Carson City daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1907-1930, 1916-10-11
OPINION
BY the Court. McCarran. J.: (afte
stating the facts, supra.)

49, 'N
ed that but one question is presented
in this appeal and that a question OF
construction and application Of a stat
utOry provision.
The law of this state concerning
wills was enacted by the legislature
Of 1862. and, with but one Slight ex~
CcptiOn. has remained since unancnd-
ed ard is handed down to us in our
Revised Laws practically in it's orig
inal form and vcrbiage. Our law in
this respect is found from section
62O2 to section OPP. Revised Laws,
1912. inclusive. 1t is with section IS
Il the Act (scctiOn 62l9, Revised
I.aWs) that we have to deal in the
matter at bar:
"\Nhen any estate shall be devised
to any child or other relation OF the
tcstatOr. and the deviscc shall die be
fore the testatOr, leaving lineal de
s~ccndants, such descendants shall
take the estate SO given by the VIII,
in the same manner as the devisee
Would have done if he would have
survived the testatOr.
Under the provisions OF this stat
ute, we are asked the question:: Did
Harriet +. Cunningham. or Harriet
+. Bailey. as she is now known, as
the daughter OF Hattie Cunningham.
deceased. a beneficiary under the will
o. Jennie Lewis, take that part OF the
residue OF the estate of Jennie Lewis
consisting Of personal property which
would have passed to her mother had
the latter survived the testatriN?
Appellant here. while admitting
that the word devise. or devised. as
,-,I -, +ho c+o+,-+o If rnr,p1nr law
and in ordinary accoptation applies
what they term a modern mean
ing should be applied so that the
term should also comprehend the dis
position OF personal property. In
other words. appellant takes the po-
that the words devised and de
should be given such a scope of
meaning as to inch,dc that C0mpre-
hcndcd by thc words legacy and lcga-
In furthcrancc OF the contention
they refer us to- a line OF decisions
where courts have announced that
In the case Of Rountree, Admins
VS.. Pursell ct al. II Ind. App.
522 it was held that the word devise
usually relates to real estate, aCQu1r-
ed through 4 will, that it is a gilt by
will of real estate and cannot be ap-
piled with legal precision to personal
property. \ bcqNcSt. on the o'heI
Aand, IS a GIT by VIII on personal
property; but, says me court IN or
der t" 1aNor the rnan'lest h''Snt'"' "l
the testator, the courts
construe the word ~'bequest' to
mean dcNlSe' II "eN1He 10 mean
beIueSt. 49,,
tnere 'l'""co ny
the court might nave proper 2pplica-
ton where, as IN the Statt OF INDIANA.
the legislature a nsed the TERMS ue-
wise and hcQucath nr equues ana dt-
wise more or less rndlSErl'nln''eiy or
lnterrhangea5Iy' at least to such an
extent tnat the court was luS|''ed III
Saying that
wv mist some CONFUSION cNiSts III
the terms used. we think 1t clear that
enactment governs the DESCENT of
real estate as well as the Distribution
o. pcrSonaltE. Inns nnnCh IS CiGar'
when personal property mas
reathed that nolIt when the law nli-
dertakes 70 divide IT among lnc per,
sons entitled to 1t, 1t shall be DIVIDED
III the same me and 1nto tne
parts and to the same persons
that real estate is divided when II
d~cscendS. We have no ether statute
III this state regulating the dlStrlDu-
ton OF the surplus OF the estate or an
.And we have no other en-
regulating the descent OF the
real estate OF an ntestate. i)cscelt
and distribution are combined IN the
act
In the case of Logan VS.. Logan, II
Pac. SO, the Supreme cour ct Oolo-
RADIO had under consideration the
question here presented and there
held that "legacles and requests as
used IN the statute embraced de-
1t will be noted, however,
that the court IN arriving at TINS con
cluslon did so by reason OF the acts
OF the Legislature Ct the state OF Nol-
orado and an lnd1scrimlnate use 81
the terms by that body. lhe court
SAID:
our Legislature has not. Always
used these words in their strict leSal