WILL-continued. not claim; and supposing the heirs intended, what description of heirs. Holloway v. Holloway. Page, 399 20. Prima facie words must be understood in their legal sense, unless by the context or express words plainly appearing intended otherwise." 401 21. Devise of real estates to trustees and their heirs, upon trust to convey upon certain trusts; and subject thereto, to several natural sons successively in strict settlement. The testator also gave the residue of his personal estate upon trust to be laid out in land, to be settled to the same uses, &c. A codicil revoking so much of the will as directed the settlement of his said estate upon his sons, and varying the order of the limitations, was considered as confined to that object, operating by way of substitution only, not as a revocation of the devise; and therefore extending to the estates to be purchased with the personal estate. Lord Carrington v. Payne. 22. A subscribing witness to a will, disposing of real estate, being in Jamaica, his evidence was dispensed with. Lord Carrington v. Payne. 404 404 23. A testator by codicil revoked the legacy of 501. bequeathed to his sister. The only legacy given to her was 1007., given by the will: as to the effect of the codicil, Quære. Lord Carrington v. Payne. 404 24. Legacies declared specific upon clear words, and an abatement of the general legacies directed. Barton v. Cooke. 25. The general personal estate not specifically bequeathed applied first in payment of all the costs, except of inquiries as to a guardian and maintenance for a specific legatee, and then to the general legacies. Barton v. Cooke. 461 461 26. Legacy for the board and education of an infant, until he shall be fit to be put out apprentice, and then a farther sum with him as an apprentice fee the infant having attained nineteen, and not having been put WILL-continued. out, was held entitled to the legacy. Barton v. Cooke. Page 461 27. If a legacy is given for the benefit of an infant in one way, and it cannot be so applied, it may be applied for his benefit in another way, as if it was to put him into orders, and he became a lunatic. .463 28. Residuary bequest to the testator's nephews and nieces per stirpes equally for their lives; and after the death of either that share of the principal to be paid equally to and among the children of such of his said nephews and nieces as should die; and if any die without leaving any child or children, that share to go to and among the survivors or survivor of them in manner aforesaid. Upon the death of one without a child that share goes to the survivors for their respective lives only, and will pass to their children respectively with the original shares, but upon the death of the last survivor without a child his shares, both original and accrued, are undisposed of; notwithstanding another has left a child. Milsom v. Awdry. 465 29. General devise of all manors, messuages, lands, tenements, and hereditaments, in the county of York or elsewhere, with long limitations in strict settlement; and a residuary disposition of the personal estate also by very general words. The Lord Chancellor was clearly of opinion, that two leasehold houses passed with the personal estate, and not under the devise of the land; but granted a case. Thompson v. Lawley. 476 30. General residuary clause in a will passes what is not well disposed of. 501 31. The rule taken from the Ecclesiastical Court, that a direction postponing the payment of a legacy does not prevent the vesting, prevails in Courts of Equity as to personal legacies: unless a contrary intention can be inferred; as where the time of payment forms part of the description of the person to take. The WILL-continued. vesting of a residuary bequest is especially favoured, to prevent an intestacy; and a direction, that the interest should accumulate, and be paid with the capital, after a deduction for maintenance and preferment, is not sufficient to prevent it. As to real estate the contrary rule prevails, but subject to exceptions. Bolger v. Mackell. Page 509 32. Bequest to be equally divided share and share alike: they take in common; and no survivorship. Bolger. v. Mackell. ibid. 33. Devise of real estate with the residue of the personal estate upon long limitations in strict settlement, including persons unborn: a subsequent direction, that none of the devisees shall take or come into possession before the age of twentyfive, was held confined to the actual possession, and not to operate by way of revocation; and therefore upon the death of the first tenant for life under twenty-five the accu<mulation belonging to his personal representative. Montgomerie v. Woodley. 34. The testator bequeathed a legacy to his daughter, to be paid within twelve months after his decease: but if she should marry A., then he revoked the legacy. She remained unmarried till about fourteen months after the testator's death; and then married A. They obtained a decree for the legacy. Osborn v. Brown. 522 527 529 35. Legacy for a mourning ring to each of the testator's relations by blood or marriage confined to the Statute of Distributions, and those who have married persons entitled under it. Devisme v. Mellish. 36. An illegitimate child not entitled to share under a devise to children generally; notwithstanding a strong implication upon the will in favour of that child. Cartwright v. Vawdry. 530 37. Testator gave, devised, and bequeathed, all his messuages, lands, tenements, and hereditaments, whatsoever and wheresoever, and all his WILL-continued. monies in the funds, to trustees, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, according to the several and respective estates and interests therein; and declared the trust of the rents, issues and profits, dividends, interest and proceeds, subject to ground rents and other outgoings in respect of his said messuages, lands, &c.: the leasehold estates pass with the freehold upon the subsequent words. Hartley v. Hurle. Page 540 38. A contingent legacy failed: the event, which happened, not being provided for; and no necessary implication in favor of the legatee. Parsons v. Parsons. 578 41. A devise is not revoked by a mortgage in fee to the devisee. Baxter v. Dyer. 656 42. Whether a will was revoked by marriage and the birth of a child under particular circumstances, quære (*). 663 43. The testator having given his wife the option to occupy his house at a certain rent, and if she should choose to do, declared, she should have the use of the furniture, by codicil, revoking the bequest of an annuity to her, gave her a legacy, to provide furniture, in case she should not choose to оссиру his house, or for any other purpose she should think proper. She occupied the house and furniture till her (*) See the note, ante, 664. WILL-continued. death; and her executor was held 44. A clause of survivorship between two legatees, if either of them should die, confined to a case of lapse; and 66 806 45. Construction of a very inaccurate will, that the words "and all I am possessed of" were confined to a specific bequest of stock immedi- 46. The words "all I am possessed "of" in a will in legal construction relate to the time of the death, not of the execution of the will; unless 47. Some sense to be given to every part of a will, if consistent with 48. Illegitimate children having ac- quired that character by reputation, may take under a will, as by neces- sary implication intended and de- 49. Bequest to the children of A. de- scribed spinster, and nothing on the face of the will shewing, that ille- gitimate children were intended: Inquiry, whether she left illegitimate children refused. Osmond v. Tindall. See Baron and Féme, 9. Election. WITNESS.-See Evidence. END OF THE FIFTH VOLUME. LONDON: PRINTED BY S. BROOKE, PATER NOSTER ROW. |