*1 889 apportionment application gener- for of is not made until come within , money paid provisions securing after the is into court.” al constitutional by jury.” right trial of body In opinion appears following: taking of a state We think the over “Hurley contends that he was entitled an insol bank the Bank Commissioner jury to a We agree. trial. do not The vency proceeding. In we this connection Casualty fund was a trust fund. Aetna receivership distinction between the see no Surety & v. Young, supra, [107 corporation private that of a state of 151, 1226, 261]; 17 C.J. banking bank under the law. 69; C.J.S., Death, 37, p. § § impressed case We with the Kansas are proceedings apportionment The for the Holsinger v. Bank Commercial State and distribution of such fund was there- 387, Rosedale, 451. In that 137 Kan. equitable proceedings, fore since the case, brought prefer- establish suit enforcement of trusts and the distribu- a claim bank ence on thе insolvent funds, property, tion of trust are proceeds had for of U. bonds which S. cognizable equity. matters 21 C.J. wrongly held been converted. C.J.S., Equity, 60.” § jury plaintiff was to a not entitled Therefore, under either consideration purposes see trial. For the we parties proceeding, the charactеr of this controlling no difference between a suit jury were not entitled to a a matter trial as priority and one to the existence establish right. deposit as in the case. Judgment affirmed. above, Coming now to the second situation find we headnote of 50 C.J.S. Juries J, HALLEY, DAVISON, V. C. p. reads: WILLIAMS, BERRY, JJ., IRWIN and “Actions for the ad- enforcement and concur. generally ministration are trusts equity within the right jury
there is no to a trial.” 58, appears page At C.J.S. Juries following text: jurisdictions has been held most “It Edding OBERLANDER Esther pro- insolvency proceedings are Error, ton, Jr., Plaintiffs according ceedings course law, special nature but common EDDINGTON, in Error. Defendant proceed- nearly corresponding more No. 39615. they equity, and that ings in a court of Supreme Court of Oklahoma. application of within the are not April 28, 1964. securing provisions constitutional ”* by jury. right of trial Hurley, Hurley
In the case of distribution issue, perti-
of a trust fund syllabus reads: paragraph of the
nent
“Money paid in settlement into court brought wrongful death an action for administratrix for the benefit
by the fund, and the kin is a next of trust a matter
distribution thereof order
equitable cognizance, when
The facts out of which this controversy disputed. arose are not On December *3 Gangloff, William the then owner J. land, executed a will in which he wife, devised to his Mary Gangloff, a life estate in land and further providing: “ * * * and after the natural term my of life of wife, said my dear re- maining real estatе shall be divided be- my tween many children in as shares there be share and share alike, my and if one, all, children or die, leaving should theyr (sic) (in children my other grand- words' children) shall have theyr the share of (sic) parents.” 25, 1910, On Gangloff December died in Illinois, leaving wife, Mary, and a Esther, daughter, who is the Esther daughter, Oberlаnder. Wilma, Another was born after his death. probate
The will was admitted to County, Oklahoma, and a final Jackson May decree was entered constru- ing the and decreeing a life estate in Mary Gangloff, providing: the land to “ * * * that at her death said real pass estate shall to the said Esther Maybеlle Gangloff and Wilma Anna Altus, plaintiffs in Oden, Oden & Gangloff, alike, share and share error. Maybelle Gangloff the said Esther Gangloff hereby Wilma Anna each Whiteside, Altus, Harbison & for defend- declared to have an undivided one half ant error. estate, interest in and to said real to- wit: thirty- the north DAVISON, Justice. township six range three north appeal This is an Esther Oberlander twenty-two west, j sub ect a life estate Jr., be- Eddington, and Harold defendants hereby granted Mary therein the said low, judgment from a favor of Harold Gangloff, the wife of the said deceased. below, Eddington, plaintiff adjudg- (Sr.), same, “To and to hold to- plaintiff ing the ownеr un- to be of an gether all singular with the tene- one-quarter sec- a half ments, appurtenanc- hereditaments and County, of land tion located persons es appertaining, thereto Oklahoma. Plaintiff also secured an ac- named, assigns above their heirs money counting judgment forevеr.” Esther for his Oberlander share of income from The amount April) 1935, land. of this latter In March or judgment questioned, except as it plaintiff married Eddington (Sr.) herein, 16, 1936, affected reversal September and on their plaintiff’s quieting title. Jr., Plarold defendant here-
in,
*,
Wilma died November
nances
assigns
born.
their
heirs
forevеr.”
Mary Gangloff, widow of William J.
The decision states that the
Gangloff,
pur-
and bolder of the life estate
court has
to construe and in
decree,
July
above
suant
died
terpret a will and held that the terms of the
1956, and her life estate
termi-
was then
final decree
fee,
nated.
stating:
by virtue
contend that
The defendants
“Where decree of distribution of
*4
quoted
supra,
portion of the
of the
grants
Court
a life
estate
Eddington, Jr.,
only
child of
Harold
real
to one
and the
Wilma,
all of his
the owner of
simple
remainder in fee
to others, both
upon
interest in the land
mother’s one-half
the life estate and thе remainders be-
Gangloff,
tenant, Mary
death
the life
of
upon
come
entry
vested estates
of the
position
defendants’
that the
in 1956. It is
decree,
conveyance
and a
by an owner
clear
will reflects a
intent on
of a
conveys
remainder
a
named
the testator that the interests оf the
fee-simple title, subject only to the
and described ultimate beneficiaries shall
duration of the life estate.”
upon
and vest
the termina-
be determined
See also
Chappell,
Baldwin v.
Mary Gangloff.
tion of the life estate of
38,
893' age twenty-one years, riving In the case of Matthewson v. at the Hilton, Okl., stated: cause it is show order or judgment.”
“Decree of distribution of
having jurisdiction
settle-
Exploration
National
And
estate,
ment
testatrix’
entered
Robins,
we held:
after due notice and hearing,
is con-
proceedings in the settle-
“Probate
fraud,
clusive
the absence of
mis-
in the nature
ment of estates are
rights
take or collusion as to the
rem, and, upon
proceedings in
statu-
parties
estate,
interested in the
to all
tory
having
given,
notice
been
all the
portions
ordered,
of said
thereby
estate
charged
world
with notice. And
capable
being,
then distributed
decree of distribution and settlement
under the
unless reversed or modi-
notice,
heirship
rendered on such
appeal;
fied on
and such decree is
a showing
the absence of
of fraud or
to collateral attack.
collusion,
binding
parties
all
632, imposes
“Tit. 58 O.S.1951 §
estate,
claiming an interest in the
even
*5
upon
county
acting
probate
court
in
though
proceed-
in
not mеntioned
the
mandatory duty
the
determining
ings
personally
nor
served with no-
beneficiaries,
who are the
the
to
heirs, however,
repre-
tice. Minor
.not
entitled,
which each is
and the nature
sented, may proceed
proper
tri-
and extent of their
the
in
es-
bunal
the same
to set
aside within one
tate; and
jurisdic-
in
doing
so
it has
year
arriving
age
after
at the
of ma-
tion to construe
interpret
jority,
provided
as
under which
property
the
is dis-
(12
700).”
O.S.1961
C.O.S.1921.
tributed.”
McJunkin, 173
See also Gassin
Jay, supra;
See also Riddle
Marks v.
P.2d 320.
Everhart,
208 Okl.
upon
authorities an attack
Under these
Oklahoma,
Widger v. Union Oil Co. of
de-
was barred аnd the final
the final decree
here. In that case we a definition
of vested remainder as follows:
“A is a which the may convey by
remainderman deed.” I call attention to the case of Faris also v. G. C. SPILLERS and G. C. Spillers, Jr., a Co- Partnership doing al., Nickel et 152 Kan. Spillers business & Spillers, Error, Plaintiffs pro- which it was held that where á will vided that testator devised all of his estate Colby, life, Joe COLBY and Walter
to his wife for with remainder at wife’s Defendants in Error. children, simple, death to testator’s fee No. 40111. descendants deceased children share, parent’s take and testator Supremе Court of Oklahoma. survived wife and nine his April 28, 1964. one son died of life tenant before death without children but was son’s survived
widow, remainder to children was a “vested
remainder”, passed to his and son’s interest heir, statutory
widow as could she partition
maintain for her share of test-
ator’s estate.
For further consideration of vested re- Estates,
mainders see sub. C.J'.S. par. b.
I have passed not found that we have question of whether a dying passes intestate to his
heirs the same rules as an estate in
possession. appears prevailing
rule, rule, to me best is that a vested pass. does
remainder
so
26A
De-
C.J.S.
scent and Distribution
Brown v.
Brown,
53 N.M.
Since one-half of the remainder in the Gangloff,. Eddington; láter at her
birth, then at her though death even before
the demise of the life tenant the vested passed to her heirs who in this
case were her husband and each a half
of her interest. Therefore