Spurlock v. Burnett
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Atcbison Circuit Court. — No». II. C. Tim-monds, Special Judge. The court erred in finding for defendants for the reason that the law of March 2, 1895, is not an amendment of the law of wills; its terms do not pretend to work a repeal of the law of wills, and such a construction ought not to he forced upon it.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Atcbison Circuit Court. — No». II. C. Tim-monds, Special Judge. The court erred in finding for defendants for the reason that the law of March 2, 1895, is not an amendment of the law of wills; its terms do not pretend to work a repeal of the law of wills, and such a construction ought not to he forced upon it. Under . section 8889, Revised Statutes 1889, then and now in force, she had the right to dispose of all of her property by will, “subject” only “to the rights of the husband, if any, to his curtesy therein. ’ ’ On the other hand the husband could dispose of all of his…
1Opinion of the CourtBurgess, J.
This case was before this court upon a former occasion and is reported in 170 Mo. 372, wherein the facts are fully stated. The judgment was then reversed and the cause remanded in order that the legatees under the will might be made parties.
After the judgment was reversed and the cause remanded all of the heirs of Mary A. H. Burnett were made parties plaintiff, and they filed an amended petition. Thereafter, Rodney Burnett died, and his death being suggested, and admitted, an amended petition was filed making all of his heirs parties defendant.
Upon the trial of the cause the court made the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Spurlock v. BurnettSupreme Court of Missouri · 1902
3Cited by4 opinions
- Bushnell v. LoomisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1911
- Ferguson v. GentrySupreme Court of Missouri · 1907
- Hafner v. MillerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1923
- Collier v. PorterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1929