Page images
PDF
EPUB

The gift over will be saved from failure and the intention of the testator be given effect, whenever the court can find anything in the context of the will to favor such construction, by construing it as an executory devise,57 as where the gift over is to the "survivor" of several devisees, the force of the word "survivor" being to render the phrase "dying without issue" equivalent to the words "dying without issue living at the time of the prior taker's death."'59 The same construction is given where "death without issue" is coupled with another contingency, such as the death of the first taker before arriving at a certain age, 60 or where the gift over is upon death

Field, 84 Miss. 646, 37 So. 139;
Yocum v. Siler, 160 Mo. 281, 297,
61 S. W. 208; Clarke v. Leupp, 88
N. Y. 228.

57 Powell v. Board of Domestic Missions, 49 Pa. St. 46, 56; In re Sheets' Estate, 52 Pa. St. 257, 268. 58 Jackson v. Chew, 12 Wheat. (U. S.) 156, 6 L. Ed. 583; Allen v. Trustees of Ashley School Fund, 102 Mass. 262, 264; Cutter v. Doughty, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 513; Lovett v. Buloid, 3 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 137; Anderson v. Jackson, 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 382, 8 Am. Dec. 330; Wilkes v. Lion, 2 Cowen (N. Y.) 333; Waldron v. Gianini, 6 Hill (N. Y.) 601; Norris v. Beyea, 13 N. Y. 273, 280; Miller v. Emans, 19 N. Y. 384; Gilman v. Reddington, 24 N. Y. 9.

See, however, Heffner v. Knep. per, 6 Watts (Pa.) 18; Rapp v. Rapp, 6 Pa. St. 45; Caskey v. Brewer, 17 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 441; Wall v. Maguire, 24 Pa. St. 248.

As to survivorship, see §§ 891-
897.

59 Abbott v. Essex Co., 18 How.
(U. S.) 202, 15 L. Ed. 352; s. c.
Fed. Cas. No. 11, 2 Curt. 126;
Williams v. Graves, 17 Ala. 62;
Powell v. Glenn, 21 Ala, 458; Will-
iams v. Pearson, 38 Ala. 299; Ed-
wards v. Bibb, 54 Ala. 475; s. c., 43
Ala. 666; Russ v. Russ, 9 Fla. 105;
Duryea v. Duryea, 85 Ill. 41; Hart
v. Thompson's Admr., 3 B. Mon.
(42 Ky.) 482, 486; Deboe v. Lowen,
8 B. Mon. (47 Ky.) 616; Bright-
man v. Brightman, 100 Mass. 238;
Allen v. Trustees of Ashley School
Fund, 102 Mass. 262, 264; Groves
v. Cox, 40 N. J. L. 40; Cutter v. .
Doughty, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 513;
In re Bedford's Appeal, 40 Pa. St.
18, 23; McCorkle v. Black, 7 Rich.
Eq. (S. C.) 407.

60 Neal v. Cosden, 34 Md. 421;
Carpenter v. Boulden, 48 Md. 122;
Den v. Taylor, 5 N. J. L. 413;
Adams v. Chaplin, 1 Hill Eq.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

"without issue alive," or is affected by the use of the words "leaving" and "behind," as "without leaving issue behind,"62 or by the word "leaving" alone, where the gift is of personalty."

63

§ 951. The Same Subject: Referring to Death of Testator.

Where the gift is first to more than one devisee with a limitation over in the event of any of them dying without issue, reason points to holding the reference to be to failure of issue at the death of the testator.64 Some courts adhere to this rule,65 and it is only where the language used clearly requires it that such words are construed to mean a failure of issue at the death of the first devisee.66 The statutory rule that "death without issue" re

(S. C.) 265, 267; Paterson v. Ellis' Exrs., 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 259; Norris v. Beyea, 13 N. Y. 273; In re Doebler's Appeal, 64 Pa. St. 9; Berg v. Anderson, 72 Pa. St. 87; Massie v. Jordan, 1 Lea (69 Tenn.) 646.

As to gifts to those of a class who attain a certain age, see §§ 882-885.

61 Den v. Schenck, 8 N. J. L. 29. 62 Eichelberger v. Barnitz, 9 Watts (Pa.) 447, 450.

63 Bethea's Exr. v. Smith, 40 Ala. 415; Biscoe v. Biscoe, 6 Gill & J. (Md.) 232; Edelen v. Middleton, 9 Gill (Md.) 161; Tongue's Lessee v. Nutwell, 13 Md. 415, 425; Albee v. Carpenter, 12 Cush. (66 Mass.) 382; Hall v. Priest, 6 Gray (72 Mass.) 18; Downing v. Wherrin, 19 N. H. 9, 49 Am. Dec. 139; Ladd v. Harvey, 21 N. H. 514, 527; Theological Seminary v. Kellogg, 16

N. Y. 83; King v. Diehl, 9 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 409; Eichelberger v. Barnetz, 17 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 293; In re Bedford's Appeal, 40 Pa. St. 18; Mazyck v. Vanderhorst, Bail. Eq. (S. C.) 48.

64 This is covered under gifts to a class, see English rule, § 866, and American decisions, § 867.

65 Edwards v. Bibb, 43 Ala. 666; Bullock v. Seymour, 33 Conn. 289; Chesebro v. Palmer, 68 Conn. 207, 36 Atl. 42; Harris v. Smith, 16 Ga. 545; Armstrong v. Armstrong, 14 B. Mon. (53 Ky.) 333; Niles v. Gray, 12 Ohio St. 320.

66 Gee v. Corporation of Manchester, 17 Ad. & E. N. S. Q. B. 737; Ware v. Watson, 7 De Gex, M. & G. 248; Da Costa v. Keir, 3 Russ. 360; Home v. Pillans, 2 Myl. & K. 15; Edwards v. Edwards, 15 Beav. 357; Slaney v. Slaney, 33 Beav. 631; Lifford v. Sparrow, 13

fers to the death of the first taker will yield to a contrary intention expressed by the testator, and some of the statutes have expressly so provided.67

8952. "Children" as a Word of Purchase.

The word "children" in its natural import is a word of purchase, and is to be construed as one of limitation only to comply with the intention of the testator, where the words used would otherwise fail to have any effect whatever.68 Thus, under a devise to one and his children,

East 359; Bullock v. Seymour, 33 Conn. 289; Pennington v. Van Houten's Exrs., 8 N. J. Eq. 272; s. c., 8 N. J. Eq. 745; Williamson v. Chamberlain, 10 N. J. Eq. 373; Baldwin v. Taylor, 37 N. J. Eq. 78; Denise's Exrs. v. Denise, 37 N. J. Eq. 163, 169.

67 Stimson's Am. Stat. Law, § 1415, citing statutes of Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia, and § 2800, citing statutes of California, Dakota, and Montana.

There is a long line of authorities referring "death without issue" to so dying in the testator's lifetime.-Edwards v. Bibb, 43 Ala. 666; s. c., 54 Ala. 475; Hudson v. Wadsworth, 8 Conn. 348, 359; Harris v. Smith, 16 Ga. 545; Griswold v. Greer, 18 Ga. 545, 550 (personalty); Bailey v. Ross, 66 Ga. 354; Armstrong v. Armstrong, 14 B. Mon. (53 Ky.) 333; Daniel V. Thompson, 14 B. Mon. (53 Ky.) 663; Harris v. Berry, 7 Bush (70 Ky.) 113; Hall v. Chaffee, 14 N. H. 215; Kerr v. Bryan, 32 Hun (N. Y.)

51; Leonard v. Kingsland, 67 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 431; Vanderzee v. Slingerland, 103 N. Y. 47, 57 Am. Rep. 701, 8 N. E. 247; Parish's Heirs v. Ferris, 6 Ohio St. 563; Niles v. Gray, 12 Ohio St. 320; Baker v. McGrew, 41 Ohio St. 113; Reams v. Spann, 26 S. C. 561, 2 S. E. 412; Vaughn v. Cator, 85 Tenn. 302, 2 S. W. 262.

68 Buffar v. Bradford, 2 Atk. 220; Paine v. Wagner, 12 Sim. 184; Doe v. Vaughan, 5 Barn, & Ald. 464; Re Buckmaster, 47 L. T. 514; Forest Oil Co. v. Crawford, 77 Fed. 106, 23 C. C. A. 55; Nimmo v. Stewart, 21 Ala. 682; Caulk's Lessee v. Caulk, 3 Penn. (Del.) 528, 52 Atl. 340; Schaefer v. Schaefer, 141 Ill. 337, 31 N. E. 136; Conover v. Cade, (Ind.) 112 N. E. 7; Biggs v. McCarty, 86 Ind. 352, 44 Am. Rep. 320; Mefford v. Dougherty, 89 Ky. 58, 25 Am. St. Rep. 521, 11 S. W. 716; Stonebraker v. Zollicker, 52 Md. 154, 36 Am. Rep. 364; Murphy v. Harvey, 4 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 131; Cole v. Robinson's Exrs., 23 N. C. 541; Williams v. Knight, 18 R. I.

[merged small][ocr errors]

if there be children living at the time of the testator's
death, or at the date of the will, they will ordinarily take
under such a devise with their parent as joint tenants.69
With respect to personalty, the courts are averse to con-
struing "children" as a word of limitation, whether or
not there be children in esse at the time of the devise.70
And wherever there seem to be in the context reasonable
grounds for construing the bequest as to the parent for
life with remainder to the children, the courts will adopt
that construction," although, of course, if there be noth-
ing in the context upon which the court may lay hold
333, 27 Atl. 210; Bowers v. Bowers,
4 Heisk. (51 Tenn.) 293; Wills v.
Foltz, 61 W. Va. 262, 12 L. R. A.
(N. S.) 283, 56 S. E. 473.

"Children" as a word of purchase, see § 913.

"Children" as a word of limitation, see § 914.

As to the statutory rights of pretermitted, after-born, and posthumous children, see §§ 630-633.

As to who are included in the term "children," see §§ 840, 841.

As to children en ventre sa mere, see § 842.

As to illegitimate children, see §§ 843-846.

As to adopted children, see §§ 847-849.

"The word 'children' is properly a word of purchase and not of limitation; and is invariably so construed unless it be used in such connection or be so controlled by other words as to show clearly that it was intended as a word of limitation."-Stubbs v. Stubbs, 11 Humph. (30 Tenn.) 43.

A gift to a wife and children without other words vests a joint estate in the wife and children in equal portions. Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick, 100 Va. 552, 93 Am. St. Rep. 976, 42 S. E. 306.

[ocr errors]

69 Oates v. Jackson, 2 Strange
1172; In re Estate of Utz, 43 Cal.
200; Lord v. Moore, 20 Conn. 122;
Hoyle v. Jones, 35 Ga. 40, 89 Am.
Dec. 273; Hamilton v. Pitcher, 53
Mo. 334; Allen v. Claybrook, 58
Mo. 124; Graham v. Flower, 13
Serg. & R. (Pa.) 439.

See, also, Jeffery v. Honywood, 4
Madd. 398.

70 Buffar v. Bradford, 2 Atk. 220;
Audsley v. Horn, 1 De Gex, F. & J.
226.

71 Morse v. Morse, 2 Sim. 485; Vaughan v. Headfort, 10 Sim. 639; Combe v. Hughes, L. R. 14 Eq. 415; Ogle v. Corthorn, 9 Jur. 325; Garden v. Pulteney, Amb. 499; Dawson v. Bourne, 16 Beav. 29; Audsley v. Horn, 26 Beav. 195; Armstrong v. Armstrong, L R. 7 Eq. 518, 522.

[ocr errors]

as favoring such a construction, the parent and child will take concurrently.72

8953. "Children" as a Word of Limitation.

While the word "children" is not synonymous with issue, it may be used in that sense and will be so construed where it appears that such was the intention of the testator, and the will would be inoperative unless such construction were given. Thus the word "children" may be one of limitation.73 The context of the will may likewise lend to the word the same meaning as "heirs,"" or "heirs of the body,"75 and may require a devise over to the eldest son to be construed as conferring an estate tail upon the parent.76

The words "child," "son," and "daughter," when used in the singular tense as nomina collectiva, are words of limitation." As in the case of a devise to one for life, and after his decease to "such son as he should have lawfully to be begotten," it is held that by necessary impli

72 Crockett v. Crockett, 2 Phillim. 553, 556; Newill v. Newill, L. R. 7 Ch. App. 253, where the authorities will be found discussed.

73 Robert v. West, 15 Ga. 124; Leiter v. Sheppard, 85 Ill. 242; Lachland's Heirs v. Downing's Exrs., 11 B. Mon. (Ky.) 32; Rich v. Rogers, 14 Gray (80 Mass.) 174; Jones' Exrs. v. Jones, 13 N. J. Eq. 236; McKee's Appeal, 104 Pa. St. 571.

See § 914.

74 Schaefer v. Schaefer, 141 Ill. 337, 31 N. E. 136; Keim's Appeal, 125 Pa. 480, 17 Atl. 463; Smith v. Fox's Admr., 82 Va. 763, 1 S. E. 200.

75 Parrish v. Burkley, 152 Ky. 730, 154 S. W. 11; Chambers v. Union Trust Co., 235 Pa. St. 610, 84 Atl. 512.

76 Forsbrook v. Forsbrook, L. R. 3 Ch. App. 93; Lewis v. Puxley, 16 Mees. & W. 733; Jenkins V. Hughes, 8 H. L. Cas. 571.

77 Andrew v. Andrew, 1 Ch. Div. 410; King v. Melling, 1 Vent. 225, 231, and Byfield's Case there cited; Miller v. Robinson, 1 Moore 682, pl. 939.

As to "heir" in the singular, see Osborne v. Shrieve, Fed. Cas. No. 10598, 3 Mason 391; Hall's Lessee v. Vandergrift, 3 Binn. (Pa.) 874.

« PreviousContinue »