Fields v. Fields
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 105-PBTITION EQUITY APPEAL FROM BOYLE CIRCUIT COURT. Whenever the language of a will denotes a gift to a class or to classes they take as a class and not per capita, unless a contrary intention is shown in the will.
Read the full summary
Case 105-PBTITION EQUITY APPEAL FROM BOYLE CIRCUIT COURT. Whenever the language of a will denotes a gift to a class or to classes they take as a class and not per capita, unless a contrary intention is shown in the will. (Lackland’s Heirs v. Downing’s Ex’ors, 11 B. Mon., 33 ; 2 Redfield on Wills, 34 ; 2 Jarman on Wills, foot note, p. 80, and authorities there cited.) In the case at bar, not only is a contrary intention not shown in the will, but it is affirmatively shown by the various provisions of the will that it was the intention of the testator that the children of Wm. Fields and the…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE HAZELRIGG
delivered the opinion oe the court.
The construction of the following clause of the will of Jeremiah Fields, is the only question involved on this appeal, namely: “ Item fifth. * * * I hereby direct my executor to sell my undivided interest in said two' tracts of land, * * * and pay the proceeds of such sale equally to the children (that are alive at the time of distribution) of my brother, William Fields of Missouri, and the living children of my brother, James Fields. In the event of the death of any of the parties to this bequest, then their portion is to go to any issue they…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Rogers v. BurressCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1923
- Hughes v. HughesCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1904
- Slattery v. RyanCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1930
- Hatchett's Ex'r v. LelandCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1940
- Williamson v. WilliamsonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1922
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.