The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 272: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States and the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, June-August, 1921. Page: 14
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
272 FEDERAL REPORTER
stocks had been preferences, and asking to have these vacated and the
money and stocks restored to the estate. There were extensive and
complicated pleadings, but both cases were finally heard together in
the court below. It was adjudged that the bankrupts had held the
entire legal and equitable title to the farm, that the mortgage on the
farm was a forbidden preference and should be canceled, and that
the $10,000 payment had been preferential and must be refunded
The pledge of stocks is not mentioned in the decree, but apparently
the trustee abandoned his attack upon it. From these decrees there
are appeals: First, by the minor children of John Joy Halliday, who
claimed to own the fee to the farm; second, by the City National Bank
of Columbus, which was the purchaser and owner of the preferential
farm mortgage; and, third, by the Delaware National Bank, which
was ordered to refund the $10,000 payment. The detailed facts are so
complex that they can be stated better in connection with the dis-
cussion of the separate questions.
An inquiry into the title to the farm involves the original owner,
Thomas F. Joy, his widow, Lettie Ann Joy, who survived him many
years, their daughter, Annie Joy Halliday, her son, John Joy Halliday,
and his three children, Ruth, Anna, and Elizabeth Halliday. To avoid
confusion in names, and for convenience, these parties will be here-
after referred to as the grandfather, the grandmother, the mother,
Halliday, and the children. The title comes through, or is affected by,
the successive wills of the grandfather and the grandmother. We
think it more logical to determine, first, the effect of the grand-
mother's will. Whether she was disposing of her own estate or wheth-
er executing a power or a trust is not important to this branch of the
inquiry. Her will was executed May 3, 1890, and was admitted to
probate in Delaware county August 28, 1916. The substantial part of
the will, including the interlineation and without regard to the alleged
erasure, is as follows:
"I. I give and bequeath to my beloved daughter, Anna J. -Halliday, all the
personal property of every description which may be in my possession at the
time of my death.
"II. The use & control of the real estate I give & bequeath to my daughter
Anna during her natural life.
"III. Should my grandson, Joy Halliday, then be living, I give & bequeath to
him in trust for the heirs of his body all the real estate of which I may be
possessed at the time of my decease.
"IV. In case my grandson should die without issue, I give & bequeath one-
half of all my real estate to the Ohio Wesleyan University of Delaware, O.
The other half I desire should be divided among the brother and sisters of my
beloved husband or their children."
The question which we must decide, as to what we ought to treat
as the contents of the will, arises under paragraph III. When the
will was first written, the phrase in question read "bequeath to him
& the heirs pf hisbody." At some time or times the words "in trust
for" had been written in the form of an interlineation extending diagon-
ally both below and above the line, and across and largely covering up
the "&," an ink line had been drawn through the words "in trust for,"
the line being broken so as to be separate for each word, and a pencil
Here’s what’s next.
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 272: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States and the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, June-August, 1921., legislative document, 1921; Saint Paul, Minnesota. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38843/m1/36/: accessed February 27, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.