Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1900-07-12
Argument Before Chancellor
Nicholson, Monday, on Item
Number Sixteen.
OVER 100000 IS INVOLVED
Question Whether the Children
of One of His Daughters
Shall Receive Equal Share
With the Daughters.

10Th item of the will Of Gen. Henry
du Pont, deceased, which involves he
quests of more than a million dollars to
the four daughters Of the deceased,
who are Viotorine 4. Foster, wife OF
A. l.. Foster; Ellen Z, Irving, wife
Of Alexander ID. living Of New York;
Sophie NJ Chandler, wife Of Theophilus
Chandler OF Philadelphia, and Eselina
du Pont.
This bequest became operative upon
tho death OF Gen. du Points widow,
Louisa du Pont.
This suit Is brought by Col. Henry
A. du pont, one Of the trustees Under
item l6, against Alexander ID. Irving
and a. l.. Foster, the other trustees,
aud Others. Col. du Pont is repre-
scented by Levi q. Bird. Mrs, Foster
ham, Mira Chandler by Lewis 2. Vandc-
griit, and the Iryings by Col. Benia-
min Nields.
The language Of the will In question
Is that a certain residue, shall be
divided among my daughters or their
issues or survivors share and share
a liko" The court is asked TO deter
mine whether the whole of the prop
erty thereby devised shall now be
equally divided between the four
daughters or whether the five chill
dren of Ellen Il. Irving, who is the
only daughter having children, shall
share equally with their mother and
their aunts. All the attorneys, except
Mr.. Me DIS, agree that ths property
should be divided among the four
daughters, but Col. Nieids holds 10 the
second proposition In favor Of the
grandchildren Mr.. Bird opened the
argument on behalf of the complainant,
holding that the true construction OF
the item is: First, That If all the four
daughters should survive the tenant
for life the property should To equally
divided among them second, that ii
any daughter died in .thes lifetime OF
the tenant OF life, her issue should take
her share by way of substitution third,
that In case Of the death of any
daughter without issue in the life time
OF the tenant for life, the share of such
daughter should he equally divided
among the other daughters of the tes'
tator.
MIR. Bird claimed that the spirit Of
the whole will was that the daughters
should take first, since Gen. du Poni
had provided for his sons in other part
Of the will; second. that the daughters
should take equally, and that intentior
of the will would be violated, II tht
grandchildren should take equal shares
third, that the use of the word "or'
showed that the grandchildren shoult
| only take in case of the death of tn,
parents, and fourth, that the use o
the word survivors showed oiearl.
| that the testator intended that thu
property should be equally divided be
tween his daughters to the exclusion
OF his SONS, for whom he had alread
provided.
Mr.. Bird also commended that tn
word "or" could not be read land,
| that such construction would violat
the intention of the will.
He also cited many cases In Englan
and In this country which held tina
where similar language was used !
wills 1t had been uniformly held tina
the daughters took to the exclusio
of their children.
Mr.. Bird also had authorizes to sho
that even where the word land" WI
used in wills in similar cases, til
courts still held to position und'
which the true construction of ii
present will would be that the fol
daughters of the deceased should taxi
Col. Nields opened in behalf Of I'll
children of Mrs. Irving holding thi
her children were entitled to tai
equally and concurrently with the
mother and the other daughters of Il
testator. He commended that the VOL
"or'' in the will should be read land,
that the testator so intended, and
, produced and read cases in England
support this contention.
Mr.. Vandegrift then spoke in beha
! of the Interpretation Of the will tn
, had been given by Mr.. Bird.
, The argument in the du Point W
case was concluded before Chancell
Nicholson Monday afternoon. II
item OF Gen. Henry du Pout's wi
> which the Chancellor is asked to co
: strue, is No. 16. as follows:
Item sixtoenth--I will and bequea
to my wife. Louisa du Point, for
sole use and benefit during her life
J household goods and personal proper
2 and the interest of all stock inve
= ments and of all moneys not befc
u specified, of which may be possess
!. or which may be due to me at the til
|
will and bequeath thai after
death of my wife, Louisa du Point, t
said residue of estate, as above auott
d shall be divided among my daught
or their issues or survivors share a
! share alike. !"
: Four daughters Of Gen. du Pont I
living, namely. Evelina dn Point, |
u married; Ellen Z. Irving, wife of AL
= ander ID. Irving; Viotorine f.. Fost
y wife of A. Lentilhon Foster, and Sopl
Y. NJ. Chandler, wife of Theophilus
10 Chandler. Mrs. Irving has five oh
0. dren living, two of whom are Of age d
ifr thrpe minors.
~ The question involved is whether
grandchildren should share equa
hi with their mother and aunts.
ar George Tucker Bispham. who rep
scented A. L. Foster and others, 10 G
:, Guiding his brief, said:
% 1T therefore appears that the
~ tator had before him as beneticiaI
his four daughters; that he designed
~ benefit them equally and thas
~ equalization as between the testat,
daughters was not to be 10 any ,
MT dependent upon the fact whether u
nd were married or single, as is i'll
trated by the gift to his unlnarl
Int daughter, Eyelina, or upon the NJ
,nt Der of children which any mari
daughter might then or thereafter hi
.be From the whole scope of the v
as. as we'll rs from the clauses partioull
" commented upon, it is difficult to S
.oa pose that the tostator intended
~ sacrifice the interests of his chile
'oi for the benefit OF grandchildren I
living or thereafter to be boin."
rry Chancellor reserved his decision.
md --.----- =.
for Preparing For Registration.