Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

381

246

225

Maryott v. Renton.......
Mayer v. Mayer...
McClane's Administratrix v. Shepherd's Executrix.
McClurg v. Terry
McLaughlin v. Van Keuren and Schultz....
Merritt v. Brown
Midmer, Wetmore v...
Monmouth County Mutual Fire Ins. ('o. v. Hutchinson....
Montgomery's Executrix v. Beatty's Administrator...
Murphy, Haugh wout and Pomeroy v

379 134, 401

242 17

324

118

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Seeger's Executors v. Seeger....
Shepherd's Executrix, McClane's Administratrix v.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

1. The rule in Shelley's case must govern in the construction of wills made prior to June 13th, 1820, in all cases where it is applicable.

2. The rule applies, even when another estate for life is interposed between the death of the first tenant for life, and the estate to his heirs.

3. A devise, upon the decease of a tenant for life, to heirs " as the law directs" in case of dying intestate, means as the law was at the time of making the will, and not as it might be at the death of the tenant for life.

4. Such limitation, as it gives the estate at the death of the life tenant to persons who may not then be his heirs-at-law, or in shares different from those prescribed by the law at that time, prevents the application of the rule in Shelley's case.

And the heirs of the tenant for life, or such persons as would have been his heirs, had he died at the date of the will, must take au purchasers at the death of the tenant for life.

This cause was argued on final hearing, upon the pleadinys and proofs.

[blocks in formation]

Quick's Executor ». Quick.

Mr. Wurts, for (lefendant, Jonathan Quick.

Mr. Blake, for the other defendants.

THE CHANCELLOR.

The object of this suit is to procure the direction of this court as to the duty and power of the complainant as executor of Ezekiel Quick. For this purpose it is necessary to settle the construction of provisions in the will of Jacob Quick, the father of Ezekiel, as well as those in the will of the latter. Jacob Quick died in November, 1816; his will was executed on the 28th day of August, 1808, and admitted to probate December 11th, 1816. By it he gave a farm of 120 acres to his son Ezekiel for life, and to his widow, in case he should leave one, during her widowhood only; and then directed, “and at the decease of his widow, the said devised tract of land is to go to his heirs, to be divided among them as the law directs in case of dying intestate."

Ezekiel Quick died July 1st, 1867, having made a will, (lated January 18th, 1848, which was admitted to probate July 19th, 1867. By this he gave to his wife, for her life, the farm devised to him by the will of his father, and which he occupied as his homestead; and by the next clause of the will he annexed to that farm a strip of eight acres on the west side, which he had purchased from the heirs of his brother, and directed that it should be held as part of that farm forever. In the fifth clause he gave to his son Richard a farm of 130 acres; and in the sixth clause, reciting that his son Richard, by the will of Jacob Quick, was entitled, at the death of his mother, to one-sixth of the farm on which he, the testator, then lived, and that Richard, for full consideration, had conveyed that sixth to him, he gave and bequeathed all the right of Richard so conveyed to him, to his son Jonathan, in fee; and he provided that if Richard, or any one for him, should try to hold the right so conveyed to him, and by him devised to Jonathan, that, in such case, Richard should not have the farm he had devised to him, but that it

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »