#### Rockell and Wife *versus*Eddinger.

1. A will was: *“*My son John shall have $1000 before any of my heirs shall have any money from my. estate personal property .... my son John shall settle my personal property as soon as it is possible he shall pay of the money of my personal goods the half .... to my daughter Margaret .... my son John shall pay to my daughter Margaret annually $120 for her natural life .... and my son John he shall have all my real estate for his own as soon as my daughter is deased my son John shall not pay any longer not to her heirs and to nobody it be stopt.” There was no punctuation in the will. *Held,*that under the Wills Act of April 8th, 1833, John took a fee in the real estate at the death of the testator, there being no devise over.

2. What is said as to the daughter, after the devise of the real estate, relates' to her annuity, to cease at her death.

3. An inartificial and obscure will interpreted.

March 16th, 1875.

Before A&new, C. J., Sharswood, Williams, Mercur, Gordon, Paxson, and Woodward, JJ.

Error to the Court of Commou Pleas of *Northampton*County, of January Term, 1875.

This was an action of ejectment, brought August 1st, 1873, by David Roekell, and Margaret, his wife, in her right, against John Eddinger, for the undivided moiety of a tract of 84J acres of land.

The land had belonged to Samuel Eddinger, who died in January, 1873, leaving no widow, but leaving two children, viz., Margaret Roekell, one of the plaintiffs, and the defendant. He made a will, dated December 3d, 1872, and proved January 30th, 1873.

The following is a copy of the will:

“ In the Name of god I Samuel Eddinger of Moore Township County of Northampton State of Penn Do make this my Last will and testament as follows *524that is to Say my Disire my son John he Shall'have one thousand Dollars in Advance befoi’e any of the heirs Shall have any money from my Estate personal property first my Son John Shall Settle up all my Depts funeral Expace &e. till all is paid my Son John he shall setle my personal property as soon it is Posible he shall pay the of the money from my personal goods the half of the money to my Daughter Magret and what is Left from' the Balence of the Thousand Dollrs he tookt of for himself my Son John Shall pay to my IDoughter Magret an Anally one a Hundred and twenty five Hollers for her Natural Life time or as Long she will Liv in this World and my Son John he shall have all my Real Eastate for his own property as Soon my Daughter is Deased my Son John Shall not pay any Longer Dowery not to her heirs and to nobody intrest it be Stopt.”

The case was tried June 3d, 1874, before Kirkpatrick, P. J.

The plaintiff gave in evidence the title of Samuel Eddinger to the premises, the pedigree of the parties to the suit, etc., and rested.

The defendant gave in evidence the will, with its probate.

The plaintiff submitted the following points:

1st. The devise or bequest of the real estate of Samuel Eddinger in the alleged will is not intelligible, and therefore void.

2d. If the Court should not affirm the first point, then by the said alleged will they are bound to hold that under its provisions John Eddinger is only entitled to the real estate of the testator after the death of his daughter Margaret, and therefore the said Margaret Rockell is entitled to recover the one-half of the said real estate, to hold for her life, and the verdict of the jury must be in favor of the plaintiff.

3d. The whole of the alleged will of Samuel Eddinger is *525unintelligible and contradictory, and therefore void, and the verdict of the jury must be in favor of the plaintiff.

4th. An heir at law can only be disinherited by express devise or necessary implication, and therefore under the evidence in this case the plaintiff is entitled to recover.

The Court denied the points and directed the jury to render a verdict in favor of the defendant. .

The verdict was for the defendant.

The plaintiff took a writ of error. He assigned for error the denial of his points, and the instructions of the Court to the jury.

*F. J. Fox,*for plaintiff in error.

The words of the will are so ambiguous, obscure, and uncertain that the meaning of the testator cannot be understood, the paper writing is therefore void: 7 Bacon’s Abridgment, 308; “ Wills and Testaments,” D. 1, Id., 842 ; 1 Sheppard’s Touchstone, 413; Swinburne on Wills, part 7, sect. 6-8 ; Kelley *v.*Kelley, 1 Casey, 462. Where the meaning of a will is doubtful, equality among the children is the guide to the interpretation: Malone *v.*Dobbins, 11 Harris, 296 ; Lipman’s Appeal, 6 Casey, 180.

If the will is capable of interpretation, the daughter is entitled to one-half of the estate during life, under the clause, “and my’son John, he shall have all my real estate for his own property as soon • as my daughter is *cleasecl*Lipman’s Appeal, *supra.*

*W. Beideman,*for defendant in error.

The will being without punctuation, it must be read with such stops as will give effect to the whole: Willie *v.*Martin, 4 T. R., 65.

Judgment was entered in the Supreme Court, March 22d, 1875.

Per Curiam :

The will of Samuel Eddinger is certainly drawn with no skill, and with no regard to punctuation. But we have no difficulty in reading it, so as to reach the real intention of the testator. It is clear he devised all his real estate to bis son John, to have it as his own. This under the act of 1833, relating to wills, covers the entire estate, there being no devise over, and no other intention disclosed. What follows as to his daughter has evident relation to the annuity which John was to pay to Margaret, and which the testator, intended to cease at her death.

Judgment affirmed.