The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-10-28
THE BOMAN ESTATE.
viii Giving Each Heir a Single
Dollar Sustained.
wrgER.s DIVORCED WIFE WINS.
r.e,ee Granting Her Half OF the Dead
Gamblers Estate-Important Land
Case Decided.

,uase Hanford, OF the United States court.
...,srday handed down three very important
srlpions In as many different cases. The first
4 these was In the case of Albert Boman ct al.
:. uary E. Boman, which was brought by the
.sidren OF the late George H. Boman by a
sst wife, to break his will in favor of his Sec
and wife The decision was a victory for the
latter The opinion was as follows:
tina conplainants are children OF George NJ
ramsn who died testate in the city OF Seattle in
recember, 1890, and the object of this suit is to
snnul his last viii and testament as to them By
sd will the testator, after making beQuest of
Il 10 each OF mis- heirs, gave and devised all the
,asidue OF his estate to the defendant who is hi
widow. Under the laws of this state an adult
rerson OF sound mind NAV, subject 10 certain
ssnecifed limitations, make documentary dis
,as,ion OF all his or her property, real and per-
scnsI Section ,325 OF the code contains the re-
s:ricsive provisions which, it is claimed, render
tbis will invalid as TO the complainants 1t pro-
y;des that If anY person make his last will and
die, leaving child or children, or descendants
ofs child or children, not named or provided for
IN such will, every such testator, as to such child
m children, or their descendants, shall be
deemed TO die interstate, and such child or chill
6ren or their descendants shall be entitled to
thsre In the division OF the estate of the tesator
real and personal, as IL he died intestate
substantially similar statutory provisions
have been passed upon in number of cases by
the supreme courts of New Hampsh shire, Mis-
I'll.
viewing the decisions in detail, il is enough to
say that they oil agree In holding that an owner
Of pr0perty who has children, or descendants Of
children, is not by such statute deprived of
the right TO dispose OF his property he pleases
The term 'provided for" as used In the statute,
does not import an obligation on the part of q
seststor to leave mis- children a fortune or to
supply their material wants, or even give them
any substantial share of his estate, whether it
amounts 10 much or little. ean-spirited
wealthy man may leave his child destitute,
peorided he does il Intentionally and expresses
saca intention clearly in his will without rem
defing such viii nugatory under the provisions
Of this statute
The decisions also hold that IL is only neces-
ssry for testator TO make his will express
Clearly his intention in regard to his children in
any form OF language sufficient for the purpose
It's not necessary 10 refer To the child or chill
trsn each individually by his or her Christian
name. Any designation which necessarily ap-
plies 10 them without emitting any one OF them
ID nil that the law requires.
regard the foregoing as rules so well settled
By the concurrence of judicial opinions a. TO be
entitled 70 respect as rules of property and bind
ing upon this court In the Interpretation to be
given to the statute In this state in the case un-
der consideration, and tested thereby this will
appears 10 me to be valid. The complainants
are heirs OF their father. BY the clause in his
will giving 81 to each OF his heirs he refers to
them There is no ambiguity or possibility
Of two opinions az to the application
o. said clause in the viii to
these complaints. H. instead OF
one dollar a liberal bequest had been left to
each OF the testator's heirs, no one would hesi-
tate TO believe that il was interde for each of
these compliments to share 4 this bounty. The
language used with equal certainty forces the
mind to accept the more distastetul conclusion
that II was the testator's intention deliberately
formed to cut his children off with but the nom
tnal sum OF one dollar. The rule that a man 5
children shall be his heirs is OF such universal
application that 1t is i'm possible for an inteli-
gent sane person, who knows himself to be a
father OF children, to refer to his heirs without
consciously to himself including them in the
reference. These considerations constrain me
TO sustain the defendants demurrer to the bill
Of complaint