otherwise. This deed was made two years before the will. There is in the hands of the executor $3600 for distribution among the heirs. That sum, divided among them ratably, would not give each as much as the value of the land so granted. The will is printed in full in the report of a former controversy concerning a sum of $5000 to be distributed under it, in 48-Mich. 369. The decision below was against appellant’s right to share. This being so, a short summary will be sufficient.
The will, made in June, 1876, became operative on testator’s death in 1879. It begins by a general recital of his desire to dispose of his property, and to provide for his wife and her child Isaac. It gives his wife a life estate in his homestead, and the use of $7000 during Isaac’s minority, and gives her absolutely his household furniture, implements, horses and carriages. Isaac was to have the reversion of the homestead, and to receive on his majority $2000 out of the $7000, the remaining $5000 to be for her use for life. The will declares that “ at her death said five thousand dollars to revert to my estate.”
In case of the wife’s death during Isaac’s minority he was to have an annuity of $300 a year, and all accumulations from its savings, in addition to the $2000. The legacies to Isaac were to be in lieu of his share in the estate, “ except to the amount of his share in the five thousand dollars which said Elizabeth Miller Turner is to have the use of from the time of said Isaac becoming of the age of twenty-one years until her death; and he is to have said interest in five thousand dollars with the rest of my heirs, even if said Elizabeth shall die before the said Isaac becomes twenty-one years of age.”
The interesting discussion of the law of advancements- and relinquishments of heirship does not, in our view of the case, require to be considered further.
We think the adjudications below were erroneous, and that appellant is entitled to the same privileges as the other general heirs, and it must be so adjudged and certified.