Spivey v. Spivey
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Desha Circnit Court; W. B. Sorrells, Judge; • 1. Argues the merits of the controversy which are not passed on by the court, citing Kirby’s Digest, §§ '2698-9, 2700 to 2715; 52 Ark. 193-201; 40 Cyc. 1966; 21 Id. 568; 53 Ark. 261. 2. The widow of Louis Spivey was absolutely barred from participating in the fund.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Desha Circnit Court; W. B. Sorrells, Judge; • 1. Argues the merits of the controversy which are not passed on by the court, citing Kirby’s Digest, §§ '2698-9, 2700 to 2715; 52 Ark. 193-201; 40 Cyc. 1966; 21 Id. 568; 53 Ark. 261. 2. The widow of Louis Spivey was absolutely barred from participating in the fund. She must renounce the will in order to claim dower. 40 Cyc. 1968; should be divided among the appellant heirs. 1. The statute has not been complied with, and there is no bill of exceptions. C.- & M. Digest, § 1314. The motion for new trial was not presented to the judge…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, C. J.
Appellants are the next of kin and heirs at law of Louis Spivey, who died testate and by his will disposed of all his property except a certain sum of money. The testator by his will gave certain land and personal property to his widow, and the balance of his estate, except a sum of money not disposed of, was devised to certain of his relatives, and to his wife’s grandchildren — these last being the descendants of children born to the widow of the testator by a former marriage.
The executor named in the will administered the estate, and this proceeding was begun in the probate court to require…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Feild v. WatersSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
3Cited by4 opinions
- Graves v. Jewell Tea Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1930
- Gazzola v. NewSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1935
- Chicago, R.I. Pacific Ry. Co. v. McCoy Admin.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1942
- Reasor-Hill Corp. v. GoldenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1952