{ "id": 5107831, "name": "Josephine Catlett, Defendant in Error, vs. Eli DeRousse et al. Plaintiffs in Error", "name_abbreviation": "Catlett v. DeRousse", "decision_date": "1923-12-19", "docket_number": "No. 15462", "first_page": "343", "last_page": "345", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "310 Ill. 343" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "223 Ill. 160", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3335843 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/223/0160-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 277, "char_count": 4379, "ocr_confidence": 0.806, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.1047448871292387e-07, "percentile": 0.569250562484531 }, "sha256": "4427c2ebdc1b1cb26239b3b64ef1abc31cb4fa38c8f437c2efe251e6ebb61839", "simhash": "1:18450050d6d46efe", "word_count": 784 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:52:40.361673+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Josephine Catlett, Defendant in Error, vs. Eli DeRousse et al. Plaintiffs in Error." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Thompson\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis bill is filed to construe the will of William Catlett. Omitting the formal parts it reads as follows:\n\u201cAfter my debts is paid I give and bequeath to my wife, Josephine Catlett, the sum of three hundred and sixty dollars ($360), to be accepted and received by her in lieu of dower; to my son, Henry Catlett, five ($5), and to my daughter, Ada Catlett, the sum of five ($5) dollars. I give and devise all the rest, residue and remainder of my real estate to my wife, Josephine Catlett, and after the death of my wife, Josephine Catlett, it is my will that all the residue, of whatever kind, name and nature, shall go to my son, Henry Catlett.\n\u201cAnd lastly: I give and bequeath all the rest, residue and remainder of my personal estate, goods and chattels, of what nature and kind, to my wife, Josephine Catlett.\u201d\nThe chancellor found that the widow received under this will a life estate in all the real estate owned by the testator, with power to convey the fee simple title. Plaintiffs in error, who are the heirs of Henry Catlett, seek a reversal of the decree.\nThis is another of those wills drawn by incompetent persons who try to use, without knowing their meaning, all the big words that have come to their attention. All the parties agree that the widow was given a life estate in all the land, which includes dower, and so the scrivener must have intended to use the word \u201cdower,\u201d in the first clause, as meaning \u201caward.\u201d Excepting the two five-dollar bequests, all the personal property is given to the widow by the first and last clauses of the will. Sandwiched between these clauses is one disposing of the real \u00e9state. It is clear that the words \u201crest, residue and remainder,\u201d as used in the second clause, are meaningless and that the scrivener used them without knowing what they meant. All the real estate is devised by this clause, and the plain meaning of the clause is that the testator gives his widow all his real estate for life, with remainder to his son. There are no words anywhere in the will indicating directly a power of disposal. Defendant in error bases her contention that there is an implied power of sale on the fact that there is a gift over of \u201cthe residue.\u201d The context of the will does not indicate that \u201cresidue\u201d means \u201cwhat remains,\u201d but, granting that it was used in that sense, the gift over is not of what \u201cremains unexpended\u201d or what \u201cremains undisposed of.\u201d There are no cases in this State which justify holding that\u2019 the power to dispose of the fee is given. Where the gift over is simply of \u201cthe residue\u201d or \u201cwhat remains,\u201d then no power to dispose of the fee is expressed. (Kales on Estates, \u2014 2d ed. \u2014 sec. 648; Vanatta v. Carr, 223 Ill. 160; Thompson v. Adams, 205 id. 552.) Granting that extrinsic facts may be considered in construing this will, there are none in the record which justify reading into the will language which is not there. There is no provision in the will, either preceding or following the word \u201cresidue,\u201d which indicates any purpose of the testator to vest the widow with a power of sale. There is here no doubtful power of sale which can be made a certain one by the consideration of the word \u201cresidue\u201d or of facts and circumstances surrounding the testator at the time he wrote the will.\nThe decree of the circuit court is reversed and the cause is remanded, with directions to enter a decree in accordance with the views herein expressed.\nReversed and remanded.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Thompson" } ], "attorneys": [ "William H. SchuwERK, for plaintiffs in error.", "H. Clay HornER, for defendant in error." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 15462.\nReversed and remanded.)\nJosephine Catlett, Defendant in Error, vs. Eli DeRousse et al. Plaintiffs in Error.\nOpinion filed December 19, 1923.\nWills \u2014 when life tenant is not given power to dispose of fee. Where a testator gives his wife all his real estate, with a provision that after her death \u201cthe residue\u201d shall go to the testator\u2019s son, the devise is merely to the wife for life with remainder to the son, and the gift over of \u201cthe residue\u201d will not be construed as giving the wife power to dispose of the fee, where there is nothing in the context of the will or in the facts and circumstances surrounding the testator at the time he wrote the will to warrant such construction.\nWrit op Error to the Circuit Court of Randolph county; the Hon. Louis Bernreuter, Judge, presiding.\nWilliam H. SchuwERK, for plaintiffs in error.\nH. Clay HornER, for defendant in error." }, "file_name": "0343-01", "first_page_order": 343, "last_page_order": 345 }