TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Taylor v. Fauver

Taylor v. Fauver, 28 S.E. 317 (Va. 1897)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Virginia · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 18, 1897
Judges
Buchanan
Citations
28 S.E. 3172 Va. Dec. 555
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Wills — Construction—Case at Bar. A clause in a will provided: “Third. The balance I will and bequeath to my sisters or their heirs equal to all” : held, where one sister died and left heirs, that they were only entitled to the share which their mother would have taken, had she been alive.
Summary
Appeal from circuit court, Augusta county. Bill by David H. Eauver and others against William M. Taylor and others. Erom a decree in favor of plaintiffs, defendants appeal.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Buchanan

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Buchanan, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The only question involved in this appeal is the construction of the third clause of the will of J. W. Eauver, deceased, which is in the following words: ‘ ‘Third. The balance I will and bequeath to my sisters or their heirs equal to all.” The testator had several sisters who survived him, and one sister who died before his will was written, leaving a number of children, who are the appellants.

*556 The contention of the appellants is that each of them is entitled to the same interest in the property disposed of by the residuary clause of the will as is each of the sisters of the testator, and that the court erred in holding that they only took such interest as their mother would have taken, had she been living.

The will is awkwardly drawn, and there is nothing in the other portions of it to throw any light upon the clause under consideration. It is clear, however, from the language used, that the testator intended that each of his sisters who were living at the time of his death should take an equal share of the property disposed of by that clause of the will, and that the children or heirs of each of his sisters who were dead at that time should take a share of equal value, or such a share as their mother would have taken if she had been living at the time the will took effect. This was the construction placed upon that clause by the circuit court,' and is manifestly right.

The decree complained of must be affirmed.

Eiely, J., absent.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1902: 11938: 11943: 11955: 119022026peak 1902 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Horne v. Horne26 S.E.2d 80 (Va. 1943)
  2. Johnson v. Kelly198 S.E. 474 (Va. 1938)
  3. Maclean v. Williams59 L.R.A. 125 (Ga. 1902)
  4. Hamilton, Exr. v. Pettifor138 N.E.2d 447 (Ohio Ct. App. 1955)

Most recent

  1. Hamilton, Exr. v. Pettifor138 N.E.2d 447 (Ohio Ct. App. 1955)
  2. Horne v. Horne26 S.E.2d 80 (Va. 1943)
  3. Johnson v. Kelly198 S.E. 474 (Va. 1938)
  4. Maclean v. Williams59 L.R.A. 125 (Ga. 1902)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list