Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Peoples Bank of Bloomington v. Rankin

MAY 3, 1968.

PEOPLES BANK OF BLOOMINGTON AND JANE KETTERING RANKIN, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,

v.

CURTIS S. RANKIN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, AND OLAND G. JOHNSON, EXECUTOR, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



Appeal from the Circuit Court of Tazewell County; the Hon. IVAN L. YONTZ, Judge, presiding. Decree affirmed.

SCHEINEMAN, J.

This suit was filed for the principal purpose of obtaining a judicial construction of two wills. The testators were Ray N. Kettering and Hyla J. Kettering, husband and wife. Both are now deceased and their wills admitted to probate. The two wills contained an identical clause, the pertinent parts being as follows:

". . . I give, devise and bequeath the aforesaid property to the Peoples Bank of Bloomington, Bloomington, Illinois, trustee, in trust for the following purposes:

"A. To invest and reinvest the corpus, collect the income therefrom, and to pay over the net income therefrom to my daughter, Jane Kettering Rankin and her children or the descendants of any deceased child per stirpes, as follows:

"1. The net income shall be distributed as often as the trustee decides but at least once each year.

"2. The net income each year shall be divided equally between my daughter Jane, and her children, or the descendants of any deceased child per stirpes, share and share alike, and paid to them or used for their behalf, as the trustee in its sole discretion sees fit."

There follows a provision for the distribution of the corpus of the trust after the death of the daughter, Jane, to the children, — "and the income divided among them in equal shares per stirpes."

The testators were survived by their daughter Jane and four minor children and none other. The problem involved is whether the word "between" as used herein, requires the income be divided into two parts, one for Jane and the other for her children. Or, does the word have the meaning of "among" and require an equal division among the five survivors? The first of these alternatives would give Jane one-half of the income and each of her children one-eighth, whereas the second alternative would give each survivor one-fifth of the income.

The chancellor entered a decree adopting the first alternative as the proper construction. This appeal was perfected in behalf of the executor and the four children by their guardian ad litem.

Although the primary meaning of "between" indicates a division into halves, this court cannot arbitrarily conclude this must be its meaning here, since it is known to be used sometimes in the sense of "among" as where there is a direction to divide among three or more persons. In construing wills, allowance must be made for this possibility even though it may be an incorrect usage.

[1-3] In construing a will, the court will consider the entire will and all its words to ascertain the testator's intention, and the intention, so ascertained, will be carried out whenever it can be done without violating any established rule of law or public policy. The will is read in the light of existing family conditions under which the will was made. In re Estate of Reeve, 393 Ill. 272, 65 N.E.2d 815; Dahmer v. Wensler, 350 Ill. 23, 182 N.E. 799; Norton v. Jordan, 360 Ill. 419, 196 N.E. 475.

The foregoing rule is not in dispute, and the citations given are among those appearing in briefs from both sides. From this point the parties differ.

Appellants argue that the exclusion of Jane from the distribution of the trust corpus shows a preference for the grandchildren over the daughter, so the indicated intention is to give the grandchildren a greater portion of the income.

With this we cannot agree. The distribution of the corpus is deferred until the death of Jane, when she ceases to be an object of the testator's bounty and concern, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.