93 Neb. 640 | Neb. | 1913
This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court for Stanton county, granting to the executors of the will of Frederick A. Sasse, deceased, a license to sell certain real estate, of which he died seized, for the payment of his debts.
It appears, without dispute, that on the 7th day of December, 1894, Frederick A. Sasse made a will, wherein he devised certain land to his three sons, and the residue of his estate he devised and bequeathed to his several children, share and share alike. On the 18th day of August, 1896, Sasse executed conveyances to his three sons for the real estate wrhich he had devised to them by will, and took from them certain contracts by which they each agreed to pay him the sum of $1,200, to be distributed according to his will in case he died testate, but, in case he should leave no will, the money which they were to pay his estate was to be distributed “to his present heirs and their legal representatives.” No other will was made by him. On the 15th day of June, 1908, Sasse died, and the will above mentioned was presented for probate. The will was contested by his widow, a second wife, whom he had married after his will was executed. On appeal to the district court the will was admitted to probate, subject to the
At the time of the death of Frederick A. Sasse he was the owner of a farm consisting of 120 acres of land situated in Stanton county, together with lots 1, 2 and 3, in block 18 of the original town of Stanton, on .which was situated a dwelling-house, occupied at that time as a homestead, which property was not disposed of by his will. The farm land above mentioned was incumbered by a mortgage of $800, bearing interest at 5 per cent, from July 1, 1908, payable semi-annually. It appears that the amount due on the mortgage was not filed as a claim against the estate. The town property was clear of incumbrance, and has been occupied since the death of the testator by his widow as her homestead. The farm was rented for the year ending March 1, 1909, to Gustav ■ Sasse, from whom there was a balance of $10 due as rent, and which has never been paid. The farm was rented for the year ending March 1, 1910, at a rental value of $360. For the year ending March 1, 191.1, it was occupied by Herman Sasse at an agreed rental value of $360, and at the time of the commencement of this proceeding it was still occupied by him as a tenant, for the year ending March 1, 1912, at an agreed rental value of $360, and no part of the rents above mentioned have been paid.
The widow contends that the money due from Gustav, Herman and Ernest Sasse belongs to the estate of her deceased husband, and so much thereof as may be necessary should be used for the payment of his debts; that the executors, who are the sons of the deceased, are unlawfully proceeding to sell the land in question for the purpose of depriving her of her share of the estate, and are seeking to thus increase their own distributive portions thereof; while the executors claim that the- money due from the sons of the testator belongs to and should be retained by them. The determination of this question requires a construction of a portion of the will, and it is conceded by all parties that- if the sums of money above described belong to the estate, and are available for the payment of the debts of the testator, the judgment of the district court should be reversed and the proceeding dismissed. By the first clause of the will it is provided: “I direct that my funeral charges, the expense of administering my estate, and all of my debts be paid out of my per
Construing the portions of the will above quoted,-with all of its other provisions, we are of opinion that, by the payment of the sums of money due from his three sons, it was the intention of the testator to create a fund available to his executors for the payment of his funeral charges, his debts, and the expense of administering his estate. The remainder of the funds, together with his property undisposed of at the time of his death, was to be divided equally between his children share and share-alike. Any other construction of the will would deprive the daughters of the testator of any considerable portion of his estate. It evidently was his intention to require the sons to pay over to the executors so much of the money secured by their contracts as would be necessary to pay his funeral charges, his debts, and the expense of administration, and the distributive share belonging to his two daughters. Each of the sons was to be allowed to retain such remainder of the fund, if any, as would amount to his distributive share of the estate. By adopting this construction of the will, it appears that there was available to the executors a fund amounting to about $4,500 for the payment of the debts of the testator, which it is conceded were only about $1,200 at the time the district court made the order to sell the farm belonging to his estate.
It follows that the order for the sale of the land in question should not have been granted. The judgment of the district court is therefore reversed, and the proceeding is dismissed. Reversed and dismissed.