High's Adm'r v. Worley's Admr'x
Supreme Court of Alabama
[BILL IN EQUITY AGAINST ADMINISTRATOR; POR ACCOUNT, SETTLEMENT, AND DISTRIBUTION OP ESTATE.] Appeal from tbe Circuit Court of Dallas. Heard before tbo Hon. James B. ClaRK.
Read the full summary
[BILL IN EQUITY AGAINST ADMINISTRATOR; POR ACCOUNT, SETTLEMENT, AND DISTRIBUTION OP ESTATE.] Appeal from tbe Circuit Court of Dallas. Heard before tbo Hon. James B. ClaRK. This bill was filed by Edward High, as the administrator of his deceased wife Nancy, against Mrs. Francis "Wor-ley, as the administratrix with the will annexed of her deceased husband, Aclonijali Worley, who was the father of Mrs. ITigb; and sought a settlement and distribution of tbe said testator’s estate in accordance with tbe provisions of Ms will. The testator died in Dallas county, Alabama, the place of his residence,…
1Opinion of the CourtStone, J.
The general rules for determining whether a beqiiest is vested or contingent, are, that where the time of division or payment is of the substance of the gift, then the legacy is contingent; when time is mentioned only as a qualifying clause of the payment or division, then the legacy is vested. A second rule is, that the law inclines to regard legacies as vested, rather than contingent. The rule last stated is applied only when the intention is obscure and doubtful. — Travis v. Morrison, 28 Ala. 494.
In the will which we are considering, there is not a qualifying word or clause, which shows…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Travis v. MorrisonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1856
- McLeod v. McDonnelSupreme Court of Alabama · 1844
3Cited by17 opinions
- Crawford v. CarlisleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1921
- Coddington v. . StoneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
- Brain v. DeanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1913
- Phinizy v. FosterSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890
- Watters v. First Nat. Bank of MobileSupreme Court of Alabama · 1936
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.