Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Sec-498-Advancements.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 12:18:20+00:00

Document:
C. (Pa.) 297; Hole v. Robbins, 53 Wis. 514, 10 N. W. 617.
91. See Swick v. Coleman, 2l8 111. 33, 75 N. E. 807; Lanferman v. Van Zile, 150 Ky. 751, 150 S. W. 1008; Hole v. Robbins, 53 Wis. 514, 10 N. W. 617; Humphries v. Davis, 100 Ind. 274.
In Humphries v. Davis, 100 Ind. 274, 50 Am. Rep. 788, Paul v. Davis, 100 Ind. 422, overruling Barnhizel v. Ferrell, 47 Ind. 335, it was decided that property which descended to the adopted child from the adoptive parent descended to the latter's kindred, the question of the descent of property otherwise acquired being expressly left undecided.
Matre v. Sankey, 148 111. 536, 23 L. R. A. 665, 39 Am. St. Rep. 196. 36 N. E. C28; Schick v. Howe, 137 Iowa, 249, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 980, 114 N. W. 916; Gray v. Holmes, 57 Kan. 217, 33 L. R. A. 207, 45 Pac. 596; Ross v. Ross, 129 Mass. 243, 37 Am. Rep. 321; Fisher v. Browning, 107 Miss. 729, Ann. Cas. 1917C, 466, 66 So. 132; Anderson v. French, 77 N. H. 509, 93 Atl. 1042, L. R. A. 1916 A, 660; Finley v. Brown, 122 Tenn. 316, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1285, 123 S. W. 359. See Calhoun v. Bryant, 28 S. Dak. 266, 133 N. W. 266. Contra, Brown v. Fin-ley, 157 Ala. 424, 21 L. R. A. N. S. 679, 131 Am. St. Rep. 68, 47 So. 577.
The statutes of many states provide that if the person to whom the advancement was made dies before the intestate, his representees shall stand in his place as regards the advancement, that is, will take subject to the deduction thereof as the ancestor would have done.97 But even apart from an express provision to that effect, it seems, persons taking by right of representation the share of him to whom the advancement was made, take subject to such deduction.98 Persons, on the other hand, who take in their own right and not by right of representation, take free from any claim on account of advancements made to their parent.99 to local customs of charging advancements in connection with the distribution of personalty, see 2.Blackst. Comm. 517; Holt v. Frederick, 2 P. Wms. 356.
94. 2 Blackst. Comm. 115.
95. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec.Sec. 31G0-3168; 2 Woerner, Administration, Sec. 559.
96. In re Williams. 62 Mo. App. 339; Johnson v. Antriken, 205 Mo. 244, 103 S. W. 936; Storey's Appeal, 83 Pa. St. 89; A gift to a grandchild made while the grandchild's parent was alive has been regarded as not constituting an advancement to the parent. Stevenson v. Martin, 11 Bush (Ky.) 485.
114 111. 603, 2 N. E. 603, 4 N. E. 137, 7 N. E. 287; Bramford v. Crawford, 51 Ga. 20; Coffman v. Coffman, 41 W. Va. 8, 23 S. E. 523.
98. Simpson v. Simpson, 114 111. 603, 2 N. E. 603; Barber v. Taylor, 9 Dana (Ky.) 84; Smith v. Smith, 59 Me. 214; Williams' Estate, 62 Mo. App. 339; Headen v. Headen, 42 N. C. 159; Quarles v. Quarles, 4 Mass. 680; Parsons v. Parsons, 52 Ohio St. 470; Per son's Appeal, 74 Pa. St. 121; Mc Lure v. Steel. 14 Rich. Eq. 105.
99. Brown v. Taylor. 62 Ind. 295; Skinner v. Wynne, 2 Jones Eq. 41: Calhoun v Cosgrove, 33 La. Ann. 1001; Person's Apeal, 74 Pa. St. L21.
1. 2 Woerner, Administration, Sec. 555; Boyer v. Boyer, 62 Ind. App. 73, 111 N. E. 952; Calhoun v. Taylor, 178 Iowa, 56, 159 N. W. 600; Lynch v. Culver, 260 Mo. 495. 168 S. W. 1138.
2. 1 Stimson Am. St. Law, Sec. 3162.
3. 1 Stimson, Am. St. Law, Sec. 3161. This appears to be so apart from such an express provision. 2 Woerner, Administration, Sec. 555.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.