Affirming.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the first chancery division of the Jefferson circuit court, denying to five testamentary devisees a termination and settlement of a trust created by will, in an action filed by them wherein they demanded distribution upon the ground that the purpose for which the trust was established no longer exists.
The trust involved in this action was created by the will of George Reuling, who owned at his death considerable lands in Jefferson county near Louisville. The will is dated September 10, 1894, the testator died May 12, 1909, and his will was probated on May 20th of that year.
"It is my desire and intention that the house, out houses and six acres of land upon which said houses may be situated and enough ground adjacent to the ground upon which said houses, etc., are situated to make six complete acres, shall be used and occupied by any and all of my children and my step-daughters who may not have married at the time of my wife's death or marriage until all of my children then unmarried and said Lena and Katie Elizabeth Hiltz shall have respectively married, died or declined to live at the place set apart as a home for them in this clause of my last will and testament. The right thus to occupy said houses and six acres of land surrounding the same shall cease with those of my children and step-daughters as they respectively marry and as any of my children or my step-children herein named shall marry, those so marrying shall immediately vacate the place set apart for them as a home for my unmarried children and step-children herein named; and those remaining single and unmarried shall occupy the same until they marry, die or decline to occupy the same as a home, and I earnestly request those of my unmarried children and step-daughters herein named who may occupy the land and improvements herein described to keep said land and improvements in good order and repair and promptly pay all taxes and other necessary outlays necessary to maintain same, and I further earnestly request and hope that those who may avail themselves of the benefits of this clause may live together in peace and harmony and so long as any one of my children or step-daughters herein named shall remain unmarried, such child or step-daughter shall have the right, without interruption to occupy said house etc. and six acres of land until married without being charged rent therefor; such occupant, however, to keep the place in repair, pay the taxes and necessary insurance."
"If the six acres of land and the improvements thereon mentioned as a home for my unmarried children and two step-daughters in this my last will, should be sold upon the unanimous judgment of my executrix and two executors as in this clause provided, then the proceeds of sale of said six acres and improvements etc. shall be used in providing a home to be used and held in the same manner and under like condition as *Page 343 said six acres of land and improvements would be held if not sold as authorized in this clause."
At the time of the testator's death, the four unmarried women living in this home were his stepdaughters, Katie Elizabeth Hiltz and Lena Hiltz, and testator's daughters, Caroline Reuling and Maggie Reuling, the last two being half-sisters of the first two. In September, 1909, Maggie Reuling married Charles Hansen and left this home.
What Are the Rights of These Three Women? In order to determine the rights of these women, we must try as best we can to put ourselves in the position of the testator when he wrote this will and, as near as we can, view the situation as he saw it when *Page 344
he wrote his will. This is the proper way to arrive at its meaning. Blessing et al. v. Johnston et al.,
"In every case the intention of the testator must be sought, and to arrive at his intention we must construe the language of the will in the light of the circumstances surrounding him at the time the will was prepared."
The trust considered there arose under item 4 of this will, and is not to be confused with the trust we are now considering.
The testator was a truck gardener, and many years ago he married a widow Hiltz, who was then engaged in a like business. Reuling had four children by a former marriage, his wife brought with her four children by a former marriage, and four children were born as a result of their union.
Reuling then owned these six acres and owed $1,800 upon it. He and his wife and these twelve children by hard work and economy paid off his debt and bought other property, some of which he sold and divided in his lifetime and some of which was sold and divided after his death.
What was his purpose in setting apart these six acres? It was not simply to put a roof over the heads of these women. It did not require six acres to keep it from raining on them. A small part of this property would have been enough for that. His purpose is plain. He was not only putting a roof above their heads, but was also providing a means for them to live. He expected them on these six acres to raise beans, radishes, potatoes, lettuce, corn, etc., just as he had done, and thus to get their living.
Judgment affirmed.
