National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1874-02-28
YExsD QUESTION DECIDED.
THE AUTHORITY OF A COURT AubIToR

| a pEFEn nHFCTTnN nRnTnEn
So"oA ~" DD"A ~
THE AUTHORITY OF COURT AUbITOH
| hoEPkoviSioNso f A w n.~,
.ne case OF Lewis J. Davis et u. W. uos
ana 4. Davis ct al, exceptions TO auditor report
this "a !. c.-,.t, ,e,,..n, ,,or.,tv beIonxIpg to
| ar PrTS.. ths ri,
Inc estaae Of the ATE LEWIS ~ wSych was is.
posed OF by his will, was solo un9er auecse1 VI
me court The cause vas reierIea 70 snS auS S
tSe sa1s ~ III sntitad thereto In aoinv
s M suie 20 tne parues cn.' s s ht uvrnS
ss oecsms necss sh mi nm E ~ ~ ~. u
eenHn provslons OF tne IN. LAcoPuons "cte
duy s,',.,,o- ,Seray s " NJ soae Ma.,sa;
~" -; nppV;,;o, ~ a. ~ 1eEone x1's
overrnieS he sIcentions Ana r..;cs% ths !nS'
"V ~ t rspor nn..,,o,. ,,,,,v, 5000. :.
least TO the ierai y, =. ,a,,nh ~
The renort nj pts,cs ~ copy 70 mu s ~ ~
same III .sv.. '0A A~ecn - feAsses w sne
The nronsy,. ala a.
this canse + yor,o, ny inc 1ec.ee ~
by the will Of frvis Iohnso In. - ~. c,,x NJ
mon thss oo usceassI ana question - Iaised
viii resnsc,n S;. on certsln etaeses .. sa.S
II h necass.r .ai pe.S W Ieai esss'e, y"
disfrihn,;ns ~. sn9 au9aoI " Psss IN a ~
This orest;a, III, Ing iahu .Iisins ireln 'ne sA'e'
TN sh;.S ~, VII Ivy uo ksessn,ueu' ....-
IA as SoIinr i'em IN the WIN Oh Inc s"io 'es'1''r
AZ ai,,s I:u,, a.,,
h.laysS u'sG ny osqueasl an.o y ,,, ~
viz, .ua,lds ivr Ano uurlns tne .sL y.
which Ne nnw n.cvnv 3. n,sr rssidenc. IN said
city Ne. nov w, oecupy az our ,,, Snn..
sro59i. - sEs " n,y s = ~ ~ az - sn
5oiI., Sn .su INC Jun " =, sM " In
proyi.ion conteiSeS IN o,Yr marria1e contract'
6ate,i ~ an ~, es,,h a.. ~ nana,6.- sSrh,seI
hundred and sirtv.t1a Il, bsr fsror in The event
NJ hc, snrri,iy ~. =. =, S..oU,;,an n Han 81
the said honse ana nreni.e. the Inm or tan tSou.
sand dallas in cash m the nrohst;an Of INV Will
Item ei.bteen afiSa nj, ~ IN III To},o,vng
words: " '1' "''' - ~ 'N' '''s
premises hereinSefore SevseI 70 NV saiS WIFE for
and duriny her life give nd devise INTO lewis
Johnson laws. Aieran,ier innort DAVIS. WiIIiam
laws and i nneT nr,s IL b;,Jrsn ~ ,he
late fnresaid Hno,. NJ nox sne onh nen,vi,na
his wife as tenants n common IN ennal shares ),
And in the -tWenfy fourth item of his will the
test afnr ,naS.s M cIin..i, ..;i,,av VI" i,,sa.
and beouests: "' '''""k i'''uuAi' u''''ss
"AIi the rest and residue of NV estate. real.
personal and mirsS i givS der,ss ana hec;,aotS
nortions. and ths;, nsIrs .War ;h m w4s~A vi
On he nrobate Of he Viii Maaiid. John,on
given to her elected 70 tax the snm of ten tb"n
sand dollars In cash in lien of the Iae estate de-
vised to her in the third item. '''"'e We
the tventy-fourth item Of the viii are maie n.r.
ties defendants to the amended hill f,ied in The
cause In their answer II is cia,med That M nn o
sanS.doIiars in lien of the life estst nn tha MON
erty the said real estate All n. b on rne prOP
diaieIy vested in the persons 10 whom the re-
mainder is devised in the eiyStes s,1 fem y.
alleged in the amended bilI- fut nasseS tn the
said De PENDANTS rs residnorv .evi.eas nd s;nce
the ease was referred tothe auditor the following
points have been presented by the counsel for the
residuary devisees and iegatees: First. That rs
to the lie estate the tes,etor died intestate and
it descends to his heirr-at.law. Second. That If
o. tine be the
me oeneht Of the life estate during the life Of
TIE nrst devisee; tne widow.
AZ Is suomitteI that neither OF the positions rs.
legatees can he entertained. The remainder
vested, At tne oeatn OF tne testator, and, on the
election Of the widow to take the sum Of money
mentioned, IN lieu OF the estate for life, as pro-
vlded IN the wii that estate became exttnguished,
ana the estate in remainder took effect imme-
afse seem. to be the settled genera, rule that
WHERE the particular estate fails the remainders
enied ~ he arE anu that those
Ian ~ t M;,i IenIinaes may enter NJ once. u
Z"3;l
nv fse %nero sns onT
hamhs ai IN heaton We; Roberts, Foster rs.
vi.ed and Sennenthed al his essas roai d ae
soroi and wtxed ~ 10; ,.t. No. va. anu pei-
and inrin, her nafnraI life and No I"n.a, ,nL
thea to descend and r. to the children d Oliver
and sncb otber cbiidren as thsn nav n.ra.S.
have in eouai .bores in fea !, '"e' may "efsai'ef
Soon sf:sr the death Of the testator, the widow
I AI
her ,not h.r dover .iinxa Lnus o.ea.ea ios
he nr"visIons m"Sa to hsr h I ascePseo
AZ ,ba rMestions Sor Go.is;on ~ INC WILL anu one
~ -. $500 ~ ~ ~. ;S nas, uPon
the n,terior imtotion. ,ope aTae M n ne
o ~ .t.J h Sa.a sanS enss. ~ PoseessIon,
~ davssad aes ~ In Inc meantime,
y -s 1Ae eonr, 1890 ~ th me- az he
Sss - , aS esa.e ~ remIiuuef
ecsted at the resU.srs anu sae on tae r.
fusal Of the widow to accept INV ss,a'e: nc
estate In remainder took effect In possession. and
hat the heirs had NO claim to the intermediate |
profits. holding that when the person TO whom |
property is given for life declines TO accept the
'ame it vests in possession in those to whom it is
estator have no right to the possession during
he life Of the first devisee; and that where there
5 devise or q legacy to several in succession II
ioes not lapse by the incapacity refusal OF the
irs devisee or Iegatee to take, but passes to him
next in succession.
The reasoning of the court. and the authorities
.ited in support Of these propositions, would seem
% be conclusive.
1t does mt appear that this case has ever been