The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1892-02-18
be had to the laws and other countries section


death devised his "hers for thus the estaors
intention would be defeated
It clearly the intention OF tire king and government
the use of the word leirs royal patents give an estate
in fee simple to the patentee and introduced to dee
the character of the estate in the paenee This support
ed by Redied Wills, 341. But it does not become
necessary in this to discuss the question whether
estate in fee can be created by grant devise without the
use OF the word "henY
AS regards the seventh paragraph of the WILL the trust
clause have listened to the able and exhaustive argu
ments by counsel for the plaintiffs and for defendants
the question whether the devise in this paragraph
IS with tie rule in Shelly's 1t admitted bv
counsel both sides and it is undoubtedly law that
both estates the freehold and the remainder should be legal
both be equitable the rule will not apply Counsel for
plaintiffs contend that the trust created i'll the executors by
this will is active private, executed trust and therefore
legal estate But having to the conclusion that the
rule in Shelys is not to be applied any OF the deYses
requests of the paragraphs this will we deem it
unnecessary cucumber this opinion with the discussion of
the question whether both estates legal whether the
estate of the executors rustees equitable and that of tie
heirs of John legal.
valid trust was created by the seventh paragraph of the
will and must continue long any of the eight
children OF James Robinson survive We therefore
the first question of the submission follows John n
Robinson took under the first fourth and seventh paragraphs
of the will of James Robinson estate for life
The remaining question is to what estate is the said
Caroline J. Robinson ented? She is the widow of John
n Robinson who died without issue The fact that John
devised ell his estate to Caroline his widow is of special
Importance far the property left by the will of his
father concerned for his interest it for his life
only he could not devise and he practically
to this property By the first paragraph of the Will of
james Robinson half unvde of the lands therein de-
seribed go now, John being dead to his (Johns hens
BY the fourth paragraph half Undivided of the land de-
scribed therein goes now John being dead to ohn n Bob
nsops heirs at lar We difference this case be-
tween the words heirs and "hers at law" though the
for the plaintiffs perhaps strengthened by the of
the latter term The estaor has used these terms inter-
changeahly,
By the seventh paragraph eighth all the
residue OF the property both real and personal goes
the "heirs of JohnN Robinson The words of the
paragraph are zone eighth to my executors hereinafter
named in trust the income from the be paid quar-
terry payments my John n Robinson for the of
his natural life, and after his death give devise and be-
queah the said eighth to his heirs. 1t is not
eighth the income that is devised to Johns heirs but
eighth OF the corpus of the estate.
Who the heirs of John n. Robinson? Ii he had died
ntesate by statute of descent his widow Che dying with
issue and his father and mother both being dead would
be entitled to half OF his property both real and personal
and his brother and sisters to the other half Civil Code
section 144S. That oidou is statutory heir of de-
ceased interstate is clear by section 1447 Of the Civil Code
which reads that the property both real and personal of
person dying interstate within this kingdom shall descend to
and be divided among his heirs hereinafter described
eff lie shall leave ISSUE father mother his
eSfe shall descend bali to his widow, and tie other
half to his brothers and sisters and to the children of any
deceased brother sister. by right Of representation
i . unnecessary to discuss many OF the cases cited which
declare that widow is rot heir She is recognized
by statute. She is considered Of the kim
dred I" the ntesate shall have been married and leave
kindred but widow then she shall inherit all his estate
latter part OF section i44s, Civil Code,
It is cnAd that the strict technical meaning of the word
e il what James Robinson intended that is heirs of the
blood of the We find nothing in the will to indi
cate this The statute of descent quoted from above
in force the time James Robinson made his WILL We must
presume that he by hers those who by the statute
of descent would take the property 1t would have been
easy for him to limited the word heir to those of his
blood-but he did not.
In this kingdom real well personal estate of ines
tate descends together by the statute to persons
heirs there being distinction between the descent Of real
ty and personally. We must bear this mind for OF
cited from states where the heirs take real
estate but the personal estate distributed to the ert Of
kin according to the statute OF distribution
In Tman Davis 95 n IT, the court say the primary
meaning the law of the word heirs the persons related
to by blood who would take his real estate he died in
The proper primary Specification of the words next
of kin related by blood who take the personal estate
are to the effect that widow is neither "heir next
of kin her husband 1t is held in England that by the
words "heirs of her late brother meant the next
of kin S. according the Statute of Distributions to-
gether with the widow of j. S. if living at tesatrixs death
Steeuens Trusts Is Eq. Cases L. R. no. In the fol-
lowing the word heirs when applied to personal
property those that by the Statute Of Distributions
take the personal property in OF ntestacy and hence
embraces widows
Eby's Appeal, 81 Penn. St., 241.
Sweet Dutton 100 Mass, 599.
Welsh Crater, 80 N. j. Eq., 1T.
Collier V. Collier, 3 Ohio ST.. 369
Lavery Egan 143 Mass 1892 bears close analogy to
The one at