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

clearly expressed intention of the tesaor bile gives eHect
the assumed intention of the ator In one event illustrates
his expressed intention another event 1t gives the estate
the the first ake dies under leaving ISSUE
but it does give the devee case the hrst saker
dies age without leaving issue 1t possible that the
estator would have written and he had contemplated the
death of the age and leaving but it also
possible that he overlooked the possibility of such event or
that ne took 1t for granted that improbable an event would
not happen and he had foreseen the possibility OF such
and had intended the take he might and probably
would (raher than write and place OF or have struck
out the words die under that the devise
would take upon the death any time
without issue But assuming that changing or to and would
eectuate the general intention of the estator the first
taker should die under the prescribed and leave ISSUE in
the of death after such age leaving and
having had the intention that the gift should
then take would be ntesay
sion remainder would result As result of revuon against
the speculative method of construction courts have taken the
position years that this rule ought be extended
beyond the in which has become established by prece
dents. Gray Pearson II. L. Cas- 61 Hart
Beav. $40.
Accordingly, rule it applied where the first
is less than fee simple For instance, although the main
for the rule would apply strongly
the of tail than in the of simple for the
intention to benefit the issue clearer Holcob Lake. 25 n
in the of TAIL (Which Emma would have
this law. Mortimer Hartley Exch. At,
81. See also Parker Parker, Mec 1874, 14O And of
this particular could apply if Emma took
estate afor the Stated above) why it could
apply if she took fee simple And although the main
for the rule would apply still strongly where
children made the express objects of the prior gift
Wills 473, and Haske Sutton, Bng 51O) would
be the here if Emma held take ifeestate with
apply in such Cooke Mrehouse 81 Beav 27,-where
the devise the John life when he
at thryone and after his DEATH his eldest and his
heirs forever In my John should age
or not have any then trust for second Evelyn
John attained hryone married. and died without having had
any issue. The Master of the Rolls ad ct
testaor did not intend John take any unless
tanned hrtyone; and the words of the will they stand
port that he died after attaining that age without having
the property EreIm for e and then the
other under the subsequent limitations Then why
the alter the words of the will the mere purpose
of excluding them? The has gone great way prevent
being excluded but here asked change the words
and do violence the the WILL that purpose
Of excluding the second and of defeating all the subsequent
limitations never knew OF such Even if the
could look at the events which have happened and modify the
words of WILL after asceraning what the intention of
would have been he had what would have
happened it plain that the would have turned
o into and for the purpose of excluding his son Epeyn
and the persons he intended take under the subsequent mta
TONS Similar language might well be applied present
case, mutatis mutands See also Hawkins Wills 2O4
Although above indicated thinks the principle of
the rule would apply in the of life estate with remainder
to the ISSUE yet his suggested the rule (above
quoed would not like this and he comedies that
the authorities against him. 1 Jarm. Wills ATS Thus
far authorities concerned they do not require
EEor, 10 Al ),
i! should be read in its natural sense
There exist special grounds for this in this case The
word decease repeated the words being SHOULD the afore
said Emma Rookie deceae before the tesaor or dcease
without leaving ISSUE This of itself might not be sufficient
to warrant the rejection of the rule would otherwise applv
but tends show that the esator meant what he said SINH
lar repetons however, found in which o
hash