Miller v. Carlisle
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 34 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL PROM CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT. 1. Malvina P. Plynt took a fee-simple estate in the property devised to her, and not a defeasible fee. The provision as to survivorship was not intended to apply to the devise to Mrs. Plynt; but even if such was the intention, it did not have the effect of changing her estate from a fee-simple to a defeasible fee. (Wills v. Wills, &c., 10 Ky.
Read the full summary
Case 34 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL PROM CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT. 1. Malvina P. Plynt took a fee-simple estate in the property devised to her, and not a defeasible fee. The provision as to survivorship was not intended to apply to the devise to Mrs. Plynt; but even if such was the intention, it did not have the effect of changing her estate from a fee-simple to a defeasible fee. (Wills v. Wills, &c., 10 Ky. Law Bep., 76.) 2 The words “child or children” in the provision as to survivorship were used in the sense of “descendants,” and embrace grandchild. (Dunlap v. Shreve’s Bx’rs, 2 Duv., 840.) 1.…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE PRYOR
delivered the opinion or the court.
The will of Samuel Carlisle is before us for construction. He died, leaving six children surviving him, and made, after providing for his wife, the following disposition of his property:
“I give to my son, James- A. Carlisle, axxd his heirs, lot No. 1,” describing it.
“I give to my daughter, Anna H. Carlisle, and her heirs, lot No. 2,” describing it.
“I give to my daughter, Mary A. Carlisle, and her heirs, lot No. 3,” describing it.
“I give to my son Samuel, and his heirs, lots 4 and 5,” describing them.
“I give to my daughter Sophia, and her heirs,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Wills v. WillsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1887
- Churchill v. ChurchillCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1859
3Cited by2 opinions
- Meisberg v. BryantCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1919
- Tucker v. TuckerCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1935