Case ID: scl_1/html/0457-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dott and others against Willson.
    If one devise c!ipcl<»i<s to mother for Ufo, and at lur* (kr.tKs to the heirs of her both;, ana iheh' heirs and assi¿ ns for ever; V-íre the latter WOl'dd Miull rcstj'ftin the ge.ieraf.ty of the estate tail, and make it a join tenancy p so that chil* dren .shall take as purchasers.
    
      Jeering no fasve <>t lev chath, shall be (; a ROOd i knrip* izo persones
    
    THIS was another case brought forward by the same parties as in the foregoing case ; but the spt cial verdict was founded on Mrs. Baked s will, made several years after the deed of gift.
    This verdict found, that ei Sarah Baker, by her will, bequeathed one-fourth part of her estate (consisting of ne-u groes, household furniture, &c.) to her daughter, Sarah “ Dott, during her life, (without the control of her hus- “ band,) and at her death, to the heirs of her body, and their a heirs and assigns for ever ; but if she should leave no is- “ sue, then to be disposed of as she should think proper.”
   In this case, the court were unanimously of opinion, that the operation of law tvas very different from what it was in the foregoing case against Cunnington; and that in this will there were words sufficiently explanatory of the testatrix’s intention, so as to qualify the generality of the wore.s “heirs of the bodyf and to make her grandchildren take as purchasers. That she did not mean or intend a perpetuity, is obvious from her adding immediately after the words heirs of her body, “ and their heirs and assigns for ever.” That although the. first words heirs of her body, unqualified and alone, would have made an estate tail; yet, the words superadded or ingrafted on them, make a joint-tenancy, which are tantamount to share and share alike, and evidently shews she intended an equal distribution of the property among her grandchildren after her daughter’s death. That wills have s more liberal construction than deeds, and that it was the duty of the judges, wherever they could collect the intent and meaning of the testator or testatrix, from the will, to ... . . , , give it such a construction as was most evidently consonant to the intent and design of making it. That, at any rate, if there was any doubt upon the first clause of the will, yet the proviso shews very plainly her intention, viz. “ But if she should leave no issue, then to be disposed of as she should think proper.” The leaving no issue, here, may very properly be construed into leaving no children at the time of her death, which are a sufficient description of those she meant should take upon the death of her daughter — to wit, whatever children she might have at the time of her death.

The postea was delivered to the plaintiffs.