125 Iowa 691 | Iowa | 1904
The real property, the ownership of which is in controversy in this case, belonged at one time in fee simple to Samuel C. Luckey, since deceased, and was disposed of in his will, which covered all of his property, real and personal, as follows:
First. I give, devise and bequeath to my beloved wife, Caroline M. Luckey, all my estate, both real and personal, in whatever it may consist, or wherever situated, at my decease, to be by her used and disposed of during her natural life, precisely the same as I myself might do were I living; and giving my wife full power to sell, exchange, invest and' reinvest the same, in the same manner I might do if living; and to distribute the same by gift or otherwise as she sees fit, at any time during her life, and to appoint the same by will to whomsoever she wishes, according to her own judgment and discretion.
Second. But if any of my said .estate shall remain undisposed of by my said wife, at the time of her decease, I give, devise, and bequeath all such residue and remainder of my estate to be equally divided among William Luckey, he being my brother, and Sophia A. Luckey, she being my wife’s sister; should either William Luckey or Sophia A. Luckey be deceased at the time of the decease of my said wife, Caroline M. Luckey, then and in that case all of said estate that remains undisposed of, shall be given to, and I hereby give, devise and bequeath the same to the súrvivor.
There was a third paragraph of' the will, making provision for the disposal of the property in the event that the wife, Caroline M. Luckey, should not survive the testator; but as she did survive him, and died in the full possession and enjoyment of the property, that paragraph of the will becomes immaterial. If the second clause of the will is to be given effect, then Sophia A. Luckey became the owner of the entire property, for William Luckey died before the
Without further elaboration, we reach the conclusion that the decree of the court confirming the shares in the property as claimed by the defendant, and ordering partition on that basis, and a sale in order to effect such partition, is correct, and it is affirmed.