The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1892-02-17
ROBINSON WILL CASE.
Decision on th1 Questions
Submitted.
Caroline y. Robinson Declared to he
mn Heir OF John N. Robinson
Her Deceased Husband.

The Supreme Court this day rem
dered decision in the famous will
case--Lorrin A. Thurston and Caro-
line j. Robinson, executors of the
will of John N. Robinson, deceased,
and Caroline j. Robinson, VS.. Mark
p. Robinson, Mary +. Foster, Vcto-
ria Ward, Bathsheba NJ. Allen, and
Samuel c. Allen her husband, NATL
da A. Foster and w. E. Foster her
husband, Annie Jaeger and Albert
Jaeger her husband, Lucy II. Nc
Wayne and Albert McWayne her
husband, and S. G. Allen and Nj. p.
Robinson, executors of the will of
James Robinson, deceased.
The case came before the full Court
as "submission of controversy un-
der Section l140, Civil Code" The
opinion of the Court by Chief JUS
tice Judd now rendered would fill
this paper. 1t, however, declines to
adopt the English common law,
while the issues are covered by the
statutes of this kingdom, and decides
the main question as follows:
Caroline j. Robinson is now en-
titled to one-quarter of the lands
mentioned in the first and fourth
paragraphs of the will of James Ro-
binson, that is, one-half of Johns
half, and to one-half of the eighth,
that is, one-sixteenth of the estate
mentioned and described in the
seventh paragraph of the said will as
devised to John.
"Costs divided
Thurston & Frear, C. l.. Carter
and A. p. Peterson for plaintiffs A.
S. Hartwell, F. M. Hatch and Ash
ford & Ashford for defendants.
Following is the text of the sylla-
bus, showing the principles under
lying the decision:
1.-The testator devised land to his
sons M. and j. for the term of their
natural lives, to share and share
alike, and after the decease of M.
one-half to his heirs, and after the
decease of j. one-half to his heirs.
"Held, NJ. and j. are tenants in
common for life.
''By the rule in Shelly's case M.
and J. would have the whole estate
absolutely. But the rule in Shelly's
case by virtue of its being a part of
the Common Law of England is not
in force in this kingdom-the Com
mon Law as such not being in force
here:
''Though free to adopt the rule,
the Court declines to adopt it as the
law of this kingdom.
The intention of the testator
should govern in the construction OF
wills.
1.-The intention of the testator was
to give only life estate to NJ. and
j. This would be defeated by the
operation of the rule in Shelly's
case.
"The heirs of J. are whoever are
| entitled to his property by the stat
ute of descent, if he had died seized
Of this property and intestate.
81. died leaving widow but no
| issue nor 1atner nor motner: Held,
that his heirs are his widow as to
one-half and his brother and sisters
as to the other half.
"a devise of real and personal
property to executors in trust, the
income from the same to be paid to
j. n. r. for the term of his natural
life and after his death l give, devise
and bequeath the said one-eighth to
his heirs creates a valid trust and
j. N. r. has the income for life and
at his death the eighth goes to his
statutory heirs, who in this case are
his widow as to one-half, and his
brother and sisters as to the othel
half.
ga widow is an heir by our stat
ute of descent"