#### Wade v. Boxley &c.

November, 1834,

Richmond.

Wills — Construction*—Case at Bar. — Testator bequeaths slaves to his wife for life, remainder to be equally divided between his seven children and their heirs, to them and their heirs forever; one of testator’s children, at time of his death, is a married woman; she dies before the widow legatee for life, leaving a husband and children her surviving: Held, this daughter took a vested remainder in her seventh part of the slaves, which at her death devolved to her husband, not to her children.

Benjamin Boxley, late of Halifax, died in 1814, having by his last will and testament, after sundry specific devises *and bequests, devised and bequeathed as follows: “I lend to my beloved wife Tabitha Boxley, all my land below Blowing Creek, together with all the rest of my estate, both real and personal, be it of what kind soever it may, which is not mentioned in specific legacies, to be freely enjoyed by her during her natural life. It is my will that after the death of my wife, the land 1 lend her shall be equally divided between my two daughters, namely, Wilmoth and Lucy Boxley, to them and their heirs forever. It is further my will, that after the death of my wife all the estate lent her, except the land, together with the profits and increase of the same, may be equally divided among my children and their heirs, namely, Joseph, Harrison, George, Benjamin, Wilmoth and Lucy Boxley, and Mary Wade, to them and their heirs forever.” At the death of the testator’s widow, there were sixteen slaves to be divided among the legatees in remainder; of which the testator’s executor took possession. The testator’s daughter Mary Wade was, at the time of his death, the wife of Allen Wade; she survived her father, but died during the lifetime of Mrs. Boxley, the legatee for life, leaving her husband and five children her surviving.

In a suit brought in the county court of Halifax in chancery, for a division of the slaves among the legatees in remainder, the question was, between the five children of Mary Wade and her husband Allen Wade; whether her children, or her husband, was entitled to the share of the slaves intended for her? The county court held, that the children were entitled to the property, and decreed that it should be allotted and delivered to them; and upon an appeal to the superiour court of chancery of Lynchburg, taken by Allen Wade the husband, the chancellor affirmed the decree; and then he appealed to this court.

Johnson, for the appellant.

Leigh, for the appellees.

*

WilIs — Construction—Vesting of *Estates.*— See *footnote*to Hansford v. Elliott, 9 Leigh 79, and *notes*there cited.

Same — Same—“Loan,”—In Chapman v. Chapman, 90 Va. 409, 18 S. E. Rep. 913, it was held that the word *"loan”*in the will there construed was, like the word *“lend"*in *Wade v. Boxley,*5 *Leigh*442, and Moon v. Stone, 19 Gratt. 130, used as the equivalent of *"give."*

Husband and Wife — Property Rights —Husband’s Rights in Wife’s Expectant Interest —As to the nature of the husband’s interest in the wife’s vested remainder in slaves expectant on a life estate therein, see principal case cited in Henry v. Graves, 16 Gratt. 248, 255; Harvey v. Skipwith. 16 Gratt. 409.

See further, monographic *note*on “Husband and Wife” appended to Gleland v. Watson, 10 Gratt. 159.

*The court was of opinion, that under the will of the testator Benjamin Boxley, his seven children took vested remainders in the slaves and other personalty bequeathed to his widow for life; and that upon the death of Mrs. Wade, in the lifetime of the legatee for life, her seventh part passed to her husband the appellant, and not to her children. Therefore, the decree was reversed with costs.