The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1900-05-19


take an estate for life and that her children would take remain
DER IN ee Whether she would estate tail or not would
depend upon whether children as used here would he con-
ueie WORD OF purchase or word of limitation. 1t would
be word OF limitation if nonen coeetru meaning
issue IN It's broader of ers of the body or offspring
OF every degree denotng what Emma was to have and
that the children take if ALL through her by descent
and not directly under the will would be word of purchase
II II We're descrpto personarun meaning issue in its mar
rover sense of offspring of the degree enong that the
children or such particular offspring take if at ALL not
from or through the mother by descent but directly under the
will
In support of the proposition that Emma would take an estate
tail at law and that children would be considered
word OF limitation, Wds Case Rep is relied on There
the devise to Rowland Wild and his wife and after their
decease to their children they having children at the time of
the devise Clear though seems te case for difficulty was
argued before all the Judges of England decided that
according the plain meaning of the words and his
wife took an estate for life and the children remainder
ana hat no intention that the parents should take tail
was SHOW" with u1cent clearness to overcome that plain
ing 1t was resolved Also that such would be the if
there children the devise since the words
after their deceae showed that the children not to take
Immediately but after their parents was further resolved
that in the of devise simply A. and to his children or
ISSUE without the words CATER his decease their equivalent
he had children at the time of the devise he and they would
take Jointly for life that being the manifest and there
being nothing to prevent its taking effect but that if he did
have children at the time of the devise he would take
TAIL since there manifest intent that the children issue
should take and immediate devee they could take be-
cause they not in naa and by way of remainder
they could not take for that the intent because the gift
immediate, and therefore A. would an estate tail and
children would be word of limitation This last mentioned
resolution is what is known the rule Wrs Case and is
what relied here In the the devise Emma
and her children" without such words as CATER her
uecese and she had children at the time the devise
cordngy under the rule in ilds would take an es
tate tail, unless different intent is shown
But other expressions in the will would at common law be
deemed support rather than negative the estate
tail intended Indeed contended that an intention
clearly shown that Emma would take an estate tail at COM
mon law irrespective of the rule in Wds Case and even if she
had had children at the time of the devise Wood a. Baron
E. 259 For is argued, there direct devise to the chill
den but the ttator makes devise Emma alone and then
defines the nature OF her interest by adding that be used
and enjoyed by her during her life and her children for ever
ana the limitation over favor this construction for provides
for the deceae of Emma alone not for the failure of her
children in the tesaors letme-as if the preceding devise
were to her alone and the devng portion of the will above
set for looked whole mote even the nderscorng)
shows that but three gifts intended to the wife one to
the adopted daughter and the nephew and godson
The words introducing the devise in case of Emma ode
cease without leaving ISSUE would also common law sup
port the theory of estate tail These regarded as appro
PIRATE words for the introduction of limitation over after an @
tate tail Following devise A. indefinitely or to A. express
for life they would enlarge what would other
wise be feeate and following devise to A. and his heirs
they would cut down to estate tail what would otherwise be
fee simple tissue held primarily "heirs of the
body of every degree and required assisting context to
be narrowed to cdren' the first DECREE only and
the words without leaving ISSUE primarily imported an ndef
Lite failure of ISSUE that is failure any time whether in the
lifetime the death of the first aker time thereafter
however "Chldren and issue in this will mean the
thing Is the Preferential put upon KS
sue' making it "such ue!' If So the question would
still remain what issue? What be intended here nv
chdren in the absence of the word ssue? It true as ar
gued by counsel for the Bishop Estate that chdren primar
lily word of purchase but it may be word of limitation and
the circumstance that there children living the time
Of the devise regarded by the Judges sat in Wd Case