Magnant v. Peacock

Charles Peacock had a wife and four sons. Peacock also had a granddaughter, Laurie Magnant (plaintiff), through one of the sons. Peacock prepared a will and, later, a codicil. The second paragraph of Peacock’s will contained a devise of his entire estate to his wife for life, with remainder to his four sons, per stirpes. The codicil changed the second paragraph so that one-fourth of the remainder estate would immediately go to each of three sons, while Magnant’s father would immediately receive only one-third of his fourth share. The remaining two-thirds would be held by the executors in trust for Magnant until she turned 27 years old, at which time the interest would become vested in her father so that he would have his full one-fourth share. In the third paragraph of Peacock’s will, he expressed the “wish” that his surviving sons (defendants) should form a board of arbitration to peaceably distribute the estate and the “desire” for his granddaughter Magnant to be provided for in such manner as determined by the executors and the board of arbitration. Magnant’s father died before Peacock died, and by the time of the estate’s administration, Peacock’s wife had died, too. The surviving sons did not form a board of arbitration or make provisions for Magnant. Magnant initiated an action to obtain a judgment declaring her rights in Peacock’s estate, up to a one-fifth interest. The chancery court dismissed Magnant’s action, and she appealed, arguing that Peacock’s will created a trust for her.