*1 Humрhreys, Humphreys, William Humphreys, Herman Verna Humphreys, Sally Moberly, Russel, Pauline Brown, Lizzie Minnie yth Humphreys, Evans, Lederer, John C. Lesta Ed Ruth Humphreys, Shelton, Rhodes, Linda Frances Truman Drury Humphreys, H. Humphreys, Vencill, Melba Clifton Clyde Harry Humphreys, Joan Humphreys, Humphreys, E. Clyde Humphreys, Humphreys, E. Administrator Mary Virginia Forson, Humphreys, Lois Estate of John A. Crookshanks, Forson, of the Estate and J. V. as Administrator Shirley Hoff, Welling, Fern Henicker, v. Bessie of Helen Defendants, Malone, Well Bessie Nadine Malone and W. ing Hoff, Appellants. (2d)W. 123. Fern Two, 1937. December Division *2 Campbell appellants. Marr and A. D. M. P. *3 Keyes & respondents. Fisher, Atherton Whitten
L. F. *4 by (other than the heirs BOHLING, action was instituted C. This certain Hоff) quiet the title to Humphreys Mary Fern Ann Well- Bessie Humphreys to from Fred real estate and cancel deed Humphreys, Mary mother of James ing. Humphreys was the Ann now' Humphreys, of Bessie was, lifetime, who the husband -his parents Humphreys were the Welling. Bessie Bessie James and con- Hoff. The Humphreys, now Fern Humphreys Fern Fred and last testament will and troversy paragraph third involves the developing thereunder. Said Mary Humphreys facts Ann paragraph reads: grand- hereby bequeath my unto beloved give,
“3rd. I devise and property, both real and my all residue of son, Humphreys, Fred (cid:127) however, I property, situated, which said wherever personal and my Humphreys, grandson, Fred give bequeath to beloved trustee, as hereby my son, Humphreys, I trust, appoint Charlie by in trust the said Charlie Hum- is to be held which said grand- until said as trustee the said Fred phreys request hereby age. require (30) years I thirty son Fred' said possession rental of control and the such trustee have keep using pay thereon, taxes estate, the same fi/st real remainder, deducting repair, after same in reasonable looking troiible so after allowanсe for his time and reasonable him grandson Fred, paid my by property, to be said said grandson, fit; and, my expended see said used and as he age tw'enty-five (25) years can show Humphreys, reaching after acting Judge of Probate Sullivan to the .satisfaction of the then disposi- County, Missouri, frugal, and shows a that he is industrious manage in a manner so prudent tion to take care of and said land same, any part thereof, squander or waste the then that to not as twenty- reaching over trustee so shall be turned such after same years judge (25) age, satisfying prоbate so such and after five trustee, absolutely, managed herein- him otherwise such thirty until said Fred shall reach provided, before absolutely. him (30) years, shall be turned over to when same powder provide “I that the Fred shall have further selling disposing of said land or of managing alienation or *5 thirty wray age same until shall reach any conveying the he the reaching him (30) years, the be turned over to after unless same twenty-five years have age (25) he then in which event Hum disposal. If the said Fred and power full of alienation hereinbefore de phrеys die without children the' shall then and Humphreys shall descend bequeathed and to vised the said Fred ’’ Humphreys. go of the said Fred to heirs and not to the heirs testatrix was' 10, March 1923. The The will was executed on eighteen then widow, Humphreys, born October Fred February 25, 1924, seized of age. years The testatrix died years. eighty-six On March age question, estate in real at pro- 1930, E. then 18, Humphreys McNealey, filed with S. Fred application seeking, under judge Missouri, an County, Sullivan bate over;” no action will, terms but to have the land “turned 2, “turning” February to was ever him. On had said land over 1933, mother, to Bessie Humphreys Fred executed delivered his I Welling, general estate to her. warranty conveying real deed 1933, Humphreys 31, intestate, unmarried, child- March died years. less, attaining thirty before n Welling appeal Fern Hoff from jointly prosecute Bessie this judgment Humphreys Mary in the decreeing title heirs Ann Welling. canceling and' the deed from Fred to Bessie They' present issue conflicting no between as to them- interests selves. (cid:127) 'major litigants contentions revolve around estates Respondents created the will. contend heirs of testatrix are and, upon devisees happening of the event which they their estate was contingent, became vested with Appel- the fee. passed Fred;
lants contend the land that the attempted executory void, and, devise said heirs was therefore, respond- ineffective or no ents have interest therein. recognized by statutory lands was enactment early Laws,
Missouri as also, as 1807 p. Mo. Ter. sec. 131, 18; see, [1 Laws, p. 405, 25; Mo. Ter. sec. Secs. R. S. 1929, Ann., Mo. Stat. pp. In 1815 a 311], enjoined statute the courts give regard will, “due to the directions of the and the true intent meaning of the testator” Laws, p. 411, 49; Ter. sec. [1 see Sec. R. S. Ann., p. Perry Stat. Grace v. 344] (Banc), 877(I), aptly states: 555(I), controlling construing “The rule in wills in State, all technical construction give way, rules of must give is to effect true meaning intent and of the testator as the same may be gathered instrument, from the whole if not violative of some estab law; rule of ished arriving at intention, the relation of ;he testator to the beneficiaries named in will circum surrounding him stances the time at of its execution are be taken consideration, will nto and the read as near as may be from’ itand'point, giving effect, possible, every portion clause and of'
1204 omitted,
it, may supplied end, be,, and to words be and need (Banc), transposed.” [See, v. Jones and also Burrier sentences 4); v. Boone (2d) 887(3, 338 92 Carter 684(1), S. W. W. 92 (1), 642 S. County Company (Banc), Trust 338 Mo. 1052(2) (2d) 647, 651(1-4) ; Hawley, Selleck v. 56 (2d) 387, 393(3, W. S. 4).] will, paragraph of testatrix’s The first clause of the third simple testatrix gave Humphreys title but alone, taken the fee Fred follows: immediately, sentence, as within the conditioned said devise bequeath my beloved however, give property, I and “which said sоn, my appoint I hereby Humphreys, trust, in grandson, Fred in to be held Humphreys, trustee, which said is as Charlie Hum trustee for said Fred by said Charlie as the trust (30) age.” years of grandson thirty Fred said phreys until is thought of testatrix we are mindful of the the construing the will In attaining the occur Fred throughout of events to manifested judge. required showing probate the making age thirty the whole, the contemplates a termi sentence, as considered The first legal merger interest beneficial and the of the nation of the trust and thirty. Under was it the land attaining upon his the in Fred trustee, Humphreys, for Hum as by trust Charlie held until legal not in Fred was in Charlie and phreys. That the title pursue the will. apparent we of the trust becomes as termination the over trustee, Charlie, to take required specifically the The will re He is of the land. control, possession, and the rental the taxes, mainte payment quired apply rental services, compensation for his property, a reasonable nance of the Mentioning to Fred. these duties of the remainder payment 298 rely upon Stephens Moore, trustee, appellants say 604(4), merely testatrix vеsted 249 W. 228(2), S. agent Stephens case of an for Fred. powers with the Charlie conveyance by a trust “the sole use grantor involved designated powers in trustee grantor, with certain benefit” estate, supervision management control, relating to the of the trust death provision for the termination grantor’s legal heirs, grantor; pass estate then to saijl considering court, will. the- in by grantor’s directed thought making whole, grantor “the no stated had strument as death,” concluded disposition of estate to take effect at his beneficiary trust, “is the solе under and that grantor contingent estate, person has interest the trust no other powers 227, 604, and that the conferred c. other” respectively], [l. agent subject him an constituted and were to rev upon the trustee coupled grant sup an interest nor ocation “as independent Stephens consideration.” The ported' facts wording case and the purpose and evident there instrument distinguish case; involved as, also, it' from the' instant instant distinguished case to be from O’Day O’Day, 62,Mo. appellants. also cited *7 provision “turning
Testatrix next made for over” the land Fred, reaching twenty-five years age, after show to the satisfaction probate judge frugal .of say that he et cetera. then was We such, specifically provided testatrix showing because that same “shall be over turned ... such trustee him abso- lutely.” We required do not will any hold that action on the part merge equitable the trustee legal beneficial in- Fred; evidently terests in but Fred so pe- construed the will for his “. probate prayed tition to the court that the trustee empowered authorized and to turn land petitionеr.” over to his If showing again expressed such made be not she her will that it absolutely” over him upon'his age thirty. “turned attaining Upon like she power alienation, conditions withheld from Fred management disposition, sale, way any conveying “or in same.” necessarily This Considering included reference the land. only paragraph
whole passing alienable to Fred prior to the happening óf or the one other of the events therein remaining mentioned was the income from the rentals pay- after the taxes, compensation ment оf and' trustee, maintenance to the income was “to be him expended used and as he [Fred] see fit.”
The will beneficiary’s evidences testatrix’s solicitude for her ma safeguard terial welfare for a against certain time a desire to possible inexperience his ownership of the land. Testatrix’s deprived will control, Fred of the possession, rental, management, power alienation, conveyance disposition, land, sale and and we find him thoroughly rather stripped of the of a incidents simple fee for the This, duration of the trust. certainly, was .title legal-fee with the simple Testatrix, inconsistent title. Fred, ap not pointed trustee, Charlie prescribed powers his re and duties and discharge quired independent irrespective their desire of Fred. Testatrix active, dry, directions created an not trust. legal Charlie depositary not mere was title. He an agent acting responsible for and Fred. inescapable We think it legal that testatrix intended -in vest the title Charlie .did [see placed the construction on the instruments in: Matthews involved 282 Cleve, 19, 25, v. 221 35, 34, 35, 38; Simpson Van Mo. S. W. v. ) Erisner, 157, 162(II), 155 Mo. 1029(2 Smith, 55 S. W. Garland v. 1, 10, 13(I),
164 188, 189, 190; Mo. 64 S. W. Hoch, Cross v. 149 325, 335, 340, 789; Mo. 50 786, 788, S. W. (Mo.), McPike v. McPike 2, 4(1); 181 223 Jones, 29, S. W. Jones v. 123 S. W.
1206 255 Curby, S.) 432;
34, (N. 424, Union Trs. Co. v. L. R. A. interest 413, equitable beneficial 164 S. W. with 490] merger equitable beneficial for of said Fred, provided making required legal in Fred' interest and interest thirty age judge attaining probate showing [consult 968, 970(2), 341, 350(II), (IV), 26 W. Hey, Jarboe 122 Mo. S. v. 516-7, 62 971(4); Co., Jeannette Inv. 333 Mo. S. Krause v. 419, 164 (2d) 894(3); Curby, Union Trs. Co. v. 491-2; Dwyer Co., 286 Mo. U. Trs. S. W. St. Louis Becker, 3 Fed. 486 (II), 1068(1); Anchor R. & I. Co. S. W. Supp. 22(2)]. twenty- indicated, arriving after hereinbefore at the
As years McNealey, probate judge, E. five filed application praying “that be authorized written trustee McNealey empowered petitioner.” Mr. to turn over this land to this hearing. hearing had. It petition No was ever set the down' McNealey’s testimony from he to hear wit appears Mr. desired *8 ability decision; he reaching any nesses on Fred’s before that although what Fred’s with upon prayer petition, never acted the of was acquaintance” opinion he an Fred “little he with Fred had had capable. steps The taken not conditions testatrix did meet 'the imposed upon turning him the Fred for over to between the land twenty-five years; to ages thirty e., showing by of and' a Fred i. in probate judge frugal, the of he was satisfaction the then manner capable managing prudent the “in a dustrious and of land ” . any squander same, part so as not to the thereof. waste thirty. he the of trust created Fred died before attained The and, by Fred, lifetime of during the testatrix never terminated the will, legal giving the title provisions consideration to all the of the never him. vested in executory Mary
Appellants say to the of the devise heirs the invalid. position Ann was assumes Fred had therefore, legal alienation; and, title in fee power with the added of executory devise, granted Fred, being to repugnant the the estate legal provided' was invalid. We the pointed have out the will Humphreys, trustee, equitable title in Charlie an as with bene during trust, ficial interest Fted the duration of the and for legal merger equitable of beneficial title in Fred interest and contingencies happening terminating of one of the may contingent executory trust. a An follow fee and on the U. event which is determiné the fee. v. St. Louis [Deacon 261, Co., 266(9); 669, 691(IV), Trs. 271 Mo. 197 Sullivan S. W. J., Garesche, 496, 949, v. 229 509, Mo. 129 S. W. 953. Consult 21 C. 1662-1668; p. 1024, 206, 1023, p. 200; J., 584, sec. sеc. 69 C. sees. p. 2 Blackstone, 173; (1845 Ed.), 1 p. Remainders Fearn on 381.]
1207 theory of alienation is on the power the added position that Fred had during power alienation expressly denying testatrix recognized impliedly power alien pendency trust only prior its use: ation as of date her death restricted a fee an the termination of trust. Alienation incident simple incident of expressly title. Testatrix withheld this title sequitw'. non think, argument we facts, under involves alienation incident appellants position, power Under stated terminated, power аs of alien had the well as estate trust recognized ex impliedly prior termination, not have ation would beyond devised; estate, defeasible, tended the estate which would subject 1920), (Banc have Hull v. remained defeat. In Calvert 553, 555(2-4), 286 226 163, 170 (I, II), S. W. involved fee, direct and devise in of alienation power immediate we held the repugnancy incident to a fee was of such defeat original devise over fee the defeasance taker.
Appellants 59, refer Corn Gray (1883), us to Wead v. 78 Mo. 439; (Banc 1899), 148 50 v. well Wulff S. W. Roth (Div. 1903), A. Rauschenbush 173 Mo. 61 L. R. S. W.
455; (Banc Albright 1904), Gannon S. W. Rep. 1906),
67 L. R.
471;
(Banc
A.
107 Am. St.
Gannon v. Pauk
Gannon Gannon Pauk pro same involved the vision aof will. A to tеstator’s father certain devised real estate sons, his two in Gannon, Michael J. Jr., Joseph Gannon, E. involved,
so far as conditioned said devise as follows: “It is will that sold, younger same shall not be the at least not before the of the two . . age; . becomes of lawful of should either issue, them die survivor, without the assigns then his to heirs and (183 take . . .” 79). Mo. c. 200 Mo. l. c. l. Each son executed conveyances the of leaving devised land and each died children. The court power alienation, considered added of expressed implied, original to devisees of the fee an executory (183 defeated devise over Mo. l. 200 c. 91); summing Mo. l. c. in up but in conclusions, its part, on Albright appeal, the by said: “. . . That the said fourth clause of the subject will the said two simple sons took fee defeated dying their without living death, issue at their
1208 . n . estaje di,ed leaving . their in fee abso
bqth children became (183 .” conclusion 264), . Mo. l. c. also the which was lute 96). appeal (200 l. It adopted by the on Pauk Mo. c. court the appeal to be noted court’s determination of the Pauk rested the in (200 96) opinion Mo. l. defeasible fee subdivision of said c. II —a original opinion— the part devisees not defeated—the first power devise—failed defeating added alienation a carrying vote. receive We the Cornwell Walton case overruled understand (Banc 233, 240; at 54 1899), 489, 508, Drumtra S. W. judges (including concurring four in judges least one case) so it. Roth case two Cornwell considered was ruled judges No. 2. Each had concurred in Corn- Bivision case, and, concurring ruling well decision of the Walton while dissented from the in holding the Walton case majority overruled (Div. ease. 2, 1912), v. Gibson Gibson Cornwell 144 W. reviews number of the earlier decisions and Rojh re case: . This division assumed the states sponsibility of effect, the decision of the full court overruling, Walton v. Drumtra.” A of Missouri cases in 11 Missouri Uni- found discussion versity Gray’s Bulletin 37. See also Law on Restraints Alienation (2 Ed.), 57-74g. secs. We do not undertake to exhaust the authori- ties. . provision also contend “if the said Ered
Appellants Humphreys-shall die without children” refers to the death of Fred prior to testatrix, the death of since testatrix, he survived Respondents took the fee. stress their contention that said re clause children, fers to the оf Fred without prior any contingency death legal vesting Fred; estate in also present position, but deem it not to their facts, under the clause essential ease of Fred without children refers any time, prior at the 4ea^F contingency. the death testatrix or subsequent ambulatory are until the death of testator and, hence, are Wills speak said to governing gifts from death. Rules lapse of n beneficiariesin the event the beneficiary predecease the testator ob- tain in Knight, this State ex rel. v. 584, 587(2), [State (2d) 610, 611(2)]. S. W. From appear lo.giсal it in- jhis would dulge presumption ordinarily contemplating that a testator is not object bounty event predeceasing him. Of course provide disposition wills for the death; after but the us, paragraph whole, before as a considered also evidences testatrix’s *10 provide disposition intention to for the her as of definite respect times to the lifetime of Fred, towit, up at least to the estate, termination of the trust might occur soon Fred' after logical basis no exist twenty-five. There would age of attained of the estatе, termination for her trust creation for testatrix’s twenty-five be- attaining the upon Fred, after trust estate probate satisfactory showing to the a thirty, making reaching fore .thirty, attaining any event termination in judge or for its cetera, alienation, et power of withholding from Fred her or for had she aforesaid unless estate as of said trust termination until the twenty-five attaining prior to Fred thought in of her death mind litigants present the case provisions. these when she inserted Respondents’ executory respondents. theory devise to of an upon the m It tо be contrasted effective, is was executory devise, if ever futuro. contemplated prior her death will Testatrix’s with'a vested interest. thirty. reached living until he twenty-five attaining to Fred chil- death without executory is Fred’s of the devise The condition urged by construction preclude will provisions of dren. The appellants. Movement v. Men Millions &
Appellants stress the cases Owens 172, 174(1); Northcutt 110, 118, 246 S.W. (1922), 296 Mo. 400(1); 483(I), 249 S. W. (1923),
McAllister 432(5); (2d) 428, 119, 5 W. Dalby (1928), 319 Mo. S. Ewart v. (1936), (2d) 768 (1, Laird Lust 2). gifts bene- involved direct and immediate cited The cases They again exhaust the Missouri cases. Appellants ficiaries. do not upon which intention, recognize controlling effect testator’s case; practically upon analysis we think we . and rule instant may Th'e Northcut sustained that of construction. all under rule die, the “if either of children case discussed condition these my have it, all die then other heirs to surviving to have and if ones ’’ materially death it. This differs from devise conditioned only former, the con- beneficiary children.” In the “without in- latter tingency being death —death certain. The time addition, contingency death, and, in of the time of volves the contingency of death without children. The court stated [486, ‘‘ ’’ life, daughter, during respectively] her natural daughter, daughter’s die without children then to the “and she paragraph then other heirs” the second will involved case, gave, by words, estate, a remain- apt Northeutt á life der other heirs. . “with devise over testator’s . authority appellants. re- The case is When ours.] [Italics historically all, practically all, later
viewed if not cases stress the Owens-ease. condition involved the Owens leaving all It case “should without issue” die then over. citing ;
applied pаramount 174(3) respectively] rule but [119, foreign jurisdictions 173(1) eases from stated respectively] [118, “. during the -words refer without the lifetime to a death issue
1210 surviving takes testator, primary and the devisee the testator pre- in simple. an intention of the testator absolute estate fee is lapse.” And, to prevent holding sumed be to a now Section infra, inapplicable respectively] statute 175(4), states : “This [121, abrogating early was the rule purpose enacted for of the common-law leaving issue’ to under which the words ‘die without were construed infra, Nаylor issue;” citing Godman, mean an indefinite of failure Siler, and Yocum v. infra. - 1937), (Mo. Ann., Said Sec.'3109, p. Revised Statute 1909 Stat. a reads: tenements, “Where remainder in lands or or chat- goods tels, limited, otherwise, shall be deed or effect on death take the issue, any person heirs, of body, without or of his or without heirs issue, or on failure of the or ‘issue’ words ‘heirs’ shall be construed to mean living heirs or the death of as person issue at the named ’’ ancestor. Ed.) executory Commentaries, (14
Kent’s 4Vol. “If an states: heirs, devise take dying without without limited effect after a issue, issue, is leaving issue, or on limitation without failure of void, remote, held to contingency because the is too not to as it is issue, place take until after an failure of indefinite . . . [p. *273] English uniform, series of in the have cases law been from the time of the recognition Year Books of present day, down in the law, rule of that a in a fee, devise' over if remainder devisee dies body, without issues or down heirs of the fee cut an tail; estate void, by way the limitation over is devise, being remote, as too on and founded indefinite failure issue.” "That author statutory mentioned enactments [p. *276] similar 3109, supra, finally to Section they and considered settled many conflicting opinions subject, on vexatious this [pp. 281], light remarks, abrogated in Yiewed Kent’s Section 3109 “dying common-law rule under leaving without issue” issue, construed to mean an indefinite failure of de resulting in feating testators, intention of living to “issue at the death person ancestor,” effect, as giving extent, named to’that Among words used testators. Missouri to said referring cases Section are:
In court, (1860), Faust’s Admrx. Birner construing life, devise testator’s wife for chil- remainder to her dren, issue, brothers, wife and if the die over to without testator’s ‘‘ good executory said: statute This is brothers. Our provides ‘dying that words issue’ shall without not be construed issue, they mean an indefinite failure but be con- shall dying living strued to issue first mean without at the death ’’ taker. (Banc 1901), 281, 287, 295, Yocum 61 W. v. Siler ex- giving a will to a certain lands son “with construing namely, said son dies restriction, that if understanding and press his, legitimate issue of issue, his, legal descendants without devisees, named Evans .” other pass to Susan lands shall effect, took the statute that, when this will said: “So construed ‘dying issue’ to be required words without State person the death meaning living at the time ‘heirs issue *12 ” as ancestor.’ named in Gannon condition involved We have hereinbefore set forth the 1906), (Banc v. Pauk Albright (Banc 1904), supra, v. Gannon and supra. quoted Albright, from Chancellor Kent’s
In the court Gannon how (183 258, 263), above, c. referred to Mo. 1. Commentaries stated 262,- (183 3109, supra, to Mo. 1. c. applied Section devises citing Naylor 263), support and Yocum of that state cases in (183 Mo. ment, up conclusions, part, follows: its summed “¡ 264) an : create estate l. c. . . That not does [the will] .it by by lauguage implication, both of the will tail because words positive of the statute especially command of. of living the death
‘die without issue’ mean without issue at dying failure'of Joseph, mean a definite said Michael and and therefore and, -by issue, finally, . . . that fourth clause will 'said subject simple upon a fee their said two sons took be defeated living II dying issue at death. .” Subdivision without their 92) (200 l. quotes Pauk c. of Gannon v. said section eon-^ (l. 95) language quoted above with to like effect as that eludes c. Albright.
from Gannon v. (Div. Curby 1, 1914), Mo.
In Union Trust Co. v. estate, a 485, 489, 490, 491-2, pay 164 W. a trust will created agе, thirty-five-years the beneficiaries of able when attained anyone of over as follows: “Should or more estate conditioned beneficiary leaving' them die issue the share of without then such go shall to those” estate. One entitled the residuum testator’s attaining surviving the beneficiaries testator died before testate thirty-five. (255 Mo. court, quoting The now Section said 1; 411): glove fits c. “This statute fits a this clause the will like hand; and, therefore, no doubt but what the testator leaves grandsons meant that or of his should without one die .more they age thirty-five yeаrs, his issue before'he or reached the then go residuary estate, finally to the share should revert legatees.” residuary found, construing also court applicable provisions whole, beneficiary the will as a that the ac quired specified no prior attaining interest in the trust funds age; death, issue, before his attaining without assigns passed, representatives personal to his share not heirs but, residuary legatees. to the testator’s Mo. l. c. 413. See [255 summing 255 Mo. up also the l. c. 419.] 19 S. 550(II), 551(III), (1891),
Naylor Godman in life estate, remainder 3), of a life 56, 58(2, the devise held issue,” “without children, upon death of life tenant tenant’s but over say reference to executory devise; good created always to mean construed in will death an immediate devisee stating death of the testator is prior death devisee indulged only ex broadly, being too construction doctrine such necessitate rei. to were in referred the cases observations mentioned They appear do not the Owens decided.
books when case was appellants. The issue harmonize in the cited with remarks cases public policy positive rule construction, involves.rules of sufficiently law. In the we testatrix’s intentions instant case find recourse permit the construction of her will without manifested to subordinate aids for construction. ten-year Limitations, Statute
Appellants plead also respond Mary having February, 1924, Ann died in from having November, 1934. Aside ents instituted action in ap reasons, Humphreys March, other filed his sworn *13 quoting applicable will plication, provisions from the testatrix’s praying “frugal, industrious,” cetera-, and that he be et found empowered land ovеr that “the trustee be to turn said authorized and 1930, Fred petitioner.” oath, to this Under his solemn as late as said holding provisions was not the land adverse to the will. charge He testimony
There was took of the land. that the trustee August, permitted possession. Fred to have in trustee died discharge appears and it affirmative and active duties of a trustee will under the were thereafter undertaken pro- appellants one. We understand do not contend that visions of will testatrix’s were other than defeated such events so far’ as is involved issues hereinbefore ruled. provisions against operated
Testatrix’s
prevent
alienation
disposing
from
of whatever
he had
interest'
land
will
until- the
gave
power
him the
the termination of the trust.
alienation —
Bixby
Co.,
v. St. Louis Union Trs.
PEE foregoing opinion adopt- by Bohling, C., CURIAM: The opinion ed as the judges of the court. All the concur..