{
  "id": 4986600,
  "name": "Mary Kramer et al. Plaintiffs in Error, vs. The Sangamon Loan and Trust Company, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Kramer v. Sangamon Loan & Trust Co.",
  "decision_date": "1920-06-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 13361",
  "first_page": "553",
  "last_page": "555",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "293 Ill. 553"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "266 Ill. 349",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        4787528
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/266/0349-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "266 Ill. 349",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        4787528
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/266/0349-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 308,
    "char_count": 5842,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.809,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2196820305399143e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5978954757593976
    },
    "sha256": "a2774b538d396e85b642f2c8326bd71302b719d84035ad9cc6b5a41d15e49a45",
    "simhash": "1:d531ff5ed4098296",
    "word_count": 1017
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:00:23.784670+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Mary Kramer et al. Plaintiffs in Error, vs. The Sangamon Loan and Trust Company, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Thompson\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe question raised by this writ of error is the construction to be given clause 3 of the will of Patrick Canty. After directing the payment of his debts he devised and bequeathed the remainder of his property, consisting principally of farm lands in Sangamon county and residence property in Springfield, to a trustee to manage and control, with directions to pay the income in equal shares to his son, William B. Canty, and his two daughters, Catherine Billington and Mary Kramer. The third clause then provided : \u201cAt the death of all my said children herein named, I hereby will, devise and bequeath said real estate and personal property to my grandchildren then living, the child or children of each of my said daughters or son taking the same part thereof as his, her or their mother or father would have taken if I had died intestate.\u201d The three children of the testator survived him. The son was never married and died intestate, leaving as his only heirs-at-law his two sisters. Three grandchildren are now living,\u2014a son of Catherine Billington and two daughters of Mary Kramer.\nThe circuit court of Sangamon county construed the will to give cross-remainders for life, by implication, to the three children of testator. Plaintiffs in error contend that the doctrine of cross-remainders by implication can not apply because the property is not given over as a whole, but, on the contrary, is given over by three independent gifts, thereby making equal distribution of testator\u2019s estate by thirds among his three children and their descendants. They contend that the word \u201call,\u201d used as the fifth word of the third clause of testator\u2019s will, was used in the sense of \u201cany\u201d or \u201ceach,\u201d so that at the death of William B. Canty the surviving sisters each became seized in fee of an undivided one-sixth of said estate.\nWhen lands are given to two or more as tenants in common with remainder over on the death of all of them, there arises an estate in the surviving grantee or grantees which is called a cross-remainder, because each of the grantees has reciprocally a remainder in the share of the other or others. When the testator shows an intention that the estate shall go over as a whole, cross-remainders will be implied whatever may be the number of persons-designated in the original gift. (23 R. C. L. 554, et seq.) Where it is necessary in order to carry out the clear intention of the testator, words in a will may be construed to have a meaning not commonly given them; butt where the intention- of the testator is clearly expressed by his will, words should be given their ordinary meaning. We find nothing in this will which would justify us in construing the word \u201call\u201d to mean \u201ceach\u201d or \u201cany.\u201d We think the intention of the testator, clearly expressed, was that his estate was to go over as a whole after the death of all his children. He desired to provide that his children, to the last survivor, should have the full benefit of the income of his estate, and that after the death of the last survivor of his children his estate should then be distributed among his grandchildren per stirpes. We think the clause following the words \u201cthen living\u201d means simply that the remainder in fee shall pass to the grandchildren per stirpes and not per capita.\nIn Addicks v. Addicks, 266 Ill. 349, we collected the authorities on the subject of cross-remainders and discussed the question at some length. While counsel for plaintiffs \u2022 in error attempt to distinguish this case from the Addicks case, we think, in principle, there is no distinction. In the Addicks case the remainder in fee passed to the grandchildren per capita and not per stirpes, but that would not affect the estate arising by implication in the first takers. We have considered all the points raised by plaintiffs in error, and we think that what we said-in the Addicks case ' controls the question here presented.\nThe decree of the circuit court was correct, and it is therefore affirmed.\nDecree affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Thompson"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "T. W. Hoopes, and J. W. Templeman, for plaintiffs in error.",
      "B. L. Catron, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 13361.\nDecree affirmed.)\nMary Kramer et al. Plaintiffs in Error, vs. The Sangamon Loan and Trust Company, Defendant in Error.\nOpinion filed June 16, 1920.\n1. Wills\u2014when each tenant in common has cross-remainder in share of the other or others. Where lands are given to two or more as tenants in common with remainder over on the death of all of them there arises an estate in the surviving grantee or grantees which is called a cross-remainder, each grantee having reciprocally a remainder in the share of the other or others; and where a testator shows an intention that the estate shall go over as a whole, cross-remainders will be implied whatever may be the number of persons designated in the original gift.\n2. Same\u2014words will be given their ordinary meaning unless another meaning is intended. Where it is necessary in order to carry out the clear intention of the testator words in a will may be construed to have a meaning not commonly given them, but unless such an intention is clearly expressed in the will words should be given their ordinary meaning.\n3. Same\u2014when children of testator have cross-remainders until death of all of them. Where a testator directs a trustee to pay the income of his estate to his three children and provides in a subsequent clause that \u201cat the death of all\u201d of the children the estate shall go to his grandchildren then living, the three children have cross-remainders by implication in the shares of each other until the death of all, and at the death of one the survivors take no part of the estate in fee. (Addicks v. Addicks, 266 Ill. 349, followed.)\nWrit of Error to the Circuit Court of Sangamon county; the Hon. E. S. Smith, Judge, presiding.\nT. W. Hoopes, and J. W. Templeman, for plaintiffs in error.\nB. L. Catron, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0553-01",
  "first_page_order": 553,
  "last_page_order": 555
}