Tillman v. Tillman

2 Citing cases

  1. Pate v. Edwards

    388 So. 2d 544 (Ala. 1980)   Cited 1 times

    We note a constructional preference for the early vesting of an estate, Brugh v. White, 267 Ala. 575, 103 So.2d 800 (1957), and against a condition of survivorship. See Tillman v. Tillman, 271 Ala. 373, 124 So.2d 80 (1960). Nevertheless, when the language of a will is clear and unambiguous, rules of construction cannot be employed to rewrite that will at variance with the meaning of the language used by the testator.

  2. Black v. Black

    238 So. 2d 861 (Ala. 1970)   Cited 7 times

    nd 507; Gindrat v. Western Railroad Co., 96 Ala. 162, 11 So. 372; Ala. Pecan Development Co. v. Case, 266 Ala. 471, 97 So.2d 537. Unless it otherwise clearly appears to the contrary, title will be held to vest at the death of the testator; where it appears from the will that title was not intended to vest at the time of the death of the testator, the remainder would then be presumed to vest at the death of the life tenant, in the absence of clear manifestation to the contrary. Rush v. Creel, 264 Ala. 103, 84 So.2d 666; Crawford v. Ingram, 153 Ala. 420, 45 So. 584. The law favors that construction by which the estate is regarded as vested rather than contingent, or by which it will become vested at the earliest possible moment, which is usually at the death of the testator; and the intent to postpone the vesting of an estate must be clear, and not drawn from mere inference or construction. Weil v. Converse, 273 Ala. 495, 142 So.2d 245; Austin v. Pepperman, 278 Ala. 551, 179 So.2d 299; Tillman v. Tillman, 271 Ala. 273, 124 So.2d 80. LAWSON, Justice.