Drexler v. Washington Development Co.
Before: Shaw
Synopsis
Estate of Deceased Person—Decree of Distribution—Muniment of Title—Inconsistency With Will.—A decree distributing the estate of a testator is the conclusive muniment of the distributee’s title and controls any language of the will inconsistent therewith.
Id.—Specific Devise to Sole Heir at Daw for Dife—Distribution in Fee Simple—Condition ¡Restraining Alienation.—Where a will specifically devises certain land to the testator’s wife, she being his sole heir at law, for her life with remainder to her children, if she has any, and contains a direction that she shall have no power or right to sell it, and no further disposition is made of the property, a decree distributing the specific property to her “as her sole property and estate,” subject only to the condition restraining alienation, and further distributing the remainder of the estate to her absolutely, vests an absolute fee-simple estate in the land specifically devised, free from any condition restraining alienation.
Id.—¡Remainder Cut Off by Decree Distributing Fee Simple.—Such decree cuts off the right of any children to the remainder in the land specifically devised, after the death of the wife, and is, in effect, an adjudication that there were no children and no possibility of any.
SHAW, J.
The court below sustained the demurrer to the complaint, and thereupon rendered judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff appeals.
The action was for the specific performance of a contract to convey real estate.- The contract was made on February 18, 1910. By its terms the plaintiff agreed to sell to the defendant the property described for the sum of two hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars. Of this $2,250 was paid at the time of the execution of the agreement. The remainder was to be paid upon the examination and approval by the defendant of the title of the plaintiff in the' property. The defendant objected to the title exhibited by the plaintiff and on that account refused to perform the contract. Thereupon the plaintiff began this action. Her right to maintain it depends upon the question whether or not she has a good title to the property, upon the facts stated in the complaint.
In 1899, Louis P. Drexler was the owner in fee of the property. On August 17, 1899, he died, leaving surviving him the plaintiff, his wife, as his sole heir at law. His estate was duly administered and distribution thereof made in regular course of law. The doubt concerning the title results from a peculiar provision of his will which is recited in the decree of distribution. By this clause of the will, being the eleventh paragraph thereof, Drexler gave to his wife, during her life, all the rents accruing from the property in controversy and authorized her to collect the same. It also empowered her in case the buildings should be destroyed, by fire or otherwise, to collect the insurance, and to mortgage the property, if necessary, for a sum sufficient, with the insurance money, to replace the buildings destroyed. It further provided that on her death “the property heretofore mentioned shall go to and belong to her children, if she has any, but in case she
[760]
should die without issue or have none living at the time of her death, then in that ease she may bequeath the before mentioned lots and buildings to any person or persons., or to any charity or charitable institutions that she may think best or wish to do,—But in no case shall my wife Elise A. Drexler have the right or power to sell the before mentioned real estate.” The will made no further disposition of the property or of any other estate or interest therein.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)