1851 Supreme Court Case - John Collins et al. v. Thomas Hope et al.
Transcript
John COLLINS ET AL. v. Thomas HOPE ET AL.Wills are to be construed from the written language of the instrument, not by evidence aliunde.
Parol evidence may be received for the purpose of counteracting fraud in the devisee, and in some peculiar cases to attach a trust to the estate devised. But, in such cases, courts will act with the extremest caution.
This is a bill in chancery reserved in the county of Ross.
The facts in the case, as the same are disclosed by the pleadings and evidence, are as follows:
On December 3, 1831, Nathan Reeves, then a resident of Chillicothe, made his last will and testament, and died a few days after its execution. The will is short, and gives the whole property to the wife of the testator in the words following:
"It is my will and desire that, after my decease, all my estate, of every description, real and personal, be held and possessed by my beloved wife, Nancy Reeves, to her and her heirs and assigns forever, to be disposed of in such manner as she may judge best. My meaning herein is, that the residue of my estate, after payment of all debts due by me at the time of my decease, shall be long to my said wife, her heirs and assigns forever."
This will was duly admitted to probate by the court of common pleas of Ross county, on December 14, 1831.
Nancy Reeves, the widow and general devisee, survived her husband until October 31, 1841, when she died, leaving a will, dated August 3, 1835, by which she devised all that then remained of the property devised to her by her husband, to their daughter Cynthia Wells, to the children of Cynthia, and to the children of their son, James Reeves, deceased.
This will was duly admitted to probate, and remains uncontested.
The complainants are certain of the testator's grandchildren being the children of Eliza D. Collins, a daughter of the testator by his said wife Nancy, for whom no provision was made in the will of Nancy.
They claim that their grandfather, Nathan Reeves, in November, 1831, was desirous of making his will so as to divide his property equally among his children, but in such a way as to prevent his son-in-law, James Wells, and his son, Samuel T. Reeves, who were men of dissipated habits, from controlling their portions of said estate; that he gave instructions to his attorney, Thomas Scott, to prepare a draft of the will accordingly; that during the preparation of the will the testator became very feeble, and a few days prior to his death, Mr. Scott was again sent for; that, fearing the will could not be prepared before his death, Nancy, his wife, well knowing his wishes and intentions, proposed that he should devise all the *property to her, with the understanding that she would convey the property as he desired it should go; that, yielding to this assurance, he made the will in favor of Nancy, and, shortly thereafter, died. They insist that Nancy Reeves, under and by virtue of the will of Nathan Reeves, took the estate in trust, to be equally divided, at her death, among the four children of the said Nathan, and they ask that one- fourth part, thereof be decreed to them in right of their mother Eliza D. Collins, deceased.
In support of the claim set up by complainants in their bill, but two material witnesses are introduced.
Thomas Scott testifies, that, during the last sickness of Nathan Reeves, and about six or eight weeks previous to his death, he was sent for to the house of said Reeves, in order to write his last will; that Mr. Reeves explained to him, in the presence of Mrs. Nancy Reeves, and as witness thinks, in presence of David Collins, the manner in which he intended and desired to dispose of his estate; that, although there had been some inequality in the advancements already made, his desire was that the residue of his estate should be equally divided between his children, but that he wished his will so prepared that Mr. Wells, his son-in-law, and his son Samuel, should not have the control of the portions that would otherwise fall into their hands. Witness suggested that a trustee would be necessary to protect that part of the property intended for the benefit of the families of his son Samuel and his son-in-law Wells; and Mr. Reeves replied that he would try and select one. Mrs. Reeves was to have a life estate in the property. The preparation of the will was postponed to some future day; Mr. Reeves observing that he would send for witness when he was ready to proceed.
A short time previous to the death of Mr. Reeves, witness was again sent for to prepare his will. He appeared so feeble, and conversed with so much difficulty, that witness was fearful the will could not be prepared, in accordance with previous instructions, before he would be incapable of executing it. Witness then observed to Mr. Reeves, that his wife, Mrs. Reeves, knew the disposition be desired to make of his property; to which he replied in the affirmative, she being present and assenting thereto.
Witness then asked Mr. Reeves "whether he had such confidence in his wife that, if he devised it to her, she would dispose of it in such manner as he had before indicated ? " His answer was, that he had. He consented that the will might be so drawn, transferring the property to her, and it was so drawn and executed.
Some few days after the death of the testator, and after probate of his will, witness called on Mrs. Reeves, and urged upon her the propriety of executing an instrument, disposing of the property in the manner in which her husband bad desired it to be done; and she promised to execute such instrument.
David Collins, who was the executor of Nathan Reeves, and is the father of complainants, testifies that a few days before the death of his father - in - law he was sent for, and the messenger stated that Mrs. Reeves wished to see him previous to his seeing "the old man."
He called on her first, and was told by her that her husband wished witness to get some person to write his will; that he had spoken to Judge Scott to draw it some time before, and wished witness to go and bring him down, as the doctor said his recovery was doubtful. She also stated that "the old man" wished his property to be equally divided among all his children, but that she thought he was too work to go into details in making a division, and wished witness to use his influence with her husband to induce him to will all his property to her, and she would immediately make a will carrying out his wishes.
Witness went after Judge Scott, and in his presence Mr. Reeves stated that his wife wished him to devise all the property to her for her life, and then she would divide it among all the children, as he intended to do. Judge Scott suggested that he had better have his wife present, and see if she was willing to do as he wished.
Mrs. Reeves came, and in presence of witness and Judge Scott, promised that if her husband would will it to her, so that she could have the use and control of the property during her life, she would then divide it equally among his heirs. She further promised that she would, soon after his death, make her will; and Mr. Reeves requested Judge Scott to draw it for her, as he knew his wishes respecting Wells and his son Samuel. Judge Scott then wrote the will.
NOTE: There is more to this case, but the above selection defines the substance of the case.