Dunne v. Dunne

California Supreme Court Nov 26, 1884 No. No. 7,763Published

Before: Ross

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A devisee who accepts property charged with legacies with full knowledge of the will's provisions assumes personal liability for those legacies and must exercise any option to satisfy them in land within a reasonable time. The court held that the defendant's long-term receipt of rents from the devised property precluded him from delaying his election until final distribution, though the court erred in awarding compound interest.

Issues

Whether a devisee who accepts property charged with legacies is personally liable for those legacies before the final distribution of the estate.
Whether a devisee must exercise an option to satisfy legacies in land within a reasonable time regardless of the status of estate distribution.
Whether the trial court erred in awarding compound interest on the legacies.

Disposition. Affirmed in part and remanded with instructions to modify interest.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In taking the benefit conferred, he assumed the burden imposed by the testator, and thereby became personally liable to pay the legacies.”

“When he accepted the devise, it became his duty to exercise within a reasonable time the option conferred upon him by the will.”

“we are of opinion that he should not have been charged with compound interest upon the legacies, but only with simple interest thereon”

Synopsis

Estates of Deceased Persons—Legacies Charged upon Land Devised— Liability of Devisee.—Where a devisee of lands charged by the will with the payment of certain legacies, accepts the devise, he thereby assumes the burden imposed by the testator, and becomes personally liable to the payment of the legacies.

Id.—Acceptance of Devise—Interest.—Land was devised, subject to a charge for the payment of ten thousand dollars to each of two legatees, but with the proviso that the devisee might, at his option, satisfy the legacies by the payment of ten thousand dollars to each legatee, or by conveying to each a tract of land of the value of ten thousand dollars, or by investing these sums for the legatees in lands of equal value. The devisee received the rents of the lands for a series of years. The estate was never finally distributed by the probate court. Held, (1) That the devisee exercised his option by an acceptance of the devise and receipt of the rents, and that he was liable to the legatees for the money bequeathed to them. (2) That under the circumstances of the case, the devisee was liable for simple interest only upon the amount of the legacies.

The Court. -This appeal was heard in department one of this court, and an opinion filed therein July 25, 1884. Subsequently, a hearing by the court in Bank was granted. Such hearing has been had. We are satisfied with the judgment given in department, and with the reasons therefor. The judgment of the court below is therefore affirmed, except as to interest. The cause is remanded, with instructions to modify the judgment by computing interest in accordance with the opinion of the department.

The following is the opinion of department one:

[159]Ross, J. -The provision of the will of the deceased, James Dunne, charging the legacies to the plaintiffs upon the estate devised to the defendant, is unequivocal. It reads :

“ Idem. I give and bequeath out of the estate by me given to my son, James Francis Dunne, and as a charge thereon, ten thousand dollars ($10,000) in gold, to each of my daughters, Mary Felita Dunne and Bridget Caty Dunne, with the privilege, however, to my said son James Francis to satisfy said legacies by conveying to each of my said daughters a tract of land of the value of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) in gold, or, at his option, to invest the said sums for my said daughters in tracts of land of the said value.”

The testator died on the eighth day of June, 1874. His will was duly admitted to probate on the first day of August of the same year. At the time of the death of James Dunne, the defendant was a minor, but he attained his majority on the fourth day of July, 1875. He then accepted the devise to him. Such is the effect of the findings of the court below, and the evidence is sufficient to sustain them. It shows beyond controversy that, with knowledge of the will and its provisions, he received as devisee the rents of the devised property, and this from the date of his majority. In taking the benefit conferred, he assumed the burden imposed by the testator, and thereby became personally liable to pay the legacies. This obligation he was, however, authorized by the will to discharge, by conveying to each of the legatees named a tract of land of the value of $10,000 in gold, or by investing thát sum for each of them in lands of that value. His election in that behalf he was bound to make within a reasonable time.

It is contended by counsel for appellant that the time for his election had not arrived when this action was commenced, nor has it yet arrived, because of the fact that there has been no distribution of the estate of the deceased, James Dunne; that until distribution is made, defendant cannot know what he will receive. It is undoubtedly the general rule, that a party is not bound to make an election until all the circumstances are known, and the state, condition, and value of the property is ascertained. But this rule, like all other general rules, should be applied only when it is reasonable to apply it, and when its

Dunne v. Dunne

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief