formed longer, abler, or more useful labor on the bench than Peter A. Laubie. DIO ROGERS, Chairman, T. I. GILLMER, N. B. BILLINGSLEY. CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE COURTS of APPEALS of OHIO CHAFFIN V. DIXON ET AL. Wills-Contingent remainders - Vesting of fee - Life estate to son- - Remainder to heirs of his body— Son dies testate, without heirs of body — Estates taken by life tenant and his devisee. 1. Where testator devises to one of his four children a life estate in certain realty with remainder to the heirs of the body of such child, the will containing no residuary clause and no other disposition of the premises being made, upon the death of testator there is a contingent remainder to the heirs of the body of the life tenant, and a reversion in fee vests in the heirs at law of testator, subject to be divested upon the birth of children of the life tenant. 2. The fact that a devisee under a will is limited to a life estate does not exclude him, as heir, from any further interest which might come by reason of intestacy. Therefore, in the present case, upon the death of testator, an undivided fourth in the reversion vested immediately in the life tenant, subject to be divested by the happening of the contingency named in the will, and such life tenant, dying without heirs of his body, could transmit by will his one-fourth interest in the reversion. (Decided March 17, 1920.) ERROR: Court of Appeals for Fayette county. Messrs. Hidy & Sanderson and Messrs. Post & Reid, for plaintiff in error. Chaffin v. Dixon et al. [13 Ohio Messrs. Gregg, Patton & Gregg, for defendants in error. SHOHL, P. J. Solomon Chaffin, the father of the parties, died in March, 1914, leaving a will whereby he devised the premises in controversy in the following language: Item 1. "I give and devise to my son Franklin A. Chaffin, during his natural life, and then to the heirs of his body forever, the following described real estate, situate in the County of Fayette, State of Ohio." The will contained no residuary clause and made no disposition of the premises except the foregoing. Solomon Chaffin left surviving him four children, one of whom was Franklin. Franklin A. Chaffin was childless at the death of his father and remained so until his death in May, 1919, leaving no heirs of his body, and leaving a will which was duly probated in the probate court of Fayette county, whereby he devised to his brother, Herschel D. Chaffin, any and all interest that he had or was entitled to in the property in controversy. Thereafter, Tryphena Dixon brought an action in the court of common pleas of Fayette county, praying that the premises in question be partitioned, and for such proceedings as are authorized by law, claiming to own a one-third part of the premises, as heir at law of Solomon Chaffin, deceased. Herschel D. Chaffin by answer and cross-petition set up the facts hereinbefore recited. Plaintiff demurred to the answer and cross-petition. The court sustained the demurrer and ordered partition, finding that Tryphena Dixon, Herschel D. App.] Chaffin v. Dixon et al. Chaffin and Loten W. Chaffin each have a legal right to the undivided one-third part of the real estate. Error is prosecuted to the judgment by Herschel D. Chaffin. The controversy is as to the legal effect of the will of Solomon Chaffin. The defendants in error claim that each of the three children of Solomon Chaffin surviving Franklin is entitled to one-third of the premises. The plaintiff in error contends that he is entitled to one-half of the premises, onefourth as heir of Solomon Chaffin and one-fourth as devisee of Franklin A. Chaffin, who inherited one-fourth as one of the heirs at law of Solomon Chaffin. The following propositions are not disputed: First. All the parties derive their title either mediately or immediately by descent from Solomon Chaffin and not by devise under his will. Second. That under the will of Solomon Chaffin, Franklin A. Chaffin, by virtue of Section 10578, General Code, took a life estate with remainder over in fee to the heirs of his body, and that upon the death of Franklin A. Chaffin, without heirs of his body, the remainder failed for want of any one qualified to take it. Third. That Solomon Chaffin died intestate as to the reversion in the property in the event of Franklin A. Chaffin's death without heirs of his body. At the death of Solomon Chaffin, he left four children surviving him. Had he made no disposition whatever of his estate in the land, except to give a life estate therein to Franklin, an intestacy as to the reversion would have been immediately |