The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-04-16

TO themselves with fun knowledge OF tho
facts they are not estOpped from attack
ing the residuary clause on the ground
that having elected TO take under me
will they are bound 20 give full elect TO
all its provisions and 10 renounce every
right inconsistent with H. The pfoVis-
ions Of the will did not require an election
on their part.
codlciI provided that any legatee at
tempting to set aside the will should lot
felt his legacy which should revert I" 'ns
estate. Appellants accepted payment u
their legacies..
Held. Conditions relating TO matildee
and disputing a will, when annexed 10
requests Of personal estate where ih're
| is no gift over upon breach OF such conal-
ton. are I'm terrorem merely. and nope
ratlve: and the direction that the lesacle5
should revert TO the estate is not sucn
giving over" as would render the condi-
tion operative. Maddox vs.. Maddox IL
Graft sOi. SO. and cases cited; Roper on
Legacies. m. D.. 795; LomaX Ex'c'rs, tcp
page 15j.
As to the validity Of the residuary clause
is ii so vague and indefinite that it cannot
be enforced by any court OF equity?
Prior 10 1861 the conventions Of TINS
church were not incorporated The cor
year. but # is denied by appellees that
this was an incorporation Of the New
Jerusalem church. and only the general
agency and representative body Of the
church 10 hold property for religious and
educational purposes. The paral evidence
shows that testatrix had attended several
annual meetings Of the general convention
but there is no evidence that she knew
that the General Convention Of &c" was
Incorporated She did know each Of the
trustees named in her will, and had con-
tributed 10 funds under their control
Held. The omission to name the cor
poration. or 10 devote the bequest specin-
cauy to educational or religious pur-
poses for which It was authorized 70 take
and hold property. and her leaving the adj
ministration OF il entirely 20 the discretion
OF the trustees named. seems 20 show
clearly that she did not know that the
General Convention Of &C. was the
agency OF the church 20 hold property; or
If she did know IT, she preferred an agency
Of her own selection. The bequest must,
therefore. be considered as made for the
benefit 81 a voluntary association. not 10
the corporation. Trustees are named. but
the bene0ciaries arc uncertain. is the
trust for tho benefit of the whole mem
borship I'm this and other countries. or lin
tied 10 the United States. or 10 Virginia. or
10 New York. where the trustees reside?
If tho trustees are unable or fail for any
reason 10 administer the trust. 10 is diff
cult 10 see how court OF equity could
enforce IL. Can II correct an abuse Of the
trust? How ascertain a misapplicduon!
There Is nothing 10 restrain the discretion
Of the trustees or TO guide the judgment OF
the court Wheeler VS.. Smith. How, ''.
No such question was involved in the
Episcopal Society VS. Churchman. so Va.
us nor Trustees VS.. Guthrie Sc Va. -
I'm those cases the benehciaries were GER
tain. the purposes OF the trust clearly de-
fined and within the corporate powers OF
the legatees. I'm this case. entirely other
wise and the bequcst is void for uncer-
tainty T6siatrix died intcstate as 10 the
property she attempted TO dispose Of ~
IL. and the fund must he distributed be-
tween the heirs and distributes OF tes-
trix the heirs taking such portion as the
real estate bore to her whole estate. ana
the distributes such portion as the per
sonal estate bore 10 her whole estate.
SUMMARY.
Judge James Keith r.:
The Manly Manufacturing Company VS..
Broaddus g. Parks. Circuit Court OF
Page county. Reversed.
Judge r. IT. Cardwell:
Stringfellow VS. Wise Circuit Court
of Culpcpor county Affirmed.
Judge John a. buchanan.
Fideld and others VS.. Van Wyck's TX
ecutor and others Law and Chancery
Court city Of Norfolk. Reversed.
Judge Geo. M HARRISON
Morris VS.. Deane and others. Circuit
Court of Greene county. Reversed.
Richmond and Manchester Railway
Company VS. Moores administrator. Pc
titlon 20 rchear refused
J. Lawrence Groner. Esq. allowed 10
practice as counsel IN this court
Stonehraker &, Hutchins VS.. Hicks and
others Further argued by G. T. Nc
Mullen. ESQ., for appellees and J. S. Bar
bour Esq. for appellant. and submitted.
Groner &c VS. Foster Argued by j.
Lawrence Groner. Esq. for appellant
and Richard Wake ESQ for appel.ees
and continued until to-day.
The next cases 10 be called will be
Grubbs VS. National Life Maturity In
gurance Company and Grubhs VS.. Union
Central Life Insurance Company.
After the conclusion Of tho case AT Lar.
only three more cases will be heard and
the court viii adjourn for the term.
W. W. SOFT.