Whenever any estate of any kind shall or may be devised or bequeathed by the last will and testament of any testator or testatrix to any person being a child or descendant of such testator or testatrix, and such devisee or legatee shall, during the lifetime of such testator or testatrix, die testate or intestate, leaving a child or children, or one or more descendants of a child or children, who shall survive such testator or testatrix, in that case, such devise or legacy to such person so situated as above mentioned, and dying in the lifetime of the testator or testatrix, shall not lapse, but the estate so devised or bequeathed shall vest in such child or children, descendant or descendants, of such devisee or legatee in the same manner as if a legatee or devisee had survived the testator or testatrix and had died intestate.
Codes, Hutchinson's 1848, ch. 49, art. 1 (17); 1857, ch. 60, art. 37; 1871, § 2391; 1880, § 1265; 1892, § 4491; 1906, § 5081; Hemingway's 1917, § 3369; 1930, § 3553; 1942, § 660.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2024 · leading case:
Matter of Est. of Mason, 616 So. 2d 322 (Miss. 1993).
Matter of Est. of Mason, 616 So. 2d 322 (Miss. 1993).
· cites it 2× “As the chancellor found the four other named friends should take Eavins' share of the bequest, we must assume he found this to be a class gift.”
Matter of Est. of Homburg, 697 So. 2d 1154 (Miss. 1997).
· cites it 2× “Because neither of the remainders under Item IV of the Will, namely the Foundation and Spraggins, the gifts to them were not saved by Miss. Code Ann. § 91-5-7 [1] , which is commonly referred to as the "anti-lapse" statute.”
Marlar v. Castillo-Ruiz, 920 So. 2d 539 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “The writing is clear and speaks for itself, and reference to other facts surrounding the execution of the will is unnecessary. * * * It is also well-established as a principle of law in this state that where the beneficiary of a residuary bequest predeceases the testator, and…”
Moffett v. Howard, 392 So. 2d 509 (Miss. 1981).
· cites it 2× “See Miss. Code Ann. § 91-5-7 (1972). The common law rule is stated in 6 Page on Wills (3d ed.”
Webster v. Kennebrew, 443 So. 2d 850 (Miss. 1983).
“There would ordinarily be the question about the competency of Kelley to testify as violative of the Dead Man Statute.”
Ruotolo v. Tietjen, 890 A.2d 166 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006).
“2-6031 (West 2002); Miss. Code Ann. § 91-5-7 (2004); Mo. Rev Stat.”
Mississippi State Univ. Found., Inc. v. Clark, 697 So. 2d 1154 (Miss. 1997).
· cites it 2× “Because neither of the remainders under Item IV of the Will, namely the Foundation and Sprag-gins, the gifts to them were not saved by Miss.Code Ann. § 91-5-7 1 which is commonly referred to as the “anti-lapse” statute.”
Mississippi State Univ. Found., Inc. v. Ruthella Clark, No. 95-CA-01346-SCT (Miss. Nov. 14, 1995).
· cites it 2× “Because neither of the remainders under Item IV of the Will, namely the Foundation and Spraggins, the gifts to them were not saved by Miss. Code Ann. § 91-5-7 (1), which is commonly referred to as the "anti-lapse" statute.”
Paul Tatum v. United States, 436 F. App'x 320 (5th Cir. 2011).
“According to the IRS, under Mississippi law, a lapsed portion of a residual bequest becomes intestate property, passing to the testator’s heirs at law, unless a contrary intention of the testator is manifest from the terms of the will.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.