| OCR Text |
Show THE DEMURRER SUSTAINED In the Mltto Will Coatsst Cast as Filed by lbs Proponents. mi: toMMOt i. ur nutx has tEASI.II inillhtffllUr KrmmSola Itemilnl l'nreiolMlli;.Sohtrqutntllrrla(c. l'roUUy Hi. meat Important will raw that lias trer occuploJ th. alien-lion alien-lion of tho rroMorotirt In this T.rrl-lory T.rrl-lory was that of tliorontrstlnK of llm will of Hirali K. McKlbtwri, widow of Joab Jiiwreiice1. defeased, and Ueorgo 1!. McKlbbr li, lnado by llio latlur. ThproplylnTolvf.lls yalunl at conalderahlyosor Jl.fWO.OOi), Hliortly atlef Hi. dealli of Mr. Lawrence, Mrs, McKlhben inAdo a will leasing all prorly,eiceptfew le(!fle to lier daughter by a former liualmnd, Mrs. Amelia 0. Vox, wlfo of Moylan C. Vox, who as well as Mr, Jacobus, wealthy Ns Yorker, was named as an circutor. Homo time after nuking Ih. will Mrs. 1-awrence married Urorx. K. MclCII.Uu, and a year later died at Ih. t'ullen hotel In llils clly. Th. heirs alone tk saaeeilon, but Mr. McKlbben enlerett procenllnKito contest Hi. will, on Ib. grouuds that under the laws of Utah a widow marrying mar-rying Invalidates all wills alio may haT.nlreaty made. This Mng tho caa th. contestant would get half Ih. Th. ar'snnienls wer. recently made. Ju Ig 1'iiwers and hlsisirlner, Ugdrn lilies, rspreaenle.1 MrKllil-sn, nud liennrtt, Manlial A llradlry and Mr. Illclaon aipesrvd for thei defendant, Mrs, Fox. rim rtairt took tho matter uinferadvlreuiintaud rendered a decl alon Iriday. Th. oilulon I herewith jltcn In full: TiimiToitY ur Utah, 1 CVinlyof Halt Lake. JnllelktJMateUiurtln Iht tnalttr 1 A rif'iM v i.iniA il. itilixtUit, (rocuard. As shown by Ih. refolds In this rase, rjarali V. Ijsrrenre, then a widow, madoatid eisculetl a will on th. Slid day of Juno, Wt, an thereby dl uel of all her rroperty. Hh. Inter-marrle.1 Inter-marrle.1 with tleorgv 1 McKllldn oil Ih. loth day of May, 1M0, and died on th.Slli day of March, 1 i'JJ. Th. mid will was lfle. lu iTiurt on tho i:ih day of M -y, lV Hh tho isrtltloo uf Miy. tan (), Fox aud (Jrorgo Y. Jacobus, aaklng for th. admission to probate Ihereof. On Ih. 23rd day of June, 19 ), the tal I will was alinilted to pro-halo pro-halo as Hi. laat will and tnlamentof Harsh M, MclCltiltii deceased. On tho lallidarofAtrll, liiBI,th.eill(leorg. r Melvlbbhi dlel In aal I court a ll-lion ll-lion ooulrsllngth. probate nf said will, and, by leaso of Hi. court, filed an amcmtVl itlllon on th. litis day of May, 1991, la which, alter slating Jurisdictional facts, etc., h. alleges. In substance, Hulalth.tlm. of making aud .ecullng said wit! the said leetatrli wasiiiimarrled;tlial afterward on llio 10th day of May, ISVJ, ah. Inlermar-rlel Inlermar-rlel ssl I conlrstanl; that thenceforlli they Used together as huslnul and wll. until her death; that tiecaus. of aal I marriai. sail will was roroked and void, and prays that thu prubalaof said will iNBstaabl. and th. said will bs declare.) Told and revoked. On the SMii day of May, 1S9I, thu pro-lonents pro-lonents filed a demurrer lu sail petition alleging thai II "docs not atat. facta sutlltlent to conitltut. a causa of aillon." Th. sol. iUtstlon raise I la, as to whether or not th. said will was revoked re-voked by Ih. subaa-nuent Intermarrlago of th. testatrix Willi th. cnutnuibt. Miction VCll. U. L. of quit, Ibsl, pro-vllcese pro-vllcese follow,: "Kiceptlu cases In this chapter mentioned, nu written will, uor any part thereof, can ho revoked re-voked or allt red otherwIwilhaM 1 Hy a written will, or other writing of tho trelator, declarlni; audi revocation, etc :. Hy belug iHirut, torn, canceled, ol.lltrrate.1 or ileatruje.l, villi th. In tent," eta This section l followed I y several others relating to th. mau-tier mau-tier In which a will maybe, revoked Isit uowher. do 1 find a soctlon In our statute, which rovldoalnei press terms lliatthewlllof a foncv-solo Is mvoked by her subsequent marrlsge. If then th. will In Hit ess. Is revok.i it must b. by an Implied proslslon of our statuttfor by th. rul. of tho rommon law. Anlnow as to revucatlon ly Implication, election 'M10 coinmoii Isws of Utah IS, provides as Ml iws. "Ifaflermaklng a will, the testator marries, aud th. wlfo survives thu testator, tes-tator, Ibo will Is revoked, unless provision pro-vision has been mad. for her marrlag. contract, or unlets, sho Is provllnl for lu Ih. will, or In null way meulloncd Iherelnastoa'iow an Intention not to niak. audi roil. Ion; aud no other .vldenratoicbut th. rrsumillon of revocation mutt b. meld," It la couteiide.1 hy counsel for conlertant that lu construing this ttaluln th. worJa In th. feuiliiluo ahoull b conairued to Includ. th. masculine. Uthlsvlew I tenablo th. word wife limit Iwconstru.l luluclul. hualand, and thu sauix couilructlon muit U given to the word wife In th. pie. (.eillug section, 'JWD Id, In Hi. Interpretation of statutes words lu cuminou uau wllllmitlven their ular meaning, uuless they aru detlued In th. act, or It Is uiaulfcst from th. ronleit that a dlUcreut mean-Ingis mean-Ingis Intended, Hintl erl.ind on Stat. Cons. Heii. :3 audil.'. Th. Intent of Hi. legislaluro miiat pruvall. Id, Bee, SM. To arrlvo at tha leglalallv. Intent courla miy luipilro Into tliostntoof svclely, hlatory of llio lliura, surruuud-lug surruuud-lug clrcuiuetanus, etc., at the time of tho .aaitnieut of Ih. stitut. under cousldeiatliu. Id. Hev. SIM. Diidllch, Interii. ofHut, H. 0. Whllo H.hav. n statutory rule of cohstrui lion that thu inset ullua lhall Include Ih. femlnlue, etc, yet after an Humiliation of the whole ihaiter on wills aud iiioctsiluna, thing t nUtu dllllcult to at ply that rul. In Ih. word wife In construing Ih. section aU.vi. iuoted and refernl to. rii. eri lanjuai;ou.e.l In ssitlon ii?il, points illrrtttulheuoiiclualuu that llio legls. laturo Intended t guard thu Intereata nfmarrlel uuiueii In this Territory, This llllon la atrouiitheuvd by thu slat, of niLlety at thu tlmo of thu l.uag. of Ih. set under consideration and lain accord with sound riaaou and Willi th. Hillgbtened lajllcy of modern leglalatlon aud Judicial declalona. Thu a; parent fact that our itatut. waa Iwr. "KaawCSJg row.il from California and that sec 1800 of the California alatul. waa omitted, omit-ted, I am unablo to construe as n casus omfifus, .jtclAlty,uin exnrnln-Mlonofiurstatiite, exnrnln-Mlonofiurstatiite, In the light of th. surrounding clrcumatftLco At th. tlmo of IU enactment, but am wnatrAlned to helluva lia omission to have been Intentional, In-tentional, HI a mailer uf history that, at th. time of tho passago of our law on wlllaaud succession, of whh.li thesectlon hereinbefore nuoted forma Irl, n ayrleni of plural marrlag. hod pevallcd hero for many yesrs, which was countenanced by tho Territorhl laws, and thai It was a religious en cd and formed a iart of tho social aritem of a larg. majority of tin iplo nf this Territory, Underth.laasoftli. United Klatrs, relating to and enlorced In this Territory, (hirst wive, were uupro-sided uupro-sided for not entitled to any portion of their husband's cslito by descent. Thuluhrrltalle itiallllrof their children chil-dren ware shrouded lu mjstery In-volriil In-volriil In doubt, nnd, under lUrh circumstance, It acorns qultn reasonable reas-onable lo presume that tho legls-laluic, legls-laluic, most of whoie member, wire In sympathy with th. doctrlno if plural marriage, I Men led to enact no law whkli woullstlll further restrict th. rights of women as to ill scent, or a to their lower of illiotlng of their proierty by will, I do not rtganl this theory of the ras. In ronlllit wllti th. iaa. of Kllver vs. 'Add, 7 Wall. Sit), cited by counsel for contestant, for that case augments rather than nbrldgvt th. rlghlsof women and this Is lu consonance conso-nance with enlightened Jurisprudence, lam thus persualcd that thtrolano UtutelawlnourTerrltory, either ex. press or Implied, whereby the will of a femme, tolv Is rovnkid uun her tub-sequent tub-sequent marrlaito. It remains Uittnb. inn a to whether or not luch ft nsult Is effected by tho Ml. of tho common com-mon law. And, for Hi. purls pur-ls s. of argument, eupiie. that the otnlaslon from rmr statute' of section sec-tion litis) of llio California statute Is a "ousuf omuius'1 and that tho maxim 'criresaiu unfus tit eieluih alltrlut" does hut apply In this case, will then-thr rule of Hi. comu-nii law b In force? This lead loaconaldsratlouof Ih. reason of the rul. and of th. condition of married women In this Territory In relation to their i ro(rly right. First of the former. The reason of the rule la Ih. ambulatory chancier of the will during the llfeof tho testator who may revoke It at any tlmo. Ho In ctaoofit frmme-sol. a long aa her condition remains re-mains unchanged Marrlag. creates a disability lu the wlfo to dispose uf th tropcrly beiiicathcd or devised, destroys des-troys thi ambulatory nature of Ih. will snllrave.lt no linger subject lober control. Th. Individuality of thu wlf. tiecomra merged In that of th. huaband. lloratsolut.coiilrol of her estate ceases aud she can maku no testamentary dlsiollloii of It during rnverlurn without her huabahd's concurrence, con-currence, nor Is her will any longer aulject to revocation, and therefor, cannot be rcrognlied In law, H'le Is Incsiablo of deviling her lands or of making a trstament of her chattels without the llcetis. of her hus-tniid. hus-tniid. Her s-rsonal chattels In long to lilninnd hot a nil lei asm of herchillola real or have them If li. survives her. I lIlacksLComm., 4U 4 Kent's Conim , 6J7. lu re Fuller, 7tl III., 9). liov the reason of Ih. nile extat under our atatute? Isth. wlf.'aprop erty subject to Ih. control of th. hus-ludaa hus-ludaa at common law? These questions ques-tions muit li determined by reference to our statute concerulng lhoroerly rlghlsof husband aulwlfe. Hecllon UAU. Uof Utah, IU, provides as follows! "All proirty owne.1 by either suae Uloro marriage, an I that acquired ac-quired afterwards by irchae, gift, lequnt, d.vlse or descent, Willi III. nuts, Issu. and I rofll thereof, I Hi.' seinrato proirty of that ttuso by whom the sam. Is so ownnl or acquired, ac-quired, and separate proierty own-l oraoiulrvd a s-clrieil auov. may I. held, manageil, controlled, tranafarred and in any manner dtejoeed of by tho spouaoso uwnlng or Acquiring It, without with-out any lluillatlou or rottlcllon by rrsson of marriage," Thlt slalute Is ciearand expllilt, andmakis a iuaIo-rial iuaIo-rial change luthe atatusof a married woman as lu her llfhU at cummoii law. It give hor the Mine aulhorli) over her se arale ioperly thai Ih. hue-I hue-I sill has over his roity. Hhetan dlsisise of II Just th. same aa h. can. Tin disabilities to which marriage sut Jected her at common law hate Un lemovrd by aMrmatlve legislation. The husband's license Is no longer required lo enable Hie wlfu to mske la valid d!soaltlou of her i state by will, II therefor, follows that loholl tho will of a femme sole void by her Bubtcqueut marriage would slm ly b. lo luijsmiupon her Ih. unreaannabl. task, If she deslre.1 lo .xerrla. her rights, of making another on. Ilk. It during cov.iture. This would ti lo destroy de-stroy nu I restore the aimo thing at th. aaine time which Is not the i!!cy of the law. The lucapailty of a married voinau, which waa the destroying lower of the will, having been removed re-moved by statute tho common hw rule with lis reason lias rraaed and the will uf a femmeMile remains unrevoked unre-voked by her sut.eiiu.ul marrlsge, lure Fuller, aupra. Webb vs. Jones, .111 N. J. .., 103, Noyce t. Houthworth, M Mich. ITS, Fellows vs. Allen, GO -N, IL, IU The demurrer Is suatslued. Done In ou court, June Mill, 1691, O. W. llAltTOir, Judge. |
