The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-11-11

was married to William L. Lockwood. died in
March last since the commencement of these
proceedings, leaving three children. Frances
J., another daughter, was married, in 1867. to
o. futile Smith; and Caroline A., in july.
1868, married DIR. Gabriel Grant. Mr. Maj
rice, by the sixth clause Of his will. devised
to his two sons, for life, large amount of
real estate. By the sixteenth clause, which is
mainly the subject of controversy. the re-
malnder of the estate is given to executors in
trust. After direction to pay the widow SSOOO
q year during her life, and to each of the five
children $1,000 year during the widows life.
one-half of the surplus is directed to be ac
cumulated during the life of the widow. and
the other half to be divided into eighteen
parts, six Of them to be paid to the widow
three to each of the sons, and two to each of
the daughters. The accumulation of the sur
plus during the seven years which have ELAPSED
since the testators death amounts to $500 900
Of the one-half to be accumulated, $4,000
was to be paid to the trustees of Yale College,
and the remainder divided into twelve parts,
three parts to be given to each of the sons or
his issue, and in case either son during the
widows life die without issue, his part to 90
to the other son, and if neither son survives
the widow nor leaves children, then their
shares to go to the heirs at law OF the re-
naming six parts, two for each Of the three
daughters are to be retained in trust the in
come to be applied to her use during life, and
in case of her death before distribution. her
share is to be divided into as many shares as
she has children living at her decease, to be
accumulated during their minority and paid
to them at the age of twenty-one. But if
either daughter die without issue her share is
to go to the survivors.
Judge Ingraham, before whom the case was
tried at Special Term in May last, held that
the will was valid except the direction to ac-
cumulate one-half of the surplus income dur
ing the life of the widow, which, being for the
benefit of persons not minors. was void, as
being contrary to the statute as to accumula-
tions, and decided that this portion was paya-
bic to those entitled to the next eventual
estate-that is one-half to the two sons and
the remainder to the children of the three
daughters.
The executors and the two sons acauesce
in this decision, but appeal is taken by the
two surviving daughters and the husband of
the deceased daughter as her administrator
1t was claimed that the invalidity of the di
rection to accumulate one-half the surplus
had the effect Of so perverting and disturbing
the intent of the testator as to destroy the
entire sixteenth clause. 1t was claimed also
that the remaining portion of that clause was
void, because Of an illegal suspension of the
power of alienation. 1t was argued
that the will required the appraise-
ment of the entire residuary estate.
and the division into twelve equal parts. be-
fore the trustees could could convey any part of
it. No time was by the will limited within
which these acts of appraisement and division
were to be performed. They could not be
performed during the life of the widow, and
by the very terms of the will the testator
contemplated that both of his sons might die
before such division would be made, for he
expressly provides that in case of the decease
of either of his sons prior to such division,
leaving no lawful issue at the time thereof
then his survivingson, or, in case of his DEATH
the lawful living issue of such survivor then
should take. For the respondents, that in
no portion OF the property more than two life
interests and that the provisions were there
fore valid. The argument is not yet con-
cluded.