The morning call., 1894-12-01

/ write this letter to my children that thew NAV
Know what distribution / wish made of all the
property OF which may be possessed when I
die. Therefore l wish it plainly understood
that desire all the property that l possess ar
my death, either real estate or personal prop
erty, jewels, pictures, plate, glass, furniture,
carriages, my gas shares, all and whatever de-
Scription that possess, 10 be divided equally
between my three daughters, Mary Helen
Murphy, Frances Josephine Murphy, Mary
Margaret Isabella Murphy. Should either of
these daughters die wish her portion To be
divided between the two surviving daughters.
In case either or all OF these daughters die
without children wish thar the children OF my
eldest son, Eugene Kelly Murphy, to inherit
from my portion that | leave the three daugb-
tiers whatever they may leave when they di-. l
wish these children of nv eldest son Eugene
TO nave snare and share alike OF whatever my
three daughters may have of what | have given
them, both personal and real estate.
ANNA l.. MURPHY,
II Charles street, Rerekeley Square, London.
May Is, 1890.
The court remarks that the two instru-
ments seem to be substantially the same
at first glance, but upon closer inspection
there is to be seen the shadow OF posi-
bility that at some uncertain future Pc
Rod of time, if some events should hap
pen. which may never happen at all, there
might be some difficulty in determining
where, under these Instruments certain
contingent remainders would vest. 1t is
cQntended thar, under one If the instru-
ments, what they may leave of the prop
srty would go TO the three named children
of Eugene Kelly Murphy, Eugene Besson,
Mabel ana Charles; while, under the other.
it would 60 10 all of the children of
Eugene Kelly, including any others who
might be thereafter born ard living when
the remainders should take effect in pos
session." etc.
I'VE are satisfied tha the contention of
resp lndentS as to the total lnvalldlty OF the
two instruments as will cannot be sue
Cd hat hn
findings the petition for the revocation
of the probate should have been denied.
1t is not necessary for us 10 determine here
what a court may never be called upon 10
observation-disclosures or not there are any
such Inconsistencies IN the two lnstru-
ments as those contended for by the re-
spoudents. They refer only to future con-
tingencies which may never happen and IN
no way affect the question whether or Dot
the said two instruments constitute Will
entitled as such TO be probated, and the
latter question is the only one here ln-
volved.
"The other questions attempted to be
raised by the objections filed in the case
concern the construction to be placed upon
the will. and cannot be considered until it
shall have been admitted to probate.
"Respondents admit that these instru-
ments give to the three daughters estates
for life in all property OF the deceased, and
case In favor of appellants. Can an estate
for life be defeated by an uncertainty as
to what may come after the death of the
tenant? Counsel say that the testatrix
did not intend to give them an estate for
life. But she clearly intended to give
them an estate greater than an estate for
ltfe-an estate which includes an estate for
life, If by the language which she used
sins failed to devise a greater estate. but
did devise an estate for life, the latter
estate was surely created, and is in all re-
spects perfect estate.
1.-The following sections of the Civil
Code are applicable TO the case at bar:
Section 1920 Several Parliamentary docu-
ments executed by the same testatOr are
10 be taken and construed together as one
instrument Sec. 1926: OF two modes of
interpreting a will, that is to be pre-
ferred which will prevent a total intes-
tacy.' Sec. 1896: "A prior will is not re-
voked by a subsequent will unless the
latter contains An express revocation or
provisions wholly inconsistent with the
terms of the former will; but in other
cases the prior will remains effectual so
tar as con sistent with the provisions of
the subsequent will
In this way the Supreme Court revArses
the Judgment of Judge Renshaw. with eX-
pressed instructions to the Superior Court
TO en- Ger judgment against the contestants
and deny their petition for revocation of
tina probate of the will. The opinion is
written by Justice Mcfarland, ana con-
cured in by justices De Haven and FiZ-
gerald.
The attorneys for the contestants, how
| ever, do not regard this decision as re-