Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-08-26

May >, 1899.
WHERE AN ANTE-NUPTIAL CON
TRACT PROVIDED THAT, If THE
WIFE SURVIVED, SHE SHOULD
HAVE; y LIFE; ESTATE IN GER
TAIN LAND. AND AT HER
DEATH" IT SHOULD DESCEND TO
HUSBANDS HEIRS; THE HEIRS
TOOK \ VESTED REMAINDER ON
THE DEATH OF THE HUSBAND.
The case is shown in the opinion of
the Court.
The Court says:
Plaintiffs father, in 1868. entered into
Il marriage contract with his intended
wife, in which lie stipulated that. If
She survived him. then in that case
she should be entitled 10 the use. pos
session, and enjoyment of the lot owned
by him. with all the improvements
thereon for and during the term of her
natural life and ut her death said real
estate 10 descend 10 the heirs at law
of said party OF the first part the
plaintiffs father who died ip 1870 The
widow is s;ll living. and the plaintiff,
Al MIS- fathers death was. and still
is. his only heir at law. The widow
conveyed her interest. in IS93 to the
plaintiff who. in 1886 conveyed in trust
for the defendant and took ner notes
for the purchase price. She paid II part.
and now refuses to pay the balance. on
the ground that the plaintiM cannot
make her a good title during The life
time of the widow. Tho only question Is
whether the estate vested In the plain
t.n - his fathers death. In Rives v
lri&zle IS y. G.. 231. there was a be-
cues; 10 the widow for life. and after
her death To be equally divided among
his lawful heirs" Held r. vested legacy
a the time of his death. In Crimson v
Wharton. Id. so. n tcstator bcqueathed
all tho residue to his wife during her
widowhood and, when she marries.
then that all the remaining property,
Dctn real and personal, shall be equal
~ divided between his children and be-
loved Wife share and share alike" Held
a vested remainder. In De Vane V. Lar
kina, 81 n. G. az. upon similar facts.
the dccis4on was the same. In each OF
the above cases 1t was a conveyance by
devise. and II was held that. il one
of the heirs died before the death of
the widow, or the happening of the flu
lure event, his or her share went to his
or her representative. and that after"
or upon" the death of the wife. or the
like expression. does not make a con-
iinScncy, but merely denotes the COM
mcnccment OF the remainder in point of
4
conveyance, but Il covenant.-m
act.-cvid,sltly for the benefit and
protection Of the wife if she should be-
come Il widow. Upon the death of an
inicstatc ancestor the title to his estate
descends and vests at once in his heirs.
II cannot stand in allegiance. and vest
IN future, like an cXecutory devise
Consider an estate with "a conditional
Limitation. The title passes at once. and
may be devestcd by the happening or
n-hanpcning Of some future event:
but this can only take place when so
expressed or clearly Intended. There is
nothing in this agreement indicating
any Intention That the estate. which
vested In the plaintiff by his fathers
death. should be defeated by the death
of the widow. We are satisfied that $.
\. Harris. ST., meant that his heir.
the plaintiff or heirs. If he should have
other children. should possess and en-
JOY The property after the Widows
death. and that ne did not mean to di-
vert the law of descent from its natural
course. The plaintiff's estate therefore
vested NJ his fathers death. and We
see no reason why he cannot give the
defendant a good title. Affirmed.