The Leon reporter. (Leon, Iowa) 1887-1930, 1917-04-19
THE LEON REPoRTER. THURSDAY APRIL 49,

= idistributive share therein. The tria
r court sustained the latter convention
: and the guardian appeals in his
| wards behalf.
Stated in briefer terms, the rights
t Of the parties turn first upon the
| question whether the words of the
: testator, IF he should die without
, issue living" are held to have refer
ence solely to the death of the son
held to be operative upon the death
, of the son without living issue at any
, time either before or after the death
; of the testatOr.
1. Appellants brief has been pre-
pared with entire disregard of our
care to ascertain as clearly, as may
be the points relied upon for re-
versal of the judgment below.
1t is first argued that our prior
decisions furnish controlling prece-
! dents for constituting the conditions IN
this will as having reference e. ex,
son in his fathers life time. Upon
that point our attention is called to
Blaine VS.. Deane, 160 Iowa, 7OS;
Talbot VS.. Snodgrass, l24 Iowa,
681; and other cases of that class.
None of these cases is quite in point:
In the case at par while the initial
graph of the will is framed in gen
eral terms which. standing alone, di-
vOrced from the modifying terms
which follow in the same connection,
would confessedly be sufficient to
vest in the uevisee an absolute fee,
yet attached thereto as part. and par
eel of the same paragraph is a clear
and unequivocal condition vat the
right and title so devised will become
absolute only on the death OF the de-
yisee leaving living issue, and that
upon failure of such condition the
entire property shall vest in the tes-
tat thtor nyo WaS% hf Bsn OF cn ms
children shall have died leaving no
issue | direct that his share shall be
dlvlued among those leaving issue
and among my other chiluren then
living Here it is too clear for rea-
sonable question that the y; wordS5,
shall have uled, I'D then living,
have directed reference to the time
when the will became effective, that
is, ar the death of tAe estator: 1t
provides nothing but plan or basis
O. distribution and attaches no con-
dltion whatever TO any gift or devise
made by the will. The same may be
said of the will in the Talbot case.
Indeed, we think no case can be
found, certainly none has been clted;
where a condition which is attached
to the substance OF devise as dlstln-
euished from a provision designating
a plan of distribution or designating
tie persons or classes to share in the
ehtate. has held to be satisfied or to
become imperative because the de-
v1see has outlived the testatOr. The
maker Of will, being competent to
give or withhold his bounty. may at
t; CHI thereto any reasonable condl-
ton and provide that upon failure OF
tie condition the title to the prop
e! ty or thing devised shall pass from
TIE devisee first named to some other
person A devise conditioned Tor a
rcversion or change Of direction upon
tie death of the devisee without Nv
i1g issue is not, as counsel tOr APP
pellant seem to think, devise OF a
il ere life estate. Such Il devise vests
the beneficiary with lee, condltlon-
a! it is true but none the less d fee,
and carries with it all the rights or
possession and control which pertain
to full ownership, subject of course
to the possibility of reverter on fail
ure of the condition.
That the testator in this case at
tached the condition for a reversion
a.ely stated, the condition fQr Inc
substitution of another beneficiary,
to the substance of the gift to his
son is hardly open to reasonable
doubt. He had the undoubted right
to attach such condition to his gilt
and it would be difficult indeed to
express such intent in clearer or
more explicit terms. The meaning
being plain and the intent being law
full there is no room left for contro-
vcrsy. 1t is not for the court to ques-
ton; it's only function is to ascertain
tie teStator's intent and give 1T Ell
feet The intention being plainly
prompting it are not important The
testator may or may not nave allowed
himself to be influenced by dislike or
dstrust of his sons wife, or the
condition attached to the devise may
have had it's origin in the desire,
which is shown in many persons, to
so hedge about his estate as TO Keep
it as long as possible within his own
Immediate family; but whatever the
fact in this respect may be, he did
provide that the gift to his son was
ION condition that if he die without
issue living then such portion
should revert and go to his own
widow. The reference to the son S
death without issue is accompanied
by no words limiting its meaning to
death lii the life time Il the testator
nor by other words Oy which lin. a
ton ran be fairly implied, ant! with
out such words Or fair iNlpllca.lonS
OF such meaning the devise must be
given effect accordingly.
There is nothing in any other
paragraph of the will nor III the in
strument as a whole to give rise to
any ambiguity and the court is not
authorized to override any of its
provisions by construction. That such
is the we'll settled doctrine OF, the
law Of Wills see Collins VS.. Collins,
Tic Iowa. 1908; Estate of James, lac
n, Y, 100; Wilhelm VS.. Calder, 1872
Iowa. 342; Wilson vs.. Under, Ida
ho) 10 Pac.. PA; Barrett's Estate,
(Neb.) 1913 \. W., 239; Britton VS..
Thornton, CT. S. S. c. Rep, 291;
Spencer VS.. Spencer, (Ill.) 109 n.
E., 300; Calvin vs.. Springer, 1nd.)
63 n. E., 40.
Appellants invoke in support of
their theory the proposition fire.
uucntly announced by this court that
Che law iavors that construction Of
will which effects the creation OF a
vested or absolute estate as against
one which is merely contingent or