Court Opinion

ID: 9716361
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:35:38.156673+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:44.368869
License: Public Domain

*512
Menchine, J.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

With the exception of that part of the Court’s opinion declaring that Clause 2 presents two possibilities and that our decision supplies by intendment the words “before arriving at the age of twenty-one years,” I subscribe fully to that opinion and concur in the result ánnounced therein.
I consider, however, that the contingencies to a present possessory interest in the grandchildren as devised by the Will were limited to:
1. The life estates of the husband and of the daughter of the testatrix, and
2. The limitation over upon the contingency set forth in Clause 1.
I regard Clause 2 and Clause 3 as having a bearing on such present possessory interest if and only if, one (under Clause 2) or both (under Clause 3) of the grandchildren were affected by the contingency fixed in Clause 1. The record shows, of course, that they were not so affected.
In short, it is my view that the totality of the provisions of Clauses 1, 2 and 3 compel the conclusion, on the admitted facts of this record, that the grandchildren became vested with a fee simple title as tenants in common under the plain language of the Will, with no second possibility arising *513under Clause 2 and with no necessity for supply of words by our decision to establish the intendment of the testatrix.