Kenaday v. Sinnott

Citations

• 179 U.S. 606
• 21 S. Ct. 233
• 45 L. Ed. 339
• 1900 U.S. LEXIS 1894

Syllabus

<p>Pinal decrees of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia in respect of final settlements in the orphans’ court, may be reviewed in this court on appeal.</p> <p>Where, in a controversy between an executrix and next of kin, a cLecree of the orphans’ court approving the final account of the executrix has been reversed by the Court of Appeals on the appeal of the next of kin, and the cause remanded that the account might be restated in accordance with the principles set forth in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, involving a recasting of the entire account, the decree of the Court of Appeals is not final.</p> <p>The Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, sitting as an orphans’ court, has jurisdiction over the settlement Of estates, and controversies in relation thereto between the next of kin and the executrix, and resort to the chancery court is unnecessary.</p> <p>Certain familiar rules of construction of wills reiterated: (a) .That the intention of the testator must prevail; (6) that the law prefers a construction which will prevent a partial intestacy to one that will permit it, if such a construction may reasonably be given; (c) that the courts in general are-averse from construing legacies to be specific.</p> <p>Ademption is the extinction or withdrawal of a legacy- in consequence of some act of the testator equivalent to its revocation or clearly indicative of an intention to revoke.</p> <p>In this case, in view of the general intention of the testator as plainly shown by the provisions of his will taken together, and of the rules against partial intestacy and against treating legacies as specific, the bequest of moneyas therein-made to testator’s widow is construed not to have been a specific legacy but rather in the nature of a demonstrative legacy, and a change, between the date of the will and the death of the testator, from money into bonds, held not to be an ademption, and so a rule of law rather than a question of intention.</p>