Case Name: Charles G. Reichle, complainant, Gottfried Steitz et al., defendants
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1902-11-17
Citations: 64 N.J. Eq. 789
Docket Number: 
Parties: Charles G. Reichle, complainant, Gottfried Steitz et al., defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Equity Reports
Volume: 64
Pages: 789–790

Head Matter:
Charles G. Reichle, complainant, Gottfried Steitz et al., defendants.
On appeal of Karl H. Steitz and other infant defendants.
[Filed November 17th, 1902.]
1. A testator devised lands to a brother who died before the amendment to the act concerning wills (P. L. of 1887 p. 63) was enacted, and during the life of testator, leaving children who survived him.—Held, that the devise to the brother lapsed and his children take nothing.
2. Murphy v. McKeon, 8 Dick. Ch. Rep. 406, followed.
On appeal from a decree advised by Vice-Chancellor Reed, who filed .the following conclusions:
The single question is whether the children of William Steitz are entitled to the one-half of the proceeds resulting from the sale of the property made in this suit. August Steitz, who died seized of this land, was a brother of William. In his will, made in April, 1878, August devised a one-half interest in the land, after the death of his (August’s) widow, to William.
William died March 24th, 1878. August, the testator, did not die until January 24th, 1889.
The supplement to the act to prevent lapses, which supplement was designed to extend to the children of brothers the benefit of the original act, was approved March 29th, 1887. .
So William, the devisee, had died nine years before the supplement was enacted, which would have preserved his interest for his children.
The case of Murphy v. MeKeon, 8 Dick. Ch. Rep. 406, directly ruled in this court the question mooted. In that case Chancellor McGill held that the remedial force of the act did not operate in favor of the children of the devisee in instances where the devisee' died before the act had taken effect.
The devise to William lapsed; his children take nothing.
Mr. Edward Q. Keasbey, JEor the appellants.
Mr. Louis Hood, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Pee Cueiam.
The decree appealed from is affirmed, for the reasons given in the court of chancery.
For affirmance—The Chief-Justice, Yak Syokel, Dixon, Collins, Foet, Gaeeetson, Hendeickson, Pitney, Bogebt, Adams, Yeedenbubgi-i, Yeoom—12
For reversal—None.