Pattison v. Farley

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appeal in this case is taken from a decree of the Circuit Court for Howard County passed on the 19th day of December, 1916, dismissing the plaintiff’s bill of complaint for the specific performance of a contract of sale of real estate, between the plaintiff and defendant, situate in Howard County, for the sum of ten thousand dollars. The primary object of the proceeding was to obtain a construction of the last will and testament of Martin L. Patti-son, late of Howard County, deceased. Under and by virtue of the testator’s will, the vendor, his widow, claims that she took an absolute estate in fee simple, in the property in question.

The defendant contends that she acquired under her husband’s will an estate for life, without a power of sale, and was unable to convey to him a fee simple title to the real estate as by the terms of purchase she had contracted to do. He, therefore, declined to accept the deed and. to comply with the terms of the contract by the payment of the purchase money. Mr. Pattison, the testator, died on the 15th day of March, 1915, seized and possessed of the tract of land in question. ⁴¹⁰ His will was duly admitted to probate by tbe Orphans? Court of Howard County on the 18th day of May, 1915.

The testator left surviving him a widow, the plaintiff below, and the appellant in this Court, and so far as the record shows, he left no children. By the will he devised and bequeathed all. of his property and effects of every kind, real and personal in the following manner: Item 2. I give, devise and bequeath absolutely unto my beloved wife, Maria F. Pattison, all the estate, both real and personal, with which it has pleased God to bless me, consisting of lands, houses, farming implements, wagons, carriages, horses, cows, sheep, hogs, etc., everything that may be in my possession or belonging to my estate at the time of my decease, I give to my beloved wife, aforesaid, and her assigns during the term of her natural life, together with all the appurtenances to the said estate belonging, to have and to hold the said ’estate in her own absolute right for life.” The will it will be seen is a short one and contains but three items. The first provides for the payment of the testator’s debts and funeral expenses-; the second disposes of his estate, real and personal, and the third names his wife as sole executrix to serve without bond.

The sole question in the case is, does the widow of the testator take an estate in fee under the will or only an estate for life, in the property in question. If she took a fee simple estate then it is conceded, that the contract of sale is valid and must be specifically enforced and the purchaser of the property will be required to comply with its terms. If she took only a life estate the Court below was clearly right-in dismissing the plaintiff’s bill, and its order will have to be affirmed. The first and principal object in the construction of wills is to ascertain the intention of the testator from the language of the whole will and then to give and carry into effect that ⁴¹¹ intention if consistent with