Chapter VIII: Construction of Wills (2)

[153] 1 Ch. Ca. 22.

[154] Parsons v. Winslow, 6 Mass. 169.

[155] 2 Ves. 265.

[156] Garret v. Pritty, 2 Vern. 293.

[157] The case of Bayeaux v. Bayeaux, 8 Paige, 333, is a curious example of an attempt made by a testator to regulate and control the choice of his children in marriage.

The testator died at the city of Troy, in March, 1839, leaving a widow and three infant children. By his will, made a few months before his death, and evidently without the aid or advice of counsel, he placed the following condition on a legacy to his children:

"I charge upon my children, in every possible case, and under all circumstances, never to make a matrimonial engagement, or bind themselves to any individuals by promise of marriage, without full parental approbation and consent as it regards the favored individual. And while I consider it unjust as well as unwise for a parent to coerce, or to attempt forcibly to induce a child to marry an object it cannot love, so do I also deem it without any possible excuse on the part of the child to marry without the full consent of the parents. And in the event of disobedience on the part of my child, in this respect, my wish, desire, and intention is to cut that child off from any participation of the benefits arising from any property I may leave at my decease, of every kind and description whatever."

The provisions of the will were in many respects so vague and indefinite, that Chancellor Walworth remarked: "It is very evident that this will was drawn by the decedent himself, or by some other person equally ignorant, not only of legal language, but of legal principles." He held that the children took the same shares as if their father died intestate.

[158] Lord Comyns' Rep. 728.

[159] Brown v. Peck, 1 Eden. 140.

[160] 10 Ves. 13. This was the time allowed in the civil law, 2 Salk. 415.

[161] 2 Rev. Stat. 90.

[162] Benson v. Maude, 6 Madd. 15.

[163] 2 Vern. 31. Roden v. Smith, Amb. 588.

[164] Cricket v. Dolby, 3 Ves. 13.

[165] Nevil v. Nevil, 2 Vern. 431.

[166] Joe v. Hart's Executors, 2 J. J. Marsh. 351.

[167] 1 Hawks 241.

[168] Fawkes v. Gray, 18 Ves. 131.

[169] Wms. Exrs. 1221; 2 Bradf. 77.

[170] 8 Ves. 410.

[171] Poph. 104.

[172] Marsh v. Hague, 1 Edw. Ch. 174.

[173] Ves. 10.

[174] Wms. Exrs. 1222.

[175] Williamson v. Williamson, 6 Paige, 298.

[176] 5 Binney 475.

[177] 1 Vern. 251.

[178] 1 Johns. Ch. 3.

[179] Wms. Exrs. 1206-7.

[180] 2 Rev. St. 450.

[181] Palmer v. Trevor, 1 Vern. 261; Toller 320.

[182] Wms. Exrs. 1213.

[183] 2 Rev. St. 65. So in California: Civil Code 1282.

[184] 1 Seld. 125.

[185] Morris v. Kent, 2 Edw. Ch. 182; Preston on Leg. 281.

[186] The word "children" includes only the immediate legitimate descendants, and not a step-child: Cromer v. Pinckney, 3 Barb. Ch. 466; Mowatt v. Carrow, 7 Paige, 339. Nor does it include grandchildren: Radcliff v. Buckley, 10 Ves. 195; 4 Watts, 82.

[187] Sherer v. Bishop, 4 Bro. C. C. 55; 2 Ves. 84.

[188] Doe v. Clark, 2 H. Bl. 399; Balm v. Balm, 3 Sim. 492.

[189] 1 Barb. Ch. 637; Wms. Exrs. 934.

[190] Rawlins v. Rawlins, 2 Cox's Ca. 425; Marsellis v. Thalheimer, 2 Paige, 35.

[191] Jenkins v. Freyer, 4 Paige, 47.

[192] Collin v. Collin, 1 Barb. Ch. 630.

[193] 2 Paige, 11.

[194] Pratt v. Flamen, 5 Har. & Johns. 10.

[195] Garrett v. Niblock, 1 R. & M. 629; Lady Lincoln v. Pelham, 10 Ves. 106.

[196] Schloss v. Stiebel, 6 Sim. 1.

[197] 1 Jarman, 306.

[198] Vol. II, 96.

[199] Connolly v. Pardon, 1 Paige, 291. In Thomas v. Stevens, 4 Johns. Ch. 607, a legacy to Cornelia Thompson was held a good bequest to Caroline Thompson, it appearing that she was the person intended.

[200] Standen v. Standen, 2 Ves. Jr. 589.

[201] See Chap. VIII.

[202] 4 Ves. 680.

[203] 2 Cha. Ca. 51.

[204] 3 Bro. C. C. 311.

[205] 3 Ves. 148.

[206] Vide the case of Shakspeare, Introduction, p. 23.

[207] 2 N. Y. Rev. St. 57; Civil Code Cal. 1275. In Indiana, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania, there is no Mortmain act.

[208] Charitable Uses (D). The doctrine of Superstitious Uses cannot be to much extent applicable here, as we have no religion recognized and established by the State.

[209] Vide Will of Lady Alice West, p. 18.

[210] Ch. Prec. 272. Eyre v. Countess of Salisbury, 2 P. Wms. 119.

[211] Lord Hardwicke, in Jones v. Williams, Amb. 651, defines a charitable use as "a gift to a general public use, which extends to the poor as well as the rich."

[212] It may be thought a singular purpose of charity to provide for the "marriages of poor maids," and one that would accomplish but little in a field where the objects would be so numerous; nevertheless, the benevolent designs of men have been turned in that channel, as well as in other various directions mentioned in the statute.

By the will of Mr. Henry Raine, a wealthy London brewer, a fund was established for just such a purpose. Among the notable charitable institutions of London, there is none more novel in inception or more unique in management than Raine's Asylum, established by him in 1736, for clothing, educating, and properly training for domestic service forty young girls, taken from a lower school previously established by him. On arriving at the age of twenty-two, any girl who has been educated in the asylum, and who can produce satisfactory testimonials of her conduct while in service, may become a candidate for a marriage portion of one hundred pounds, for which six girls are allowed to draw twice in each year, on the first of May and the fifth of November. The drawing is in this manner: The treasurer, in compliance with the explicit directions of Mr. Raine, takes a half sheet of white paper and writes thereon the words, "one hundred pounds." Next, he takes as many blank sheets as, with the one written on, will correspond with the number of candidates present. Each of these half sheets is wrapped tightly round a little roller of wood, tied with a narrow green ribbon, the knot of which is firmly sealed. The rolls are then formally deposited in a large canister placed upon a small table in the middle of the room. This being done, the candidates, one at a time, advance towards the canister, each drawing therefrom one of the small rolls. When all have drawn, they proceed to the chairwoman, who cuts the ribbon which secures each roll, and bids the candidates unfold the various papers. There is no need to ask which of them has gained the prize--the sparkling eyes of the fortunate "hundred-pound girl" reveal the secret more quickly than it could be spoken by the lips. The scene seems to be one in which Mr. Raine took deep interest, for in his will, after appointing his nephews to purchase £4,000 stock in order to make a permanent provision for these marriage portions, he says: "I doubt not but my nephews would cheerfully purchase the said stock if they had seen, as I have, six poor innocent maidens come trembling to draw the prize, and the fortunate maid that got it, burst out in tears with excess of joy." The portion drawn in May is given after a wedding on the fifth of November; the November portion being given in like manner on May day. The author witnessed one of these marriage ceremonies in the church of St. George's-in-the-East.

The number of marriage portions given since the opening of the asylum is said to exceed three hundred.

[213] This statute has been adopted in Massachusetts, North Carolina, Kentucky, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and several other States. 2 Kent 285. In Pennsylvania, the will, to make a valid devise to charitable uses, must be made a month before the testator's decease. Price v. Maxwell, 28 Penn. 23.

[214] 8 N. Y. 525.

[215] 33 N. Y. 97, reversing 40 Barb. 585.

[216] The case of the Smithsonian Institute was adduced as an argument to show that the United States could take by devise. In that case Mr. Smithson, an Englishman by birth, and a citizen of that country, bequeathed to the United States all, or nearly all, of his property, to be applied to the establishment of an institution for the increase and diffusion of useful knowledge. But Wright, J., said that this furnished no evidence of capacity, simply as a political organization, to take and hold property for charitable purposes. That was an English charity, and the case was determined by the law of the domicile. It was a charity under the statute of Elizabeth, and administered as such, and took effect only on a law of Congress organizing the institution in the District of Columbia.

[217] In New York, as in many if not all the States, the law relating to trusts as it formerly existed in England in its intricate details, has been abolished, and only express, active trusts are permitted, where the trustee has some active duty to perform in the management of the estate. These express trusts are of four kinds: 1. To sell land for the benefit of creditors; 2. To sell, mortgage, or lease lands, to pay legacies or other charges; 3. Where the trustee is authorized to receive the rents and profits, and apply them to the use of some person during his life, or for a shorter period; 4. To receive rents and income to accumulate for the benefit of minors, to cease at majority. The same trusts only are allowed in California: Civil Code 857. It is therefore held that all trusts, for any purpose whatever, not coming under one of these four classes, are void, as it was apparent in the enumeration of these the legislature intended to exclude all others. Hence, in the drawing of wills, attention is most particularly needed to see that no trusts are created other than those above.

[218] 34 N. Y. 584. It is not uncommon for persons to devise property to the United States Government. The last case in New York was somewhat singular. It is in the case of United States v. Fox, in 52 N. Y. 530. The testator there devised "to the Government of the United States at Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of assisting to discharge the debt contracted by the war for the subjugation of the rebellious Confederate States." It was held that the government had no capacity to take. This case is now appealed to the Federal Courts, but with little prospect of reversal.

[219] Burbank v. Whitney, 24 Pick. 146; Beall v. Fox, 4 Ga. 404; Griffin v. Graham, 1 Hawks, 96; 7 Vt. 249; Vidal v. Gerard, 2 How. 127. The doctrine was elaborately argued and examined in the Gerard Will Case, 28 Penn. 54, and it was maintained that it was founded on the common law.

[220] There are many institutions permitted by statute in New York to take property by devise or bequest. By Laws 1848, ch. 319, benevolent, charitable, literary, scientific, missionary, or Sabbath-school societies can take a devise or bequest, the clear annual income of which shall not exceed $10,000; but, to be valid, the will must be executed two months before testator's death. By Laws 1841, ch. 261, colleges and literary incorporated institutions are allowed to take for certain purposes. And, by Laws 1864, the State can take a devise for benefit and support of common schools. For these reasons, it is held the law of charitable uses is not so much required in New York; and, by special enactment, the legislature will incorporate societies to take a devise for pious, benevolent, or charitable purposes.

[221] 4 Ves. 227.

[222] In case the trust exceeds this term, it is void _in toto_, and not merely _pro tanto_; Griffiths v. Vere, 1 Ves. 136, 10 Penn. St. 326.

[223] A direction to accumulate all the testator's estate for fifteen years by investment and reinvestment in bonds is valid in Illinois. Rhoads v. Rhoads, 43 Ill. 239.

But in New York an accumulation for three years, and also ten years, was held invalid: 4 Sandf. 442; 7 Barb. 590.

[224] In New York it is _two_ lives; in California, _any_ lives in being: Civil Code, 715.

[225] Schettler v. Smith, 41 N. Y. 328.

[226] The maximum period during which alienation may be suspended may, in one instance, under the New York statutes, and those of a great many other States, be suspended for two lives in being, and twenty-one years and a fraction afterwards, in certain cases of minority. For example, an estate to A for life, remainder to B for life, remainder to his children in fee, but in case such children shall die under the age of twenty-one years, then to D in fee. Here, it will be observed, the ownership may be legally suspended for the lives of A and B, and the actual infancy of B's children; but in no event can such suspension exceed that length of time before the remainder becomes vested. If one of the children reach twenty-one, D's remainder is cut off. In the example just given, suppose the children of B die before attaining twenty-one, and that B, at his death, leaves his wife _enceinte_, there would then be a suspension of alienation for a few months more than twenty-one years.

The extent to which variation from the ordinary term of gestation may take place in women, whether the birth be premature or protracted, is one of the difficult problems involved in medical jurisprudence. On this subject the highest medical authorities are at issue; some adhering closely to the regular period of forty weeks as the extreme term; while others extend their indulgence even to the utmost verge of eleven calendar months. See Long v. Blackall, 7 Term R. 104; Cadell v. Palmer, 1 Cl. & Finn. 372.

[227] Moore v. Moore, 47 Barb. 257.

[228] Burrill v. Boardman, 43 N. Y. 254.

[229] Rose v. Rose, 4 Abb. Ct. App., Dec., 108.

[230] The argument of Prof. Dwight, one of the counsel, in two volumes, presents a marvelous and most scholarly amount of research upon the law of charitable uses, from the earliest times.

[231] See page 31.

[232] Swinburne, Part 7, Sec. 14, says: "Concerning the making of a latter testament, so large and ample is the liberty of making testaments that a man may, as oft as he will, make a new testament, even until his last breath; neither is there any cautel under the sun to prevent this liberty; but no man can die with two testaments, and therefore the last and newest is of force; so that, if there were a thousand testaments, the last of all is the best of all, and makes void the former."

[233] 4 Co. Rep. 60.

[234] Doe v. Barford, 4 Man. & S. 16.

[235] Johnston v. Johnston, 1 Phillim. 447.

[236] Wellington v. Wellington, 4 Burr. 2165.

[237] 4 Johns. Ch. 506. Of course, this rule was only good where the issue of the marriage were otherwise unprovided for, or had no means of maintenance.

[238] The law respecting implied revocations was a fruitful source of difficult and expensive litigation, and often defeated the intention of testators, instead of carrying it into effect. Lord Mansfield has said that some of the decisions on this head had brought "a scandal on the law"; and, on another occasion, he remarked "that all revocations not agreeable to the intention of the testator are founded on artificial and absurd reasoning." 3 Burr. 491.

[239] Ash v. Ash, 9 Ohio, 383; Stat. Ohio, (1831) p. 243; Stat. Ind. 1821; Stat. Ill. 1829; G. Laws, Conn. p. 370, last edition.

[240] 4 Kent, 525; Cal. Civ. Code, 1306.

[241] 4 Kent, 526.

[242] Sec. 1307.

[243] Gage v. Gage, 9 Foster, 533.

[244] 2 Rev. Stat. 64.

[245] Redfield, I, 298.

[246] Rev. Stat. 1849, Ch. 122.

[247] Civil Code, 1290. So in Rhode Island, Rev. Stat. Ch. 154.

[248] Tomlinson v. Tomlinson, 1 Ashm. 224.

[249] Tyler v. Tyler, 19 Ill. 151.

[250] 2 N. Y. Rev. Stat. 64; Civil Code, 1299.

[251] Cotter v. Layer, 2 P. Wms. 623.

[252] In re Fisher, 4 Wis. 254; Simmons v. Simmons, 26 Barb. 68; Smith v. McChesney, 15 N. J. Ch. 359.

[253] Campbell v. Logan, 2 Bradf. 90.

[254] Cutto v. Gilbert, 9 Moore, P. C. C. 131.

[255] Mod. 203.

[256] 1 Cowp. 87.

[257] Nelson v. McGiffert, 3 Barb. Ch. 162. In some States this is settled by statute. Thus, in California, an antecedent will is not revived by the revocation of a subsequent will unless an intention appear: Civil Code, 1297. The same in New York: 2 Rev. Stat. 66.

[258] Wms. Exrs. 136 and cases cited. The general effect of a subsequent will in revoking one of an earlier date, by reason of its inconsistent provisions, is very extensively discussed in the late and important case of Colvin v. Warford, 20 Md. 357.

[259] Brown v. Brown, 8 El. & Bl. 876.

[260] Howard v. Davis, 2 Binney, 406; Jackson v. Betts, 6 Cow. 483; Steele v. Price, 5 B. Mon. 58; 8 Met. 486.

[261] 7 B. Mon. 408.

[262] 8 Watts & Serg. 275.

[263] Wharram v. Wharram, 10 Jur. N. S. 499. A will and codicil were torn to pieces by a testator's eldest son, after the death of his father; the pieces were saved, by which, and by oral evidence, the court arrived at the substance of those instruments, and in effect pronounced for them. Foster v. Foster, 1 Addams, 462.

[264] Patch v. Graves, 3 Denio, 348; 28 Vt. 274.

[265] 4 Ves. 610.

[266] 3 Sw. & Tr. 478.

[267] 14 Mass. 208; Hine v. Hine, 31 Penn. 246.

[268] Lewis v. Lewis, 2 W. & S. 455.

[269] Price v. Maxwell, 28 Penn. 23.

[270] Howard v. Halliday, 7 Johns. R. 394. If two wills, in duplicate, were in possession of the testator, and he destroyed one, did this, in effect, work a revocation? This was in some doubt. The California Code has set at rest this question for that State, in Sec. 1295, where it is provided that a destruction of one of the copies shall amount to a revocation. See Onions v. Tyrer, 2 Vern. 742.

[271] Hobbs v. Knight, 1 Curteis, 289. And the cutting out of the principal part, as the signature of the testator, or of the witnesses, will be a revocation of the whole will: 1 Jarman, 161.

[272] Where the word "destroying" is used in the statute, as one mode of revocation, it is generally held to include all modes of defacing not specifically enumerated in the statute, and does not require an absolute and entire destruction. Johnson v. Brailsford, 2 Nott & McCord, 272.

[273] 2 Rev. Stat. 66. It is the same in California: Civil Code, 1292.

[274] Burtenshaw v. Gilbert, 1 Cowp. 49.

[275] Dan v. Brown, 4 Cow. 490.

[276] Etheringham. v. Etheringham, Aleyn, 2.

[277] 3 B. & Ald. 489.

[278] Bibb v. Thomas, 2 W. Bl. 1043.

[279] Pryor v. Coggin, 17 Ga. 444.

[280] White v. Carter, 1 Jones (N. C.) Law, 197.

[281] Smiley v. Gambill, 2 Head, 164.

[282] Blanchard v. Blanchard, 32 Vt. 62.

[283] 7 Jur. N. S. 52.

[284] 1 Jarman, 133.

[285] Bap. Church v. Roberts, 2 Penn. 110.

[286] 1 Johns. Ch. 530.

[287] Bethell v. Moore, 2 Dev. & Batt. 311.

[288] 1 Jarman, 125.

[289] McPherson v. Clark, 3 Bradf. 92.

[290] 1 B. Mon. 57.

[291] 2 Doug. (Mich.) 515.

[292] 8 Jur. N. S. 897.

[293] Legatees are entitled to be paid in the money of the country in which the testator is domiciled and the will is made. 2 Atk. 465; 2 Bro. C. C. 39.

[294] Harrison v. Nixon, 9 Peters, 483.

[295] To determine a person's domicile is sometimes a matter of some difficulty. It is determined on two principles: the _fact_ of one's residence, and the _intent_ of remaining there as at one's home; or it depends upon _habitation_ and the _animo manendi_. Residence and domicile are not convertible terms, because they are not the same things. The Roman definition has been admired for its expressiveness and force. It is there defined: "It is not doubted that individuals have a home in that place where each one has established his hearth, and the sum of his possessions and fortunes; whence he will not depart if nothing calls him away; whence if he has departed he seems to be a wanderer, and if he returns he ceases to wander." (Code, lib. 10, tit. 39.) It must be assumed as a fact that every person has a domicile, or home, and the domicile of origin remains until another is obtained, not by merely moving or changing, but by leaving it with no intention of returning, without _animo revertendi_. But an intention to change is not sufficient to alter a domicile until it is actually changed. Therefore, death _en route_ does not alter domicile. (State v. Hallet, 8 Ala. 159.) One who goes abroad, _animo revertendi_, does not change his domicile, because only the fact of residence is changed, and not the intent. But if he remains very long abroad, and in one place, the intent may be inferred from the fact. The Supreme Court of the United States have intimated that an exercise of the right of suffrage would be the highest evidence, and almost conclusive against the party. (Shelton v. Tiffin, 6 How. 185.)

[296] The doctrine was well settled in a very early case in Pennsylvania, decided by Judge Tilgham, in 1808: the case of Desasbats v. Berquier, 1 Binn. 336; and this case has ever since been quoted and approved as a good statement of the law on this point. There, a will was executed in St. Domingo by a person domiciled there, and sought to be enforced in Pennsylvania, where the effects of the deceased were. It appeared not to have been executed according to the laws of St. Domingo, though it was conceded that it would have been a good will if executed by a citizen of Pennsylvania. The alleged will was held to be invalid.

[297] 23 N. Y. 394.

[298] Confl. Laws, Sec. 481; Adams v. Wilbur, 2 Sumner, 266.

[299] Wills, I, 404.

[300] Nat v. Coons, 10 Mo. 543.

[301] 14 How. 400.

[302] Coppin v. Coppin, 2 P. Wms. 291. This was accepted as an indisputable proposition, in Lynes v. Townsend, 33 N. Y. 558.

[303] Wood v. Wood, 5 Paige, 596; 9 Wheat. 565.

[304] Vol. I, 1.

[305] Conf. Laws, Sec. 479.

[306] Evid. 671.

[307] Gold v. Judson, 21 Conn. 616.

[308] 8 Cranch, 66; G. Stat. (Mass.) C. 92; 7 Met. 141; 6 N. H. 47.

[309] Cushing v. Aylwin, 12 Met. 169.

[310] Washburne, Real Prop. I, 166.

[311] Re Maraver, 1 Hagg. 498.

[312] Hoxie v. Hoxie, 7 Paige, 187.

[313] Hone v. Van Schaick, 3 Barb. Ch. 488.

[314] 2 W. Bl. 976.

[315] 1 Salk. 234.

[316] 2 Mau. and Sel. 454.

[317] Roe v. Pattison, 16 East. 221; Wheeler's Heirs v. Dunlap, 13 B. Mon. 293.

[318] Youngs v. Youngs, 45 N. Y. 254.

[319] 5 Co. 68 b.

[320] 1 Johns. Ch. 231.

[321] 2 Vern. 624.

[322] Brownfield v. Brownfield, 20 Penn. 55; Johnson v. Johnson, 32 Ala. 637. Where there is no ambiguity on the face of a will, evidence is inadmissible to explain it: Hill v. Alford, 46 Ga. 247.

[323] Jackson v. Sill, 11 Johns. 201.

[324] Walston v. White, 5 Md. 297.

[325] Worman v. Teagarden, 2 Ohio N. S. 380.

[326] Asay v. Hoover, 5 Penn. 21.

[327] 2 Sneed, 618.

[328] Allen v. Allen, 18 How. (U. S.) 385.

[329] Betts v. Jackson, 6 Wend. 187.

[330] Lawyer v. Smith, 8 Mich. 411.

[331] Civil Code, 1340; Estate of Garraud, 35 Cal. 336.

[332] 4 Vesey, 329; 1 Salk. 238.

[333] Hodgson v. Ambrose, 1 Doug. 341.

[334] Theall v. Theall, 6 La. 220.

[335] 18 Jur. 915.

[336] Dowson v. Gaskoin, 2 Kee. 14. The word "money" used in making a devise in a will, will be construed to include both personal and real property, if it appears from the context, and on the face of the instrument, that such was the intention of the testator. Estate of Miller, 48 Cal. 165.

[337] Co. Litt. 207.

[338] 1 Johns. Ch. 231.

[339] James v. Smith, 14 Sim. 214.

[340] 5 Vesey, 159.

[341] 2 Eden, 194.

[342] Thus, in a case in California, Norris v. Henley, 27 Cal. 439, a testator devised his real estate upon a particular street, one-third to each of three persons by name, "to have and to hold their lifetime, and then to go to their heirs and assigns, _but never to sell_." It was held to create a fee, and these words, "never to sell," had no effect.

[343] Cro. Eliz. 9.

[344] Sims v. Doughty, 5 Ves. 243: Parks v. Parks, 9 Paige, 107.

[345] Frazer v. Boone, 1 W. R. Hill, 367.

[346] 3 P. Wms. 259; Cal. Civ. Code, 1317.

[347] Parks v. Parks, 9 Paige, 107; Williams v. Williams, 4 Seld. 525; Hawley v. James, 16 Wend. 61.

[348] Chrystie v. Phyfe, 19 N. Y. 344.

[349] 8 Jur. N. S. 825.

[350] Matter of Hallet, 8 Paige, 375.

[351] 33 Maine, 464.

[352] Hughes v. Hughes, 12 B. Mon. 121.

[353] Metham v. Duke of Devon, 1 P. Wms. 529.

[354] Cartwright v. Vawdry, 5 Vesey, 530; Gardner v. Heyer, 2 Paige, 12.

[355] 2 Meriv. 419.

[356] 1 Vent. 231; Moore v. Moore, 12 B. Mon. 655.

[357] Sibley v. Perry, 7 Ves. 522; Pope v. Pope, 14 Beav. 591.

[358] Hopkins v. Jones, 2 Barr, 69; Moore v. Moore, 12 B. Mon. 653.

[359] N. Y. Rev. Stat. Vol. III, p. 12.

[360] 9 Vesey, 319.

[361] 8 Sim. 134.

[362] Legacies, Ch. II, Sec. 10.

[363] Jones v. Sefton, 4 Vesey, 166.

[364] 3 P. Wms. 112.

[365] Timewell v. Perkins, 2 Atk. 103. The word "estate" in a will carries everything, unless restrained by particular expressions: Turbett v. Turbett, 3 Yeates, 187.

[366] Delamater's Estate, 1 Wharton, 362.

[367] 29 Beav. 207.

[368] 5 Allen, 556.

[369] Holder v. Ramsbottom, 9 Jur. N. S. 350; Nichols v. Osborn, 2 P. Wms. 419.

[370] Pond v. Bergh, 10 Paige, 140; 12 Mass. 537; Estate of Wood, 36 Cal. 75.

[371] Wootton v. Redd, 12 Gratt. 196.

[372] 3 Burr, 1634.

[373] 4 Vesey, 406.

Transcriber's Notes:

Passages in italics are indicated by _italics_.

Passages in bold are indicated by =bold=.

Superscripted characters are indicated by {superscript}.

End of Project Gutenberg's The Curiosities and Law of Wills, by John Proffatt