#### RUFUS BARRINGER, ADM’R., *against*THOS. COWAN *and others.*

A and B were the only children of a deceased sister of the testator; to A he gave one thousand dollars, and to the children of B the like sum; he then orders one-third of a residuary fund to be divided between A and the children of B,-and the other two-tliirds to go to the children of O and D, and then adds, “ the part that shall fall to each family, to be divided share and share alike;” it was *held*to be the testator’s intention to give A one-half of a third of the fund.

Bequests to colleges and churches are liable to pay lax under the Revenue Act. Rev. Code, oh. 99, sec. 7.

*437Cause removed from the» Co-urt of Equity of Eowan County.

The "bill was filed "by the- plaintiff,' as the administrator with the will annexed of Alexander *~W.*Brandon, asking- the. advice- and direction of the Co-urt upon certain questions arising out of the construction- of the will

Having in- previous clauses of the- will- given- to Thomas Cowan one-Thousand dollars, and to-the children of James L. Cowan- one thousand dollars, the provision, on-which the chief difficulty arises, is as follows

*“*If my estate should amount to. more than the sums of money which I have given and devised in the above legacies to the several named persons, in that event, the balance that shall remain after paying all the legacies, shall be divided *into-three shares or*parts, *and/*that. *Thomas Oowan, cmd the Children of James L.*Gowan, *have one part or*share, and the children of George Locke one part or share, and the children of John S. Brandon, one part or share. The. part or share that shall fall to, each family, is to. be divided, share and share alike.”

Thomas Co-wan and James L. Cowan, mentioned in this extract,' are the only surviving- children of a deceased sister of the testator. James L. Cowan, at the death of the testator, had three children, and his wife was at that time pregnant with another, -which afterwards-was born, and is still living.

The bill sets forth, that Thomas Cowan claims *one-haif*of the share or part allotted to him and the children of James 3L. Cowan; whereas, the children insist, that he is only entitled to come in *per capita,*with them, viz., to. take *one-fifth.*

Another question arising upon this clause is, whether the child of Jamos L. Co-wan, that was *in ventre sa mere*at the testator’s death-, is entitled to- come in for a share with the previously born children.

Among other bequests, is a pecuniary legacy to the trustees of Davidson College, and another to the elders of Thyatira Church, in Eowan county, and a question is raised, whether these legacies are liable for a tax under the Eevenue law of the State ?

*438James L. Cowan’s children, Thomas Cowan, the trustees of Davidson College, the elders of Thyatira Church, and all the legatees of the testator, are made parties ; and besides the instructions aslred as above stated, the plaintiff prays that an account may be taken of his whole administration, and that the same be closed and settled by a decree of this Court.

There were answers, insisting upon the interests of the several parties above suggested, but in no wise varying the statement of facts as set forth in the bill.

Ho counsel appeared for the plaintiff in this Court.

JBoyden, for the defendant.

Rattle, J.

The main question presented by the pleadings is involved in the construction of the following clause in the will of the late Alexander *W.*Brandon: *“Now, if*my estate should amount to more than the sums of money which I have given and devised in the above legacies to the several named persons, in that event, the balance that shall remain, after paying all the legacies, shall be divided into three shares or parts, and that Thomas Cowan and the children of James L. Cowan have one part or share, and the children of George Locke one part or share, and the children of John S. Brandon one part or share; the part or share that shall fall to each family is to be equally divided, share and share alike.”

At the time of the testator’s death, James L. Cowan had three children only, but another was born to him within less than nine months afterwards, and having been, therefore, *in ventre sa mere*at that time, he is entitled to take with the others. Thomas Cowan claims one half of the third part or share of the residue, while the children of his brother, James L. Cowan, contend that he is entitled to an equal share only with each of them; that is, to one-fifth part of such part or share. If this clause of the will stood alone, we might think that the claim of James’ children was right; but viewing it in connection with other parts of the will, we are led to the conclusion that such was not the intention of the testator. In the fourth item, he gives to his nephew Thomas Cowan, one thousand *439dollars ; and in the fifth, he gives the same amount to the children of his nephew James L. Cowan. He thus indicates a purpose to place his nephew Thomas upon an equal footing with the children of his nephew James, considering such children as a unit, and standing in the place of their father. Why he gave nothing to James himself, does not appear. Whether he was not so great a favorite with the testator as was his brother Thomas, or whether he was an unsafe depository of his uncle’s bounty we are not informed. But whatever may have been the reason why his uncle overlooked him, we are not at liberty to presume that the testator intended a greater bounty for him indirectly, by giving it to his children, than he did for his nephew Thomas, who is particularly indicated as one of the objectá of his regard.

In support of the idea that Thomas was intended to have as much of the third part of the residue, as all the children of James together, the words “ each family” in the latter part of the clause in question may, by a construction not at all strained, be referred to “the children” of the three persons previously mentioned, making an equal division among each set of children, of the part or share which it took. Indeed, this seems to be the most natural construction; for Thomas is mentioned as a distinct person, while the children are described as a class; and Thomas and his brother’s children could not properly be called one family, while each set of children could, with the strictest propriety, be denominated “ each family.” Eor these reasons, we are of opinion that Thomas Cowan is entitled to one-half of one-third, or one-sixth of the whole, of the residue.

We are clearly of opinion that bequests to the trustees of Davidson college, and to the elders of Thyatira church are liable to the tax imposed by the 7th section of the 99th chapter of the Eevised Code, title Eevenue. The words of the act contain no exception in favor of the college or church, and the property will not he exempt from taxation until they receive it.

Pee, CuRIAjj. A decree may be drawn in accordance with this opinion.