Vaiden v. Hawkins
Mississippi Supreme Court
Appeal from the Chancery Court of Carroll County. Hon. R. W. Williamson, Chancellor. 1. The will contains no general residuary clause. The word “ residue,” in the eighth article of the will, does not comprise the entire estate, but is confined to the undisposed-of portion of a particular fund, out of which the testator has just made some specific appropriations.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Chancery Court of Carroll County. Hon. R. W. Williamson, Chancellor. 1. The will contains no general residuary clause. The word “ residue,” in the eighth article of the will, does not comprise the entire estate, but is confined to the undisposed-of portion of a particular fund, out of which the testator has just made some specific appropriations. The testator was dealing with a particular fund, estimated at a certain amount, and the lapsed legacy of fifty thousand dollars will also fall into the general residuum, which is not disposed of by the will, and must go to the next of…
1Opinion of the CourtChalmeks, C. J.
The appellants, who are two of the heirs-at-law of the late Dr. Cowles Meade Vaiden file this petition, seeking distribution to themselves of such portions of his estate as they claim are not disposed of by his last will and testament, as also of a legacy of fifty thousand dollars, bequeathed by him to the State of Mississippi for certain purposes, and upon certain conditions, *415which were by the State rejected. The validity of their claim depends upon whether the will contains any clause by which the general residuum of the estate, after the deduction of special legacies, was intended to pass.…
2Cited by7 opinions
- LANHAM v. HowellMississippi Supreme Court · 1951
- Richmond v. BassMississippi Supreme Court · 1947
- Richardson v. BrowningMississippi Supreme Court · 1966
- Whitaker v. Commercial Nat. Bank & Trust Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1937
- Hailey v. McLaurin's EstateMississippi Supreme Court · 1916
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.