The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1891-06-17
POINTS UNDER THE WILL.

POINTS UNDER THE WILL.
The first question to be considered is, what
was the scheme Of the will /?
The main object of the testatrix In making
the proceeds arising from the sale of the per.
sonaI property, and the 2l0 acres OF land men-
toned In the Will. She desired that said pro-
ceeds should be divided In such manner
that those who had received the more Valua.
BILE tracts of land should not get any part OF
said proceeds until those who had received
the less valuable tracts Of land snould get
enough 10 make them equal with the others.
She did not contemplate that the proceeds
Of the 2l0 acres and personal property would
be insufficient TO equalize all. Her intention
was that those TO whom she lad made con,
veyances Of land should hold said lands al all
events.
This intention is shown BY the fact that she 81 e
made absolute deeds. Well knowing she
could not will away their property, which
they held absolutely. Those 70 Whom deeds
to come into holch-pot or stay out as they
saw fit. Her intention was that those TO
whom she devised property should nave the
same discretion. She certainly did not intend
ferred on the others, 1t would rather seem she
intended to confer greater rights on the Two
devisees than on the others.
1.-THE above should be accepted as the scheme nan,
Of the will then the two devisees are not COM
PEELED to go into hotch-pot.
The other side. however, contend that the
testatrix intended to force all parties into
hotch. pot, and that all should share equally.
This view cannot prevail, because
LIST. The testatrix shows by her will that
the "dlvisIon" mentioned In her will was the
division Of the 2lo acres OF land, and the per-
sonal property after sale thereof
2pd. The word desire used by testatriN Is
only advisory.
Srd. The land devised was not to be includ.
ed in said division, as shown by the works Of
4th. 1t was only the land conveyed by
deeds Of conveyance" that was to be account.
ed for as advancements, and not that which
passed under the will as devise.
5th. Those to whom land was devised can
not be called upon to account unless II Is by
virtue of that clause OF the will requiring
those to whom deeds OF conveyance were
made to account for them as advancements
and If the deyises should be considered as nd
vancements, then the devisees had all the
rights incident 10 advancements, one ol
which Is the right to stay out OF hotch.pot
II they are not "advanceme ents," then there Is
no provision Of the Will requiring the devisees
to account, If they are "advancements," then
the law Of advancements must apply 10 them
throughout and this law gives them the
right TO hold what they have II they so desire
or course they would not be allowed to take
anything else unGer the will If they refused
| to account.
9Th. There is no provision In the will fol
enforcing the trust which is strong circuni
stance tending to show she did not Intend te
create trust.
| 7tn. Inc IalluTe OU Iuc phEI vi lcotuttlA "
| state that the lands devised were subject tt
| q trust is n strong circumstance to show none
was Intended. (The trust contended for In
this case was that the excess received by any
| OF the children, should be charge or lier
upon the land Of the party owing the eXces!
In favor of the other persons taking under
the WILLY
Lieutenant Governor Gary argued othel
| parts of the case, but we have not published
that part Of his argument as 1t does not toucl
| upon the constructions of the will.