The national Republican., 1867-07-09
THE COURTS.

EouIrY CoIRT-Chief Justice Cartier
and Judge Ohr. Tho court met at 10 O'Clock,
and the greater part Of It's session was spent In
considering esss No. slo, Pierce VS. R. Youns's
executor :.
This was IN action By Mrs. E. s. Pierce for the
specific pefformancs Of function enjoinsd By
the will Of Young for her bensht. II appeared
that Young made will on the 2lst Of Novsm-
Der, 1884, In which he directed that his exsoutors
should sell twelve hundred dollars Of Washing
ton City stock, and dispose Of the same In the
purchase Of house, In Baltimore or elsewhere,
As Mrs. Young should, In writing direct, and
hold the said house for her benefit, either by
oeive its rents, during her life; the property aer
her death, or the stock or It's proceeds in case
she died before II had been invested for her
bsneft, TO 20 to the children Of Mrs. P. r. Fem
dali and Mrs. Roberta Brown. On the 10th Of
February, 1855, Young purchased, for $500, q
house In Baltimore, and had the Same conveyed
to himself as trustee, for the benefit Of Mrs.
Young during her life, to 80 after her death to
her son Rebt. Bond, and Afterwards TO other
parties. Mrs. Young accordingly took posses.
sion Of the property In Baltimore and now,
upon the death Of Young. sues to compel his ex-
scutors to sell the city stock and purchase an
other house, a., she claims, 10 directed BY the
viii
Mr.. Brent appeared for Mrs. Young, and con.
tended that every gin was in Its nature . sepe-
rate and substantive act. He knew that his
was an sdemption or satisfaction Of the hrst gin
as proposed in the will, but argued that the law
held such satisfaction to bs mnde only whom the
actual or constructive parental relation subsisted
between the parties; or the second gift was Of
tho same specific object or for the same specific
purpose Is the hrst gin, and both gins equally
certain and independent Of contingencies. In
4 L.. IL n L.. A..t Ill A.
q revenue for Mrs. Young during her life, and
to provide for the Pendalls and Browns in the
event Of her death, or the failure Of the devise
to her. The object Of the second gin was to In.
crease her revenue and provide, at her death, for
Robert Bond and others The one gift depended
upon the contingencies that the debts Of the
estate did not exhaust the specific stock from
which the legacy was 10 be drawn, and upon her
written election Of the city in which the house
should bo purchased distinguishing between the
| two gifts, and showing the testator's Intention
that both should 60 into operation.
Mr. Davidge, In opposition, said that tho In
| tent Of tho testator was the measure Of the duty
Of the executor. The intendment Of law came
In to forward the true will Of the testator, and
the law held that IT, after having provided BY
will for the execution Of q certain settlement
after his death, the testator should choose TO
tieipate his posthumous design, and become his
own executor, that such execution fulfilled, the
directions OF the will which thenceforth became
Of no effect. In this case Young wished to pro-
vide q homo or It's equivalent for Mrs, Pierce
after his death; but taking other councils,
choose afterwards TO provide her with home
while he lived, and thus by anticipating the
provisions Of his will rendered them imperative.
Chief Justice Cartier pronounced the opinion
Of the Court. The sole question was whether
the testator had satisfied bis will. The evidence
was that he had. Tho case was this: man
made will in 1852 BY which he gave his mis-.
tress q house or Its proceeds, sgnifying his wish
that the house should be in Baltimore. Three
years Afterwards he proceeded to execute hi,
own will, and dedicated TO her use the property
he had contemplated buying with the stock left
in his will. No intention to duplicate the gift
anywhere appears There Is nothing to en-
barrass Q rational and natural deduction. He
had provided in kae csr6a for certain purpose.
II In . transaction before his death that pur.
pose is preserved, and the purpose 10 single
Of the legacy. This cause presented that simple
case. The variation as to the ultimate devisees
was Of no Importance. The original purpose
was kept intact. 30 far as he deviated to in.
crease the amount Of his bounty II makes the
conclusion more manifest that he intended to
satisfy the provisions Of the will. The will has
been executed. Bill Of complainant Is dismissed.
Tho following orders wero also directed to be
entered:
O94. Mcclellan VS.. Gregory ct al. Order post.
poning hearing Of application for injunction.
sl2. Wardvs. Clark ct al Decree appointing
| W. y. Mattingly trustee to sell, dc.
S81. Barnes vs. Barnes. Order for final rati.
foation Of trustees Of sale and auditors report
| Tho court then adjourned until this morning
at 10 o'clock.