The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1889-02-06

him. That r. Gordon having died without
making any disposition Of the property IL
was intestate and must be divided among MS
heirs at law under the statute OF distrlDn,
tions. That James Gordon's chi!1ren couiG .!
not get the property. Messrs. Graydoh ~
Graydon cited numerous authorities wnicn
they claimed sustained their views rs 10 the
proper construction of the will. .
Messrs, DeBruhl e Bradley represented tme
interest cf Mrs Wilson and Mrs McCords s
branch Of the family. IheS LOOK aLtoee.t,nst
a different view from that ntld py llic atno, ,1
news for the children Of james Gornoli; anu
also differed with the attorneys Tor the hlrk-
woods. except up0a one poirt. which was as 10
cross-renlaiuderS. The position OF MeSSrs.
DeBruhl & Bradley, who both made argu-
ments, was that there were no ctoss-renia'h'
That r. T. Gordon took under his fathers
will an estate in fee. defeasible upon ms dylns
without issue That James Gordon s cnlinren
could not take the prSpeGy GhIep GI not s
r.. r. Gordon and his right to take depenued
upon his survivorship or OUTLYING ms pro.oi, Jul
er Thomas. That the word survivor ,, Wt.'
not to be construed as "other." but mt 1IEeL
al and natural sense as the longest liver. Initt
as r., r. Gordon's estate was an estate IN lee,
defeasible, the doctrine or crosS-reIn,ii,ueIs =,
could not apply, rs there Is no sucn u tilis a .o
a cross.remainder when the estate was ~ Ice
simple. That James Gordon's rlsht 10 ~. i.
Gordon's share of the property under ms
fathers will depended upon his survlVorshiP' p
hence the OF mrs Seeords right to
take the property under the will ala not aG'
pend upon their surviving James or hoot. ioi, ! :.
Gordon but only upon their survlVlns, Luuit ta !
father Roht C.. Gordon, the testator, ana tuat
they take under the clause "other chlluren,
&c" o life estate with n REMAINDER 10 % Incni
children, contingent only upon H. i. M2Iu"r ;,t,,t
the survivor of the two sons, dying Mitnou' ~
issue. and transmlssible. That the law Oh ac,
crued Interest did not apply In this case, a,la
whatever the Misses Gordon take br rlShI ol
survvorShip In the personal properly u"uSe the
the eighth clause of the VIII PASSES ~ ,e LIZ
death of the survivor of them without Issue
over to the children OF the Wilson ana NC.
Cord branches of the family or 4. =; ooruioan ia
under the limitations Of the Will. lhey o aus
contended that the Will, taKen aS " MnTe .i,o
his grand children should only take tnat PalL
| of his property to which their parents were
| entitled under the will. Messrs: De6runl "
Bradley each made strong an" erons appEo uuthorI
ties sustaining the positions whlch Iney iiViu ,S
| Messrs. Parker & MCGOWAN represent4ea w V
linterest,of the two Misses Gordon: MI.
H. Parker made the only speeGh IN me ne inte 90 e,
est of the old ladies and he held the sam
views as Messrs. DeBruhl & Bradley as 10 tne
proper construction of the Will OF Il. y. uSi Si.
don with the exception that MT. ParkeI IN Ias as
able and admirable argument contendeo
strenuously that the principle of accrued IN.
terest did apply and that whatever the Misses
| Gordon by:virture Of their survivorship WI
moi 20 over to the children of Mrs. McCoIo
and Mrs. Wilson, but vests In the survivor o.
the Misses Gordon absolutely. Mr. n parKei IKE
made clear and logical argument ana sus
| tained his points with citations OF authorities
which which he he Insisted were sound and correct
The Judge after listening to ten arguments
patiently, took the papers In the case, iosGdiff sdf
er with the notes Of the arguments OF tne dil-
ferent counsel and will file his de-
cree at some future time. This case certainly
showed that there are more ways than one ol
looking at the same thing, and the decree o.
| the Judge will be awaited with great interest