Court Opinion

ID: 9418233
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:15:17.771393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:58.182306
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Pitney,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached, and agree with the reasoning expressed in the opinion of the court except upon one point. The opinion states:
“The limitation over on the death of one of the three children without issue was of general import and scope, and was not confined to such a death before the grantor’s. If George had died after his father, instead of before, the gift over still would have taken effect.”
Upon this point I agree with the view expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court of the District, that — “The equitable title to George’s portion, subject to the life estate of John Walter, Sr., became vested in the complainant herein (Mrs. Frosch) and her sister, Barbara King, ,at George’s death, May 14, 1892. Being so vested, Barbara’s share passed by her death to her eight children; aiid William Walter, the children of John Walter, Jr., and the four children of the third wife, have no share in the said property.”