The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1905-03-10
ICOuR'1aDEC|DES....
N0IED8vVI..l..|L.C;!A||s'5|
Supreme Tribunal Retnai,ds RE
q ! sell WIFI Cause, as to I'll ] A
5s Chancery Court.
Will RIDE on. TRANSFERS I I y: ! :IF|''''

II seven Zines ss cope 1s
Case and Corp ratioyn15s 1t'fl- 4. &
mission IS Sulst;a ain s@
IF Ono Of the mos terieestit y, I,i nh-
c1dcd ~ tho court f. aa,,tl
II niofid case, volfitig cons = IA q,
sadc IF fheroto Adetne
eth president Of the y
orato and 81 exhaustive J,
81 there Is error ir,lc thaN citvof
ri Inc Gna frSln Wien n
\ ass directs lie $e 200 4 eatfpnf y ,he
be tot ite e e;Sse az IND Ind the he
decrce III MAJ ~ lad in
n ,Sase ccart95 VI r. pressed
H ~ fhs st,nni On al c9ur
MA Russs!I disa Nth anso q RIl,
sos d,,iy nadhttedS 10
Il eadfa u sttt m isgs
fuary es sho t epersois
H n 6 ,a'ada lns n M meirorari-
Y, Is srso1nssf hgesidue 81 tie estate
both real and IPe rlaon Sof
IL sa tSisis refers ID lilo
y,,,IiH .it hst r. thereof reite r. t.
NJ, ~ ~ sben,cst the rison Associate
r. ina bedt1 a5inhs
II;sda9d ~ for D RI p,irpose OF
u erui,n no ,n1 onond, Certaili.otf
SPECIFIC pbequeg made re sat'yes
!; end f hbfIsIn case aleq ~
,sjn con fuct ions D e. the Gas
rs Bi}op Van de Y,yYSr vas
ared void lapsee =, d. q sn6stlo,
case Ply Ahh a %
~ n fss sfe'iyl oncerned. The Chancery
1onft HELD nt So ooe Peg ,ea usa y ro -
Biahop Vane fSs decree yG there NV was no
: ma isesrh aficerySC ourt was further
NJ en,n ~, Mat tho tesla with res
q snect q 4 n NpId legacy had died inntpes.
t,tne. MA Prison Associn ton ppcaled
Il Trnn,& hat ]eclsion and contended First,
tatas tire was no ex press
te ana lhef
vnat,,a, e II reason Of he In !, 70
taLn1nf a Lego tee named II VIII
MT M nbwed to take fectE rs a.s re Y,
cation; ond that tbe l,rlapn =, Msf viii
thn& $rleesilnry legatee all the estate:
r rne Il Gbcrsorlal md IT hat as resid uaty
eaaten, II takes eyeryth ing not otne err
wise en- 81 w htls y
TheE Real Question
rhc tnrt the l e o.
these ,lpn 3 "a
sa4 Igd y Eeitfi Il, Ills opinion quotes ru;
mero,Is authot ties on admins, ana
VI : - II = y&cpft deci Sion nd nciuacs:
\ dtfia hirdly ntessary to null iply aut nor
itjes ~ show hat by he will under con
eraa on |, l me-
residudry lsg1eet eInaseS that
i VIVA oseA intent of the testatrx
~ ,,ss a Words to convey he m can.
a ine r Tfe as3ciation - named
\ H. t ~ n he codicil to- the wi Sleft
!, ~. 4 ssnninbn Just where It was as the
r rne diiarV Yatee. he question then, pre-
sented Els .oes the baquest Is tne oath
so oasi ,3M1 riass to the next kin? The
appeliees lold to the ia tier q me t5v.o
ResiduEs defined AS I, all Z ~ e VIII
ofhcrY1fl5, Ethe residuary clause, IN inc
%instaneebf d residue given IN moietlc =
to hodthat one apslnS Y, s tha
a aecift aHmoiety Shall 3eYcntualy carry
i 3 ha' VIE III Il deciding the quests on pre-
snn tefl lie court holds y hat " the pro hlem
l&preserlhf to courts in such cases IS one
1: TOR. IL 8residuaryf legatce not only taxes
4 tSat $jhich Is not otherwise cffc cruall y|
#dispoy $of by I he will but ne takes
that hii the VII attemPI e1s
4aaiisd lapses or Is vol 8. except where
4 the Jiduary clause itsclf or some part
OF fails to become effectnal; IN " hich |
case Is denominated a,sresiaue : Oh q. +,
The |ourt makes distinctlonl between tseI
A caselin& which the residunry bequest has f
Nbecnto two .ors more in aliqnot y parts parts
y fhe lanncrl provided as I to ono or more (
Of tlm, and cases In which therc$is but
ono esdunry gate y s.. IN
Tesla tors Int Mt.
~ mo Keith. In delivering the opinionl
az Is court, VS.: controlling plir.
hos awith courts in the constr'uc.ttiof q
tho lteniIon Of the esthtor. II lt pc pos. I,
,sibld aIh seeking for the intention. of
tho rsttrx In this case, ~ seems plaan
Intended by r 70 d1sPose
4 die Intstate$ with respect y 9 any IaaT.
OF il. j other words the conclusloen..1t 70
he fdcjced from a conside ton, OF the
parehr VII but strengthens ! she pre-
& the q icil had constituted q part, Of the
origlH pa 4 y it nag
preckd the reslllary clam s. Y mere Y ere
wnrsV But, as we have seen, II he position
of f'tl]rcslduary clause has no ehectaupon
4 tie INSTRUCTION Of the will. he,,whole
hs Estea so
ootfyle testator sgatt cred not from any,
ona5art of it,g but fromHthea whole, and
X hs Intention when q seertalned Il II It |
bahWful, governs and c0ntrols' III 8.sis!
ne decree must therefore DO reversed |
n 4 the. cause remand ed & ri ~
Justice John Reversed.
s the case OF Gates and Son vs.. the
CIyl OF Richmond, u mn \ appeal from the |
pigment Of the Hustings Court OF the |
fyH OF Richmond. Judge Stafford e G. {
1hlttle wrote the opinion of the court,
{jyersing the lower court and remandng
fheI case for flrthog@pr edlngs Sd ,hissl
hse \ Is IA test of II he ( ordinance Of the |
ityt&of Richmond n forbidding tho con-
trleting OF q lproj ssq9ting !. fence porch!
he street limo and obstructs such street.
It's or interest especially to merchants
lid wholesale firms, which often find AT
,e eessary TO lay sbidsi or bars temporarily
rom tho doors OF heir stores or business
,laces across the the pavement to ,drays
md wagons, which nre to be loaded or |
inloaded, thereby for a time, ohstructing
he free use of the payenlentss by pedes-
Tians, ~, s .s;Si; q. 1, &, 8 !, |
Z
l..llssl, 2s;' sss5