Hardeman v. Hardeman
Hardeman v. Hardeman
Opinion of the Court
“No precise form of words is necessary to the creation of a power; if the intention to confer the power is apparent, to enable the executor to execute the trusts of the will, the power will be implied.”
See Blount v. Moore, 54 Ala. 360.
Here the will contemplates a sale upon discretion, that discretion, evidently, to be exercised by the executrix. The implication that the executrix may sell is unavoidable. Authorities, supra; Robinson v. Robinson, 105 Me. 68, 72 Atl. 883, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.), note 679, 134 Am. St. Rep. 537. In Walker v. Murphy, 34 Ala. 591, cited by appellant, a power of sale by implication was denied, for the reason that the will directed that the property be held together for the support and education of children; and in Williams v. Williams, 49 Ala. 439, also cited, the court refused to extend a general power of sale to lands, for the reason that by the specific language of his will testator had already devised his lands to certain of his children. These last-named cases are not considered as standing in the way of our conclusion that the will in this case authorized the executrix to make a sale of lands.
Affirmed on both appeals.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- HARDEMAN Et Al. v. HARDEMAN; HARDEMAN v. HARDEMAN Et Al.
- Cited By
- 5 cases
- Status
- Published