*1 every obligation -to safety vessel; to the that, but attend ofSpers while the duly master attend sees crew his pilot.’s orders, heep vigilant eye on he--himself is bound navigation vessel, and, exceptional exist, when circumstances urge upon pilot every precaution, to use but to insist being Collisions, taken.’ on [Marsden 255.]” We do not believe that can be considered seaman with- master purview in the 713, supra; of Sections 688 and trial court proper- ly appellant’s petition. sustained the demurrer is, therefore, the trial court All affirmed. concur. Appellant, C. Hood,
Adah P. Letson v. St. Union Louis Trust Company, Corporation, H. A. and Charles Trustees Uetrecht, Under the Will of Grace E. Letson Scully; Grace A. S. Eve s,r W. Ralston; Letson, Naomi Ruth Letson Charles Charles A.Uetrecht, Uetrecht, ian of Grace M. Gu Benjamin ard George Benjamin Letson, Letson, F. Martin F. Evelyn Audrey Hood, Hood, Hood, Leonard (2d) 837. W. Hood Fern Hood. 66 S. Two, 1933. December Division é¡ G. E. Suelthaus(cid:127) Spencer and Stout appellant.
George respondents. Barnett for
WESTHUES, the last C. This a construction of suit involves Scully, Appellant contended and testament of Grace E. L. deceased. against as the was void petition in her certain clause of by made public policy; this testatrix inducing appellant from her a divorce husband. purpose of to secure disputed appellant and trial court held found Appellant appealed. of the will to be valid. containing the considera- provisions clause under
tion read as follows: A. bequeath I give, unto Charles H. “Fourth: devise and Hood, TTetrecht, my granddaughter, Adah C. P. Letson as trustee City Place, dwelling known as 3451 Abner situated the frame Missouri, ground on which and State of and lot of St. Louis twenty-five (25) situated, having a front feet the same twenty-five (125) feet; and the said depth one hundred TTetrecht, trustee, to Hold and deal A. as Have and however, trust, following purposes, to-wit: with the same for “ pay Tbe trustee shall rent-the (a) said repairs maintaining therefrom, the taxes and said collected rents during tenantable condition time proper whole this trust shall continue. that n “ Adah C. P. Letson
(b) In the event said Hood or her circumstances, become in destitute and said trustee children shofild absolutely .necessary, shall, judg- his best portions expend from time to time such as he ment, deem best property in support from said and main- the said net income children; P. Letson Hood or her but, of the said Adah C. tenance expend he ever it in manner shall whatsoever in no event husband, Hood, thereby, J. shall benefited Chas. which her aforesaid, income as shall not be portion expended of said net as of said trust principal fund. part shall made becoming Letson widow, Adah C. P. “(e) Upon said Hood or her him, divorce from by death of her then the convey deliver to the said Adah C. P. Letson trustee shall said devised this the Paragraph Fourth Hood, the will, thereupon shall my and the said trust cease. of this “ C. that the said Adah P. Hood (d) In the event divorced as aforesaid before her death, a widow or not become youngest reaching death, upon the of said children years, convey twenty-one said trustee and deliver. unto age of P. Letson Adah C. said be- said the children paragraph Fourth this last will and this queathed alike, thereupon share this said cre- testament, share and trust my will shall *4 paragraph of cease and be at the fourth ated this an end. “ trustee, H. A. that said Uetreeht should (e) In the event dispose property of said devised this to and it best sell deem my testament, of last will and then he shall paragraph the Fourth same, dispose upon of the such terms as right and to sell the have City may best, re-invest the same in real estate in and the as he' deem best. in manner Louis of St. Uetreeht, trustee, hereby grant the said Charles A. “(f) unto I all power papers deeds or authority and execute full necessary carrying for effect proper pro- into the or may be which my will testament.” of last paragraph this the Fourth visions of given property to a trustee will was the By fifth of the Ruth testatrix, named Naomi granddaughter a of the benefit of granddaughter the was to be deeded to Letson, The minor. a twenty-one years. age the reach of marriage or when should she upon was in this case wherein was made A further It reads: mentioned. Ruth Naomi granddaughter, my said “(c) In the event that twenty- age of the or
Letson, die before she marries reaches paragraph Fifth the this the covéred years, one my of will shall by my conveyed delivered said trustees my granddaughter, Grace M. Uetrecht, and Adah C. P. assigns Letson Hood and unto their heirs and and the trust created my this Fifth paragraph will thereupon of cease. I my express “It is wish direct that in the event that my granddaughter, anything Adah C. P. Letson should receive my paragraph under the Fifth this of last will and testament that enjoy she shall receive and the same in pursuance pro- paragraph visions ‘Fourth’ last and testament.” Appellant was likewise referred to in two other clauses contingencies that certain she was to an receive interest certain property. Each these contain a interest, any, subject if should receive should be to clause four of will.
Appellant testified she married to Charles Hood in the year 1914, and had lived her continuously with husband since. Six Appellant children were born to the union. further testified that marriage after she and her husband lived with her grandmother, testatrix, Appellant months. two then offered prove tes very tatrix became hostile towards her husband and attempted to separate him; cause from testatrix appel forced again lant’s husband testatrix’s home and him forbade to ever proof rejected. her home. This offer enter the trial court ambiguous. language was, The trial court there fore, rejecting testimony correct the oral attempting explain meaning or the intention testatrix of the terms will. Cyc. (3); McCoy Bradbury, 650, 235 Mo. S. W. [40 The sole contention of was and is that con 1047.] dition will, providing when become widow by death or her divorce from her husband would fee, against go public was void because policy, and, there fore, declared appellant should be the owner in fee of freed from the condition. bequest law is well settled that a person to a on condition person obtain divorce is void as public policy. Cyc. 1703, in 40 1704:
'The rule is well stated any testamentary “The law will not sanction provision which is directly bring separation tends to intended or wife; purpose therefore the testator’s is to induce a future *5 separation wife, of or divorce husband and the condition is void as legacy against public policy, absolutely. and the devise or takes effect may bequest so But a devise or be framed as provide to in for one If separation of or divorce. a case a testator makes a bring separation is intended to about a which not or divorce between wife, but is intended to take effect in husband the case a (cid:127) divorce, 'legal or is valid.” separation language also well settled law that “where the of a It is
409 reasonably susceptible of two construc is part thereof will or a it, the it and the other sustain tions, which will invalidate one of intentions and construction, with the testator’s consistent latter Cyc. This adopted.” 1407;] rule law, must be the rules [40 including many from various states decisions of courts supported c); (2, 497 Jones, 53, 229 129 S. W. l. c. v. Mo. own. our [Cox syl. (2d) 139, 5; In re 46 Lemp, 580, 329 S. W. l. c. Mo. Trautz v. Estate, (N. 641; Jaycox In Will Supp. 258 N. Y. Lachenmeyer’s re (2d) 162 1025, 32 67; Tramell, S. W. App. 233 Div. Tramell v. Y.), law. presumed to know the A testator is also l. c. Tenn. 14.] knew case, therefore, Lemp, supra.] Testatrix in this v. [Trautz illegal bequest in a devise or condition would be pre her husband. Testatrix is also condition that she divorce on legally provision for she could make a have known that sumed to a widow either death or divorce. in ease she became case, therefore, this, question in this resolves itself into the testatrix intended will be so construed can the a divorce from her husband and did case of provide bring separation? think so. In the ease about a We intend to not Witherspoon ap Brokaw, App. 169, l. v. Mo. c. cited void. It read as follows: provision- in a was held pellant, a my niece, Witherspoon, “I Emma the undivided devise ... and to hold to her sole use half to have of all long separate apart from' her hus*- as she live benefit so longer, Witherspoon, no her reunion band, Herbert Brokaw,” vest, of this devise son Charles O. him to free with condition void because it was made for held the The court continuing separation of devisee' and her husband. purpose of however, opinion, ruled that devise- court its could person purpose support in >ease legally for the made to said: what the court divorce. Note already place, contemplation taken or was in separation
“If had out, husband, being between Emma and her .and presently carried support gave her merely provided for her or ab long deprived solutely as she should thus be her so to sustain object being it would a valid will. The support of her misfortune, provide for is in bring but to one-who about the 255; Davis, v. condition. Mass. unfortunate an [Fox 743; 483- Walker, Policy, Greenhood’s Public Wall. Walker 485.]” _ _ carefully provisions be- of the will the ease now If read we provided in case of has .neces- the testatrix fore us given authority pay appel- trustee is sity. Note property if in the trustee’s income from the lant the for the and her necessary support Nothing or widowhood in this clause is said of divorce children. right to assume that Testatrix had the the husband of the will. *6 appellant provide family; hostility would bis Even if the appellant’s testatrix toward husband existed that would not alter legal the situation. right Testatrix had the from re exclude him ceiving any benefits from her provide property estate and to go to the sole use of and her children. also Let us say* note that the will conveyed does not should be appellant on condition she divorce, obtain a but that the trustee convey appellant upon becoming widow, her by either death of the husband or her Suppose divorce from him. provided testatrix had appellant upon be deeded to ‘‘ becoming by her and had omitted widow the clause death ’’ of her her husband or divorce from him the effect of the will would been, argued have the same. Could be then might will perhaps void because it be a temptation would to an unscrupulous person to either divorce or murder her husband? This very Cowley situation was discussed the case of Twombly, 397, Mass. l. c. where the court said: “The scheme of no more trust tended to . induce the son im divorce, properly procure between himself and wife im then to procure duce him do her death. .' . . That a devisee of a con tingent will remainder the death of the life benefit tenant does against public make a1 . policy. not such devise void as . . There presumption is no likelihood or wrong more that a divorce brought fully parties marriage one of the to a order than that a death will secure be so A testator occasioned. public policy simply making bounty no more offends his con tingent upon the occurrence of a divorce than aof death.” [See, .] Hill, also, Coe v. c. Mass. l. 22 that, must not the fact will, We under terms of overlook contingencies widowhood as. not occur .the eventually children of become the owners property. So that in fee event chil- dren will receive the full benefit of and become the owners of the property involved. learned .trial court a written memorandum proper interpretation was, of the will held the testatrix had made and her children in case of widowhood disputed interpreted and that the public .so fully agree policy. reasoning with the We of the trial court. n It follows that must be affirmed. Cooley CC., Fitzsimmons, concur. foregoing opinion
PEE Westhues, C., CUEIAM: The is a- All opinion judges of the court. dopted as concur.