*4 and MARIS, GOODRICH, Before WOODBURY, Circuit Judges Judge Circuit
MARIS, plaintiff, appealed E. The Else has Callwood, from the judgment Virgin entered the District Court of the Is- against brought her Os- defendant, in a suit lands agent, accounting for an her former his mond Kean, mortgages agent certain and to recover transactions as alleges belong moneys possession in his she which moneys mortgages controversy The her. had been certain from the sale of real estate in derived the town of Charlotte on the island St. Thomas. Amalie, The defend- preliminary pursuant to a order of the ant, court, furnished accounting deposited an the mort- gages, other question documents and check books in the clerk of the court. Thereafter Clifford W. L. Callwood party intervened aas defendant, with leave of claim- court, ing question. in the real pre- interest estate in The issue thereupon sented district court became one between intervening and the defendant and involved respective rights proceeds of that real estate. plaintiff, intervening Else E. and the de Callwood, Clifford L. fendant, W. are the Callwood, widow and son, respectively, Edgar of Richard Clifford Callwood, whom shall call the testator. It we was stated at bar that testator was born 1862 in Road Town, the isiand of Virgin age one of the British Islands. At the Tortola, 15 he came to the island of St. then one Thomas, Hamburg Danish to work for the Indies, West American manager capacity Line. He soon became its wharf he continued until his retirement 1913. He married the they daughter plaintiff in 1905 and had two children, intervening in 1906 and a Clifford, born son Waldfriede born in 1908. married defendant, Waldfriede 1934. She April 25, 1939. died on during appears residence in St. Thomas parcels purchased of real estate in a number
testator *5 subject litiga- is the of one of which Amalie, Charlotte taken in the however, that real estate was, tion. Title to subsequently mar- Anna Callwood who name of his sister 530 Upon Peiffer.
ried Jacob his retirement 1913 the testator family and his left Thomas and went to live in St. Ger- many. Previously, April on 1911 he and his 25, wife, plaintiff, joint presence had executed a will in the of Wilh. Notary Public St. it Jacobsen, of recorded Thomas, who length protocol. at in his at testator died Biebrich on Germany, January appears on 1917. It that 17, Rhine, joint notarial will he and his wife had executed which opened published St. and the district Thomas was court Germany, April at and filed 25, 1917 with Wiesbaden, pertinent provisions its are records. The set out in a footnote.1
Upon examining relying on see a Danish that, will we paragraph 1 Ordinance of reserved the testator 1845, joint right, of if to retain the whole survivor, dividing himself it children and his with wife without “Joint Will “No. accruing “I Edgar Callwood, right Richard to me Clifford reserve May Chapter Royal
husband in accordance 21st of with Ordinance of joint say retain, Section estate un- if I am our whole the survivor again. long marry divided with our as I not children do “No. 2. my Callwood, hereby give grant Edgar “I Richard said Clifford do wife, survivor, right Callwood, Mrs. Elsa same as men- E. she is the joint- retaining tioned sub. our No. 1 of our estate undivided long marry again. children as as she not does “As of however both us consider it to he all the benefit and of con- welfare cerned, right retaining joint-estate the said of our undivided be me, given Callwood, I, Edgar Mrs. Elsa E. under certain restrictions Richard I, Callwood, hereby decide, Clifford Callwood said Mrs. Elsa E. do right given following with the restrictions: obligatory me, immediately “It shall be for Mrs. Elsa E. Callwood at the my deposit cash-money, death of husband to all Bonds, Shares, and Securities belonging joint-estate only to draw the of interest same. In case of events, necessary money unforseen will make' it to withdraw the or to change securities, make a this can be done the consent of living Peiffer, Rhein, Mr. at Jacob Bieberick or in case of his death with (cid:127) Zwanzigér Mr. Otto the consent of whom the person Bieberick of Rhein or the surviving gentlemen may authority. transfer the said me, obligatory he Callwood, pay shall furthermore Mrs. Elsa every E. Edgar revenues which I receive to. Mr. month the Richard .Clifford Callwood’s *6 right upon by paragraph 2 conferred the same his wife, and plaintiff, if be the how- will, she should survivor. right provided paragraph that further in that ever, estate undivided should to retain namely, that she be certain restrictions, exercised under deposit immediately all upon “to was death her husband’s belonging cash-money, to and Securities Shares, Bonds, joint-estate only of same.” to the interest and draw lives, Mother, Callwood, long the amount of as she Mrs. A. as Caroline and Thirty long Josephine as she New York Dollars to Mrs. W. Branson of Dollars, paid be the first lives the to time sum of Fifteen these amounts day has at last Mr. Callwood’s death in which in each month. If the month after place day are amounts taken not amounts, last afterwards the monthly paid Legatees are entitled to claim stead due time the Company respectively annuities from reliable life-insurance Finally, re- Elsa E. Callwoods and 180 a Year. Mrs. 360 Dollars dollars part only say joint-estate of our taining third cease one of our 1/3 Callwood, me, the bal- E. while shall Mrs. Elsa whole ance accrue joint-children say parts, and share share shall accrue to our two third 2/3 alike, paternal inheritance. “No. 3. Amalie, Thomas, properties in the Town of Charlotte St. situated “The name, but of I., recorded Mrs. Peiffer’s which the which are D. W. us, belongs greater part viz: —Qtr. Dronningensgade and Half to Anna Mrs. R. Peiffer Property No. 38 Callwood. half to C. & —- Kgs. Norregade, Ktr. One third to Mrs. Anna R. Property Peiffer 25No. to C. Callwood. and two thirds Vestergade, Kgs. Ktr. Mrs. R. One Third to Anna Peiffer and Property No. 36 to C. Callwood. two-thirds Norregade Kgs. Belonging Ktr. to C. Callwood. Property 27D No. Ny, Taarnebjerg Belonging sub. No. 11 Kvtr. to C. Property 40A Callwood. No. Ny Belonging Haarnebjerg Callwood, No. 11 sub Kvtr. C. 40AA
Lot Number Kgs Belonging Norregade Callwood, Kvtr. to C. Property 19No. ” ” ” . Hospitalsline Kgs, Kvtr Property 17No. Kgs Hospitalsline Kvtr. ” ” ” Property 16No. Krps. Generalgade, Kvtr. ” ” ” Property 11D No. Krps. Generalgade, Property Kvtr. ” ” ” 11B No. Kgr Prindsensgade, Property Kvtr. ” ” ” No. 58 Kgr Prindsensgade, Kvtr. ” ” ” Property No. 59 decided, concerning properties it that if Mrs. Elsa E. be Callwood sister, Edgar Callwood’s Mrs. Anna Richard Clifford R. Mr. Peiffer survivor Edgar Mr. Richard Clifford death of Callwood the full have after shall including right out, to rent them of these with the con- benefit use pays taxes and fulfill'all dition, all duties incumbent that she owner stipulated “In events, further case unforseen necessary money make it which will withdraw or to change make a this can be done securities, *7 the consent of Peiffer Mr. Jacob . . . or in , case of his Zwanziger death with the consent of Mr. Otto . . ., the person surviving gentlemen may the whom provided authority.” transfer the said was also the plaintiff, pay annuities she certain survived, against public, repair keeps properties proper and insured the that she the in against deposited company, policies fire in a to be reliable fire insurance the money paragraph as the cash and further that she etc. in No. 2 mentioned pays monthly present a at at amount of Miss Iza Callwood Dollars 15 unto Finally New-chatel, Switzerland, long school in of them are alive. as as both my possible it is a condition that after death has the Mrs. Peiffer as soon as properties recorded in or if she is not the name Elsa E. Callwood of Mrs. taking possession belonging this, joint-estate, has of our and that she they may only a mortgaged recorded as servitude that be sold or with the gentlemen, keeping power Paragraph consent of the the No. 2. mentioned any If any properties, of these conditions are not the fulfilled for expenses recording paid by joint-estate, for the to be is she no more gentlemen keep- have the properties, use benefit of that on these and the ing power questions, monthly above mentioned is to decide these but if the amounts annuity paid for Miss Iza may Callwood are not in due time she claim an year of Dollars company. 180 a from reliable life-insurance If properties mortgaged these become due the cash mentioned in policies should be sold or or the fire insurance proceeds money are to be administered as the cash etc. paragraph payments No. 2 and the to Miss Iza Callwood to be joint-estate. continued for her life time from our
“No. 4. joint-estate “In necessary, case division of our Legacies should become paid joint-children are to be Mrs. Elsa E. proportionately Callwood and our take; any to be the shares each of them should but if of them should not wish pay submit legaties to times the himself to this he shall be free to once for all the yearly amount, paid, pay else he should have or to for them company in a annuities should have reliable life-insurance to the same amount as else he paid. money paid way “The cash policy to Miss Iza Callwood or the bought money etc, for her to be administered as the cash mentioned in Para- graph No. 2.
“No. 5. depositing money, Bonds, Shares, Securities, “Bank or Banks for and Policies gentlemen keeping are to be determined in Para- mentioned graph No. 2. “No. 6. joint-will and Notary “This our Protokol testament to be recorded in the Publics copy and a from this is in all cases to be of same value and con- original sequence dokument. as this . . .” A. testator’s and to Callwood, mother, Caroline Jose- during phine their sister, lives. Neither Branson, W. living. annuitants is As been of these two now has said, plaintiff, at the testator and his time of the death wife, residing Germany of-the in 1917 former were and so thereupon appears possession far took joint personal estate and dealt with it in accordance provisions applicable and the law. We personal present are not concerned estate litigation, however. disposition is of concern to us this case is the
What Dronningens No. 38 one of Gade, Queen’s Quarter, parcels of real situate in the town Charlotte *8 by paragraph dealt St. which is with Amalie, Thomas, 3 parcels paragraph 13 of the will. That lists of real estate although and recites that the titles to all of them had been in the recorded name of Anna the Peiffer, testator’s sister, greater belongs part Specifically, “the to us”. the will re- Dronningens that No. 38 cites Gade, Queen’s was Quarter, by by one-half Mrs. Peiffer and one-half owned C. Call- Norregade, King’s that No. 25 and No. 36 wood, Quarter, Yestergade, by were owned one-third Queen’s Quarter, by remaining Mrs. Peiffer and C. The two-thirds Callwood. belonging properties ten recited were to C. Callwood provides Paragraph plaintiff 3 further the alone. Peiffer the Anna survivor, should be have the use parcels all of real upon and benefit of estate for life annuity pay an to Iza during condition that she Callwood further condition lives that she “as my possible properties after death soon as has recorded taking in the name of E. or if Mrs. Elsa Callwood she is not joint-estate, belonging possession of our to this, and that they may only recorded as a servitude she has be sold gentlemen, keeping or consent mortgaged power Paragraph mentioned in No. 2.” to the Pursuant directions- will and accord agreement signed by plaintiff, awith written Anna and Notary Jacob Peiffer before a Public at Ger- Wiesbaden, many, April by Anna and Jacob deed 26, 1924, Pieffer, conveyed plaintiff par- dated June to the 7, the 18 1924, par- cels of real estate in Amalie Charlotte mentioned agraph by 3 of A life estate the deed will. was reserved subject payment by to Anna her of the an- Peiffer, nuity specified to Iza Callwood as will, proviso mortgaged that the could not be sold, disposed otherwise the consent of the without “trustees” Zwanziger. named in the Jacob Peiffer and Otto The will, given life Peiffer estate thus to Anna will and con- enjoyed by during firmed her the re- deed was July mainder of her life and until her death on payment annuity The to Iza Callwood was settled July lump to her in as con- of a sum by paragraph templated will. nearly employed for Kean, Osmond defendant, agent
thirty years by collec- Anna Peiffer as management properties. of these and the tion of rents intervening February de- and the 1942 the On attorney appointing Kean fendant executed a *9 manage, agent attorney lease and in fact to and as their at stated Indies. was in the West sell their real estate in the real estate St. in addition to Thomas to bar already the testator was the referred, own- which we have Bay Cane Garden estates the is- er of the Arendella and of Great Thatch Island, as the whole land of Tortola as well Virgin had been owned Islands, all in the British died who intestate Callwood, his Richard Louis father, employed and in that Kean was intervening managing properties. defendant in attorney May plain- in fact for the 1946 Kean, On Dronningens approval 38 tiff and No. Gade sold the purchaser of The deed to was $45,000. for sum attorney signed in Kean as fact both intervening price of and the defendant.2 The sale $45,000 applied by appears from account to have been Kean’s him as follows: existing mortgages payment on the
To the of 3,960.21 $ expenses 5,174.78 To sale commission and Paiewonsky mortgage loans to To investment in 25,000.00 and Beretta interest in To undivided investment 8/45ths Kronprindsens Charlotte Gade, No. 87 2,075.00 Amalie plain- payments of, the account To or for to, 9,052.70 tiff intervening 650.00 payments defendant To
$45,912.69 payments the amount of the over The excess of these received up price $3,000 of the sum made out sale principal of the payments on account Kean as pro- leaving cash Paiewonsky mortgage balance loans, Dronningens hands his Gade ceeds of the sale of No. accounting at the in the district court time he filed his together amounting net rents This sum, to $2,087.31. following provisions: 2 The deed contains the
husband of mother heir have died and that income from the part to wit: out of said life interest.” be sold without Clifford Clifford “That Mrs. Anna “That at shall and law of the aforesaid Elsa Callwood, Jacob Peiffer and Otto it is (Richard Edgar stipulated deed). hereby guarantees party the consent of the *10 property Wilheim Peiffer, resident of of the first for her grantor’s Clifford the sister of the above named Richard Leverick Zwanziger, which said two trustees both Germany, lifetime, that she will part, Emma Callwood Trustees named Callwood title deed Clifford Richard and that years old, Callwood, aforesaid, satisfy Edgar premises Clifford all claims party her late husband the son has will of the late entitled to the of the first joined Callwood, shall not arising Edgar plaintiff, appears Kean for the to be on de- collected Virgin posit in bank account in the National Bank Islands styled at Amalie Kean in for Charlotte “Osmond Trust Elsa and L. Callwood C. W. Callwood.” The investments Paiewonsky mortgage which Kean made in the and Beretta Kron- loans and undivided interest No. 87 8/45ths prindsens plaintiff taken in the of the Gade were names intervening jointly. and the All of the transac- defendant Dronningens respect tions with of No. 38 Gade sale proceeds and the investment derived therefrom were carried Peiffer or Otto out the consent of Jacob without Zwanziger, persons in the to exercise that named power, Zwanziger having September 1929 and died on February Jacob Peiffer on July
After the life died on tenant, 11, 1947, Anna Peiffer, plaintiff question her and son, arose between rights respective intervening and to their as defendant, mortgages, and cash hands interests in the deed in their names. he holds seen, have Kean, which, we authority of Kean plaintiff thereupon revoked believing attorney agent and, in fact act and mortgages, deed and possession of the she was entitled to he turn them over controversy, cash in demanded the suit now do so instituted her and his refusal court already the district stated, been before us. As has directing Kean preliminary the defendant made a order accounting of his transactions an to file mortgages the court the the clerk of turn over to and to agent, him as this was held documents and other proceeded to consider the re the court Thereafter done. intervening rights spective defend hearing opinion court filed After full ant.
it concluded:
“(1) That Kean has no interest defendant Osmond by him, any property and all held deliver *11 Callwood, accounting may have, Mrs. to who
he submit estate, children; joint her holds the whole still Callwood, possessory Intervenor, no “(2) has That Clifford herein, mother, plaintiff now his in the estate which interest heirs, being he one of them. for herself and holds as trustee Callwood, mother, plaintiff, E. should Else In the event will; marry, provided estate is to be divided as appoint its someone in discretion “(3) That Court persons to whom the. place of the named in the will to take the provided in the may go unforeseen events as in case of will; and property No. 38 proceeds the sale of the
“(4) That mortgage Queen’s Quarter, together Gade, Dronningens with the deposited thereon, mortgages should also be taken which were may person deter- named the Court as the said such bank mine.” judgment in accordance with entered court
The district appointed Bornn, St. D. Victor conclusions deceased, the successor Jacob Peiffer, Thomas, Zwanziger, person to exercise the deceased, Otto authority by paragraph 2 of the From this will. conferred appealed. judgment contends that the has She controversy deciding court erred in outright belong and that the court was not to her does power appoint to exercise the Bornn without Mr. by paragraph 2 conferred of the will Jacob Peiffer Zwanziger. and Otto questions
While raised this case are at common, part, parcels least in all 13 of the real estate in the by para- town of Charlotte Amalie are dealt graph questions 3 of the testator’s those are directed will, solely proceeds in this suit of No. 38 sale Dron- ningens Gade and the investments made Kean out of proceeds. question right those There no as to the plaintiff to the income from those investments nor toas right properties. rents of the other And the. yet no been sold properties not have since those proceeds. presently raised as question can be proceeds of the sale of support claim to of her In upon the fact plaintiff relies Dronningens Gade No. 38 Peiffer and legal in Anna not *12 thereto vested that title upon death. She also relies the date of his in the testator at Notary April agreement before 1924, the executed Germany, at between herself and Wiesbaden, Public Anna from Peiffer and the deed Anna and Jacob and Jacob Peiffer pursuant to herself dated 1924 which was executed June agreement. agreement question to the The in recited that properties three of the 13 paragraph dealt inwith 3 of the part property will were in and the part property testator and in were of Anna Peiffer or joint property agreement of the Peiffers. The went on provide properties that all the should nonetheless devolve property as her exclusive and that “In so place through far as testamentary this has not taken disposition mentioned above, husband and wife Peiffer hereby ownership rights, transfer any, all and other respect properties, owned them in of the said real party mentioned under A. E. who ac- [Else Callwood], cepts, any so that the latter in becomes, event, sole properties owner of all the above real or shares of real properties agreed parties mentioned above.” was that the necessary steps concerned should take the to transfer properties prevailing in accordance law in St. provided agreement Thomas. It in was further that Ann Peiffer should be entitled to a life in interest the whole parcels of the 13 of real referred to in the will agreement and the and that her death her husband, Jacob he Peiffer, survived be entitled to a should,.if her, Dronningens life interest No. 38 No. 25 Norre- Gade, gade Vestergade No. 36 to the extent to which his prop undivided shares those Anna owned
wife, Peiffer, right.3 in her own erties agree- plaintiff’s that virtue of this contention is Anna and Jacob Peiffer executed
ment and the deed which acquired pursuant to it an ab- to her she and delivered properties simple men- to all 13 of title in fee solute subject only paragraph to the life 3 of the will tioned Peiffer and free and and Jacob to Anna estates reserved any estate therein. She her husband’s interest of clear properties proviso in the deed asserts disposed mortgaged otherwise with- could not be sold, created named the “trustees” the consent of out reality involving void mere naked which is any on alienation event restraint unlawful *13 by appointment the court after cannot be revived surviving desig- the death of the individual Peiffer, Jacob by power. the nated the testator to exercise agreement do not think that the We and deed were plaintiff intended to have the effect for which the contends. agreement quite For it clear that the was entered into, part acceptance testamentary in disposi- at in of the least, purpose tion made the will of the testator and for the of carrying agreement, following it out. the Indeed, recital provisions paragraph 3 of the will, contained an express that statement to follows: it effect, “Since has following become the death of certain, now Mr. Richard Edgar party Clifford his Callwood, widow, men- Appearers, all tioned under is the A., survivor, we, have foregoing testamentary disposition accepted the carrying it out as and are . . .” Testator follows: pursuant executed the deed which was to it Likewise equally clear recital to same effect.4 contains an And 3 Since Jacob did not survive wife this life estate never took effect Peiffer accordingly does not concern us. I, Peiffer, Callwood, By All Anna R. 4 “Know Men These Presents That born husband, T, Peiffer, (1) and in Jacob her consideration of one not sufficient to establish the if this were need fact, we already point proviso premises to the mentioned that the conveyed plaintiff mortgaged to the cannot be sold, or disposed otherwise her “without consent of the trustees named Mr. Callwood’s above mentioned will”. signed plaintiff joint Moreover the will which parcels recited the 13 of real Charlotte although recorded in her Amalie, sister-in-law’s name, belonged greater part to the testator and herself. She signed agreement April also 26, 1924, which likewise clearly recited the same fact. She cannot be now heard to contrary assert to the that the testator had no interest they properties belonged outright these but that to his conveyed sister Anna Peiffer the fee to her who agreement deed. conclude that the effect of the We while plaintiff legal and deed transfer title to properties, the extent nonetheless to that Anna Peif fer had held that title for testator took community properties title to the deceased hus joint part of their and as estate to be band, testator, provisions held of their her under the will. Fur provisions of that thermore we conclude that will and disposing restraining par from of the deed the consent of Jacob Peiffer cels of the estate without Zwanziger Otto were valid effective in accordance *14 fully their terms and that the district court was em powered appoint to Mr. Bornn to act under the will as their capacity. in successor We shall elaborate our reasons reaching these conclusions. the involves the title to real in Since it in St. Thomas is to be construed accordance with the have wood unto Mrs. Elsa E. last will and dollar to us [1911] by granted aforesaid, the late Richard paid, testament made and the accordance with the directions contained in the and in conveyed Callwood, real property Edgar Callwood, and the and by widow known and described as: executed of Richard and his wife Elsa E. presents in St. Thomas on do Edgar grant . . Clifford Call- and Callwood, April 15, convey
541 in that in force island when the of law will went rules January date of the 17, 1917, into effect on testator’s in force in At that time law St. Thomas death.5 was Danish in force when the that of Denmark. The law island remained in Indies after force, one of Danish West was July change sovereignty,6 until 1921 it 1, when was of by Municipality superseded of St. Code of Laws for the John Danish Thomas and which substituted St. England upon the common law law rules of law based in the as understood United States.7 5 Restatement, Conflict of Laws: OF TERMINATION
Ҥ 248. SHARE OF
IN LAND UPON
SPOUSE
MARRIAGE.
statutory
“(1)
interest
The existence
a
law or
and extent of
common
by
surviving spouse
spouse
determined
the land of
are
deceased
is.
of the state
the land
law
where
Ҥ 249. WILL OF LAND.
validity
are determined
“The
and
a will of an interest
land
effect of
by
land
the law of the state where the
is.”
locally
January 17, 1917,
Virgin
6 TheDanish laws
Islands
in force
treaty
by
when
Denmark
the United
ratifications of
of cession
provided
exchanged,
until
States were
remained
force
otherwise
Congress
having jurisdiction, pursuant
to [ch.
or
Colonial Council
3,
V.I.C.],
1917,
[prec. 1
2 of the Act of March
39 Stat. 1132
171] Section
48
1392.
property
U.S.C. §
Rights
Thomas which vested under the Danish law
St.
July 1,
(see
infra)
prior
island
1921
note
were not
force in
7
change
sovereignty
by the
on that date
affected
substitution
(1830)
law.
United
4 Pet.
of the rules of
511,
common
Soulard v.
States
511,
938;
(1833)
7 L.
United
Percheman
7 Pet.
29 U.S.
Ed.
States v.
410,
51,
604;
(1838)
51,
8 L. Ed.
Strother v. Lucas
12 Pet.
32 U.S.
1137;
(1857)
176,
410,
20 How.
9 L. Ed.
Leitensdorfer v. Webb
U.S.
U.S.
Accordingly
176,
of the Danish law in
L. Ed. 891.
the rules
force
rights today.
rights
property
those
vested define
United
when such
(1947)
256,
1287,
331 U.S.
67 S. Ct.
It be observed the Dan- will by a to authorize his ish to husband law widow possession community property remain in of their or by para- estate was exercised here who, testator May 21, 1845, Concerning changes 10 Ordinanee of certain In the Law of heritance, 18, 19: §§ er, Dod, pligtig 18. En Mand efter sin Kones ikke at med “§ skifte sig myndige Bern, umyndige, saalaenge deres faelleds eller han vaere sig Aegteskab, nyt Aegtepagter ikke indlader i medmindre eller andre gyldige Nedvendigheden Bestemmelser maatte af medfere et saadant Ogsaa Disposition Skifte. til staaer det Manden en testamentarisk at ved — tillaegge sin Hustru samme Ret til at beholde det hele Bo undeelt. Mangel Kjebenhavn Magistraten, Men i af en saadan Bestemmelse skal i og Amtmanden; ellers kunne indremme hende Tilladelse til’ i sin Enke- hensiijdende Bern, umyndige stand i at skifftet Bo med forblive hendes paalidelige godtgjor, huuslig og naar med hun Attester at hun en er for- — ogsaa standig Ovrighed Kvinde. Denne Frihed kan af bemeldte til- hende, uagtet umyndige Stedbern, det, ifelge der ere staaes naar den Vaerges Erklaering trovaerdigt Vidnesbyrd, fedte eller andet kan an- serge tages, tilberlgin Underholdning og hun vil Opdragelse. at for deres — Enlige og Betingelser laengs- kan under Frihed samme indremmes den Hensyn umyndige til myndige tlevende Mand med hans Stedbern. Hvad angaaer, Laengstlevende pligtig Stedbern da bliver den at med skifte dem, paa der, medmindre de selv renuneere Skifte. Naar imedens den Laengstlevende Bo, Hensidder i uskiftet skulde tilfalde ham eller hende uafhaengig Noget Adkumst, Gave, en af Boet ved isaer ved Arv eller da Laengstlevende berettiget skal vaere til at den holde det saaledes Erhver- Betingelse af, Boet, forlanges, under at vede udenfor Skifte strax inden i er indkommet Boet. det Erhvervede foregaaende laengstlevende i 19. Den den omhandlede-Ret for den § “§ Aegtefaelle, Bo, opherer, til at i forblive hensiddende uskiftet naar han nyt sig Aegteskab. i . . .” hun indlader eller is, death, A husband after his wife’s not bound to divide with [“§ they children, minor, long whether are adult or as he not does marriage-contracts remarry, binding or' or other determinants create necessity for such division. husband also has the testamentary disposition right to confer on his wife the same to retain property undivided. But if there be no such the whole determination governor Copenhagen, Magistracy county, may grant community permission in her widowhood to remain in with her children, honest she attestations shows that frugal minor she is a expressly graphs 2 3 of authorized his will, wife, plaintiff, of their to retain whole estate un- of their children to the exclusion until her divided and re- marriage. appears that under the Danish law a surviv- ing possession spouse retained who thus of the community *17 mortgage was entitled to sell or it or otherwise dispose to deal of it as absolute although owner, perhaps duty compensate under a to their children as heirs any aggregate for undue diminution in the of value their Accordingly inheritance.11 if the had not inl- testator here intelligent power may woman. This also authorities be the above given her, although according step-children, there are minor to guardian’s testimony, declaration or other reliable can be it ascertained decently support she will upbringing. care for their A similar provisions may given surviving under the same be ato husband as step-children. his to minor step-children, surviving spouse As to adult them, they must divide with unless a themselves If renounce division. occur, community there property, surviving spouse continuing while the independent property, especially claim to the as to inheri- gifts, surviving spouse tance or then the shall be entitled to withhold such acquisition property, outside the with the limitation that division im- be mediately acquisition demanded property. when the has come to the right surviving spouse, previous The of the “§ mentioned sec- tion, community property to remain spouse ceases when the remar- ries.”] Samling gjaeldende og Anordninger af endnu Love af m.v. mere almindelig Interesse, udagiven Indenrigsministeriets Foranstaltning efter (Ved Klein), 1834-1848, Kjebenhavn, (1862). Justitsraad C. S. prevailing general of the now Laws and [Collection Ordinances of more nature, setting up Ministry handed down after the of the for West (By Klein), 1834-1848, Copenhagen (1862),] Indies Court Counsellor C. S. pp. 627-638. Federspiel, Legislation 11 Faurholt and Recent Danish on the Hus Relation of Wife, p. band and ibid. 13: “Formerly wife, the husband was entitled on the death of his on con- marriage him, dition that her other heirs take of were issue to joint being right their former over then invested with the of remarriage. an owner till his own death or The estate was then to be partitioned, being according one half distributed to the order of succes- death, at the time wife’s sion of the the other half as it was on hus- estate, Separate however, always band’s death. had to be distributed at right wife, The husband could will confer the same once. on but so, only had he omitted to do she could with the consent of the authorities joint possession estate, (resp. grandchild of the and each child remain etc.) liquidation portion coming age. of its step- could claim With arrangement made, a could children similar be but in that ease both heirs, husband and wife had obtain official sanction. With collateral posed upon restrictions alienation validity already and the have referred, to which we will-presently unquestionably she would discuss, which we . right mortgage dispose or otherwise had the to sell, have belonging of the real Thomas es- estate in St. right also the to take tate of the and herself and testator dispose pro- possession of and invest otherwise merely compensate being responsible at the most ceeds, any result diminution, children undue gifts made in the their share value her, right provide indefeasible, substitution whose with the same effect.” is not could respect appears law been codified in former have infra), April 20, (see of which Danish section 6 Law of footnote provides: Raadighed Aegtefaelle Ejers laengstlevende over en “6. Den undever til de Boet herende Midler. Gave, Aegtefaellen i der staar af Boet har bortskaenket en “Hvis *18 Formue, Gavemodtageren og have eller burde til Boets har Misforhold omstedt, Arvingerne dette, saafremt kan af kraeve Gaven indset enhver Arvingen rejses efter, Sag at inden 3 Maaneder til Gavens Omstedelse Gaven, og Fuld- senest inden Aar efter Gavens er blevet vidende om Begaering byrdelse, og ifelge Tidsfrist fremsat Boet en inden samme Skiftebehandling. tages under vaesentlight Raadighed Misbrug Aegtefaellen Boet af sin over “Har ved skiftes, begaere dette, Arvingerne, kan naar Faellesboet formindsket Vederlag .i Fald for af det beholdne Faellsbo eller fornedent derfor betrag Saereje. Misbrug manglende det Beleb af hans Som Halvdelen af Retshandler, gaar paa Aegtefaellen navnlig ud at skaffe saadanne der tes 1— hej Tegning uforholdsmaessig foregede Indtaegter f. af en Eks. selv — Begunstigelse den, Aegtefaellen tilsigter af hvem en med Livrente eller Arvingerne.” forlovet, af af eller enkelte er surviving right spouse exercises an owner’s over the estate. The [“6. gift disproportionately large part spouse a has made a the “If estate, was been aware dis- and the donee or have of such the parity, gift proceedings begun to the lies if are within an action rescind knowledge by acquiring such the heirs to set aside the months of three year performed gift after the transaction was and at the and within partition application for immediate distribution time same lodged. is estate materially by abusing right dispose spouse has reduced to “If may heirs, joint divided, estate, when estate is value of insufficient, compensation the remainder and if this is then out of claim surviving spouse’s separate property. out of half for Instances of purporting are to increase the transactions survivor’s abuses income as large disproportionately life-annuity, taking showing out a or favor to any particular betrothed or heir survivor’s or the Love, heirs.”] Danmarks Copenhagen 1665-1937, (1937), pp. 971-973. remarriage upon death or the earlier division estate property. rights given by to thus the Danish law the surviv- ing joint community spouse estate can- who retains concepts in terms of common since not be described law rights foreign Specifi- quite to the common those are law. cally they of trustee and ben- cannot be described as those eficiary, suggested opinion. court its Nor district classify necessary attempt them it under us rights note the common law. is sufficient- under these circum- conferred a widow Danish law rights point and to out that vested stances respect plaintiff upon the death of the testator with community, property they held sub- St. Thomas which ject only as the testator his will to such restrictions validly imposed upon her. point necessary
At it becomes to an advert other rule of the Danish Under that rule law. when sur viving spouse takes over the estate to the exclusion children, consists not of what actually joint property spouse’s at the time of the death but surviving addition all spouse which the acquires later to the extent it that would have been com
munity property acquired during if it had been the marr iage.12
12 This rule footnote blevet the three Love, 1665-1937, Ibid. into the community property laengstlevende Aegtefaelle efter, at han er kommet det uskiftede “5. I det uskiftede Bo “Inheritance or “Arv eller [“5. surviving spouse months of the Faelleseje, Into the also has 14, infra), community property, Bo, Gave, community property goes been codified in the Danish Law of saafremt hvis Erhvervelsen var sket under gifts, som tilfalder den Section 5 later acquisition coming it had which accrue to the til Kundskab om Arvefaldet eller Gaven.” Aegtefaellen begaerer acquires senere indgaar as been if the follows: erhverver, to the extent acquired foruden Faellesvoet spouse laengstlevende, to his besides the survivor, however, demands a during knowledge.”] Skifte inden 3 Maaneder saa Aegteskabet. the vidt det vilde vaere joint April 20, indgaar dog it would have been marriage. partition alt, estate Danmarks hvad den do not all that within ikke i (see go in this rule the real estate St.
Under Thomas with belonged are here to the extent that it concerned, which we though the in fact the held in name of Anna to testator, regarded part of the must be as a estate and Peiffer, legal subsequently to it ac so treated the title was when by by plaintiff quired For the testator in the the deed. except to as his as shares own, claimed this real estate belonged properties Anna he conceded three of the ownership admitted Anna claim of Peiffer. His April signed agreement of Peiffer she when Unquestionably if Anna of June 7, deed given real testator’s a deed for this Peiffer had do after his death, directed will he as his lifetime, community part property become would have plaintiff. it must Therefore the testator and pursuant having to his regarded such, when become as be plaintiff. Ac conveyed to his widow, it title to was will, plaintiff therein cordingly, interest to the testator’s same, rights surviving in it as spouse it holds legal in him vested title had been had if have would she prior to death. a sur law, the Danish said, have under
As we community prop retaining possession of viving spouse mortgage it or other ordinarily or erty to sell entitled present In the case, it owner. as absolute deal wise placed testator his will seen, have as we however, right as sur restrictions definite property. viving provided spouse he to deal with Thus only mortgaged might be sold with the that it consent Zwanziger then Peiffer or Otto case Jacob might necessary make events which it unforeseen for the principal change or to make to use prop erties which estate was invested. Moreover he provided deposit that she designated banks be Zwanziger money Jacob Peiffer or Otto all and securi- *20 including proceeds belonging estate, ties any properties. of the sale of strongly urges made that these restrictions
by incorporated, far so as restraint the will and are as in the deed to invalid her, alienation concerned, is constituting on alienation restraint unlawful upon any power Peiffer and Jacob in event the conferred lapsed Zwanziger personal which Otto awas by lawfully be revived their death and cannot which person to ex- through appointment of another court support has In contentions ercise it. of these' regard cited numerous common we However, .law cases. ques- wholly again inapposite these cases here since tion is to be determined the Danish law which was force in St. Thomas when the testator died. We, therefore, again turn to the consideration of that law. appears that under the Danish law husband who surviving right his will conferred his wife the
possession community property right had also the stipulate dispose property that she could of that the consent of an individual inwho Danish is called a “Tilsynsvaerge” may perhaps best be rendered English “guardian”. concept guardian This of a to ad management vise a very widow of her is concept ancient in developed the Danish and the law,13 point more recent times that a husband was em powered guardian to name such a his that in 13 Codeof Christian prejudices Translated For the Use of the ments in Matters of and Character.” The Danish Laws: “41. A widow shall choose one of her “42. If such Probity, Advice, America, to be her and substitute Person, Moment, Affairs, V, 1683, London Guardian; chose or, shall subscribe Book the Code of Christian the Fifth. in his Place some other Person of Prudence (1756), p. Magistrate by Widow, III, Chap. XVII, English whose Advice she is to Inhabitants of the Danish Settle- jointly shall hinder her from Relations, litigious, with her. Articles any follow; and 42: other Person his Conduct Faithfully following who, *21 possession retain of to authorized his widow he strument Accordingly the named testator when estate.14 per Zwanziger in his Peiffer and Otto Jacob required the or other dis to sale consent was sons whose by he exer was joint property his widow position the of in Thomas in force right then St. cising the law a which individuals succes appointment of these gave him. His to guardian was for his widow sively the duties to assume guard a Danish law the entirely accordingly Under valid. ap subject termination to ianship created was thus application of might on also propriate court which guardian act with to designate a right part husband of the 14 This community- disposition of their management surviving in the wife 1926, April 20, expressly provided Danish Law of property for was right concerning spouse’s a 120, law and revised the which codified No. course, act, in community property. was never That inheritance however, appear a provisions, to be to Virgin Its in Islands. force previously existing great a codification of the Danish extent law prior Danish Indies in force West to 1917. Thus the noted authority, Viggo Bentzon, who was chairman of the Danish dele Danish Arveret, gates participated drafting act, of the in Den Danske who 55-56, Copenhagen (1931), pp. states: hvorefter Manden ved Testamente tagelse Hensidden med aeldre isaer hvor Formuen er ret bestyre vaerge, og dent egen “Loven af 1926 har Enken med gaelde som i fra samt en kun Praksisog formue, Ligestilletheden Arvingernes Enkemanden.” fastsaette, Hensyn kan raade over Faellesboet med ofte er gennemfort til hvem der skal udfore dette Hverv. begrundet vil Interesse; Adgangen til at hensidde i uskiftet Bo. En und- betydelig, og traenge betegner dog i den principiel Ligestilling kan disse Forhold vil derimod saare til Gennemsnitsbetragtning, en bestemme, hun Reglen saadan ingen Samtykke i L.s Tilsynsvaerge, at Hustruen Ovelse har § Reglen af en Enkemanden Stk., vundet under sin at Stemmer Tilsyns- saavel 1. Enken, sjael- Pkt., i at i widower and widow with property. An the wife under her continuation in that widower.”] shall and is based community estate is [“The estate, Stk., carry 1926 law has achieved a very considerable, often will need such out Pkt., on the consideration exception issue; under which the husband can with the duty. but respect The rule is in accord this this consideration would seldom and she has had no consent of similarity, can guardian, high degree only manage a right guardian, however, both widow, especially experience with the older continue over or her own interest similarity then will determine revealed appointed, dispose apply community where the as to the managing practice, L.s § that who appoint guardian necessary.15 widow another for her if probate The- Danish law conferred this (cid:127) Virgin court. In the Islands district court has powers probate of a court. follows, therefore, empowered, district court was in its to continue discretion, guardianship appointment of Mr. Bornn as suc ceeding guardian powers for the to execute the *22 imposed upon testamentary guardians, the Jacob Peiffer Zwanziger, by and Otto the testator’s will. question
One further must be considered. will be re- respect parcels membered that three the of of real only estate in Charlotte the testator claimed un- Amalie, divided in fractional therein and admitted his interests beneficially that the Anna owned sister, Peiffer, remaining properties. interest in three This was also those April agreement recited 1924 to be the in 26, fact the signed. plaintiff The which the Peiffer and Anna and Jacob beneficially by included interests Anna Peiffer thus owned prop- Dronningens the one-half in Gade, interest No. 38 erty by particularly here think involved. We agreement it of 1924 intended that was undivided by beneficially interest thus Anna Peiffer in owned No. Dronningens properties 38 and the other Gade' two conveyed simple plaintiff be in fee to the in her own inde- pendent right surviving spouse possession and not of the Accordingly estate of the testator and herself. 15 ViggoBentzon, Arveret, ibid., p. Den Danske 56: Tilsynsvaergemaalet (for Hustruen) “Efter denne kan straks eller Overovrigheden (med Justitsministeren) ophaeves, senere af Rekurs til ikke, mere, hvor tilstraekkelig begrundet Hensynet det eller ikke Andes i Livsarvingernes til (i Magis- Enkens eller Tarv. Skifteretten Kobenhavn traten) ogsaa ‘paa grundet Begaering’ kan af Enken beskikke hende en Tilsynsvaerge.” ander provision guardianship wife) (for may [“Under immedi- ately by Magistrate Upper (with appeal or later be set aside to the Justice), Minister of if it is not now or does not continue to be suffi- ciently living based on the needs of the widow or issue. The Probate Court (in Copenhagen Magistracy) may also on a reasonable demand of provide guardian.”] the widow her with another Anna and the deed of June hold
we agreement pursuant Anna Peiffer executed Jacob prop- three interest Peiffer’s undivided beneficial conveyed plaintiff individ- erties was to and vested ually. It that Anna Peiffer’s undivided interest is clear community property part had never been a any and that plaintiff when and her husband sense agreement interest in 1924 the executed and deed were individually subject not Anna Peiffer owned superseded having Thomas St. been Danish that law law, July common law.16 the rules proviso con There remains consider plaintiff premises tained in 1924 the that the the deed of conveyed thereby mortgaged or otherwise cannot be sold, disposed consent Jacob without Zwanziger, the “trustees” named Peiffer and Otto contends that testator’s will. this restriction *23 power is void as a naked which does not involve a trust merely operates but upon as an unlawful restraint aliena agree plaintiff’s tion. We cannot with the contention so far as concerns the which Anna Peiffer held for conveyed testator plaintiff and which the deed to the part as a of the estate under the will. For as to this property the merely deed, as we have was held, intended carry out the directions of the testator’s will and the powers granted Zwanziger by to Jacob Peiffer and Otto the will valid. were question remains as to whether the restraint proviso
alienation involved in the contained in the deed is applied valid as to the undivided beneficial interest of Dronningens Anna Peiffer in Gade and the No. other conveyed properties have the deed held, two as we which, property. plaintiff individual as her own We do not question, reach conclude since we however, 7, supra. 16 Seefootnote parties apply
proviso to this not intended was plaintiff interest of the and does not do so. We individual proviso apply think it is clear that the intended to acquired properties to that interest part of the under the deed of the which was testator Anna Peiffer’s beneficial and herself and not to acquired interest therein also which proviso Peiffer and Otto Zwan- deed. For the refers to Jacob evidently ziger in- It will. was trustees under testator’s paragraph pursuant 3 of the cluded to the direction as a servitude” when will that it should be “recorded properties conveyance Anna Peiffer was made think we was, therefore, which she held for the testator. Zwanziger merely give and Otto Peiffer intended to Jacob power they That the will. had under same which from was, we have derived the Danish law. Under seen, guardian appointed had thus for a law widow separate nothing independent estate.17 to do her own proviso are the more led to this construction We ap- because construed as of the fact that if it were be plicable plaintiff acquired indi- to the interest vidually by it the deed from Anna Peiffer would seem clearly against public policy to be and invalid as constitut- ing guardian- alienation.18For unlawful restraint on 17 Viggo Bentzon, 18 Prey vaerge ifolge Myndhl.s Kap. 6, jfr. Opregningen af the position Jur., Perpetuities manages *24 Paragrafferne Myndhl.) Majority erty, Over sit [120] (1899) “Tilsynvaergen [“The 2. v. Atl. paragraphs under L.s Stk., Stanley (1895) 177 Ill. as a 519, 521; Restatement, Property, guardian Saereje Law ... independently Den Danske Pkt. aldeles guardian i in the § raader hun har m. H. t. Midlerne and has with 2, § 52 N.E. 2.' 56. Over her own 110 Cal. Restraints Majority Law) with Stk., of the faaet samme Arveret, gennemgaaende respect 843; respect uafhaengig 2. 423, guardian.”] Pkt., completely (with Battin v. Battin ibid., p. 56: to the effects in the [42] Alienation, to Pac. Befojelse og Stilling independent separate obtained the same minority af i § det (ved Tilsynsvaergen.” 406 and comment 908; uskiftede Bo § ligefrem Henvisning under Muhlke v. Tiedenmann (1923) §§ i Chapter like reference to community prop- denne 94 N.J. authority som en Lav- ifolge interest h; Lovs [6] Eq. 497, 41 Am. of the L.s § and she 56. til § nothing by had in his will
ship provided for the testator authority no find can that interest we do to with accepted rules under the imposing such a restraint Zwanziger and Otto Peiffer both Jacob Indeed, common law. the restraint being consent, to thus unable deceased and that the the fact in view be absolute would now by appointed guardian the successor of Mr. Bornn, law from which Danish not under does court, district individually prop- powers extend to owned he derives his plain- that the erty plaintiff. therefore, conclude, of the We dispose tiff to deal of the undivided is entitled Dronningens pro- in No. 38 and its one-half interest Gade individually, any she free from ceeds, which owns control guardian by appointed the testator’s will or the court. point helpful at this will be summarize our conclu- Upon July
sions. the death of Anna Peiffer on became entitled to a one-half interest proceeds Dronningens of the sale of No. 38 outright. Gade Upon happening of the same event she became entitled proceeds to the other one-half of the sale of No. 38 Dronningens surviving spouse Gade as entitled until her remarriage joint death or to hold the estate of her deceased community husband and herself to the exclusion of their subject provisions but to those children, the will which require long joint so the entire her, as she holds estate un- deposit belonging all cash and divided, securities there- guardian into a bank or to be determined banks appointed permit for her which court, change principal funds or withdraw investments guardian appointed. the consent of the so The extent of the interest would heir or either or as devisee of her be as owner entitled, her death in what remains husband, remarriage estate, the earlier division or *25 intervening extent of the interest of well de- and the heirs of his deceased therein fendant sister at that They may are matters do not concern which now us. time, questions difficult of the well involve further Danish law formerly in force in Thomas and them for later St. we leave questions regard decision and to them arise. when with directly rights parties Nor are concerned of the we with parcels 12 in other of real estate situate the town of Charlotte Amalie are described and dealt which Clearly paragraph 3 testator’s will. properties just the income of these as she is entitled to mortgages purchased real of the estate is to income Dronningens proceeds of No. Gade. sale rights parties it that the Likewise would seem remaining properties will be determined govern rights same rules which No. 38 Dronnin- gens proceeds. disposi- Gade and its is sufficient for the point that the tion of this case out is entitled pro- to receive from the defendant Kean one-half of the Dronningens ceeds of the sale of No. 38 either in Gade, any payments cash or less securities, heretofore made to and that the other deposit one-half must remain her, designated by in a or bank banks Mr. Bornn, succeed- ing guardian, subject withdrawal reinvestment only with his consent. intervening been it clear that
From what has said right present proceeds defendant has no of the sale Dronningens assign and that he of No. 38 Gade convey plaintiff the undivided interest mortgages purchased proceeds and real from those attorney parties defendant Kean as fact for the placed of record in caused to be his name. judgment in that the this case
We conclude should be in following terms: appoints That the court D. Bornn of Victor St. *26 Callwood, E. for Else guardian [Tilsynsvaerge] Thomas as guard- surviving last plaintiff, Peiffer, to succeed Jacob the her of April dated ian named in the will and Edgar Callwood, Clifford Richard husband, deceased upon the authority conferred the to exercise and herself, ap- by the and by will the said Peiffer said Jacob court. of the orders subject further plicable to the law, and the interven- Kean, Osmond defendant, 2. That the assign, pay over Callwood, L. ing Clifford W. defendant, (less all of plaintiff $17,932.50 the sum to the and deliver or for by to her paid the defendant sums heretofore proceeds being the net of thereout), of one-half account Dronningens Gade, Queen’s Quarter, the of No. 38 sale remaining pay- after the Amalie, of Charlotte town existing by retire the of $9,134.99 ment defendant and mortgages property and for sale’s commissions on the property, and expenses of the of the sale other proceeds remaining the net of $17,932.51, one-half, by assigned defendant, be the said sale of intervening Clifford W. defendant, and Kean, Osmond by deposited in her them L. Callwood, by guardian ap- determined name in a bank or banks by from pointed to be withdrawn for the this court by plaintiff or reinvested the said bank or banks subject guardian consent such written of the court. the further orders pro-
3. That the distribution undistributed net Dronningens of No. 38 Gade ceeds sale directed judgment assignment be made made, to be shall mortgages conveyance and transfer of and undivided Kronprindsens Charlotte Gade, interest in No. Amalie, proceeds any net are invested which such now uninvested accordance with schedule of cash, distribu- prepared approved by the defendant and tion to be promptly prepared by court, such schedule to be approval. defendant and submitted to the court for its although appeal Since, from the District Virgin Court of the arising Islands a case under the local law the judg islands is a trial de the final novo,19 necessarily ment must be entered in the district court, the judgment entered the district heretofore court will be vacated and the cause be remanded with directions to *27 judgment enter a in opinion. the terms in indicated Rehearing
On Motion for
plaintiff
rehearing
The
asks for
of so much of our de-
approves
appointment
cision as
the
of D. Victor Bornn
guardian
for the
to succeed Jacob
last
Peiffer,
surviving guardian
joint
named in the
April
will dated
Edgar
of her
deceased
Richard
husband,
Clifford
again
Callwood and herself. She
asserts as she did at the
original argument
joint
that under the
will which named
Zwanziger
Jacob Peiffer
guard-
and Otto
in succession as
contemplated
it
ians
guardianship
that the
should con-
tinue after the death of the last survivor of these individ-
uals
if the
of
survivor
them his lifetime transferred
authority
guardian
his
to another
and that this was never
Accordingly,
says,
testamentary guardian-
done.
the
she
ship lapsed
strongly urges
and she
that under the Danish
except
it
law cannot be revived
the
court
on
district
application.
support
proposition
In
of this
she cites the
excerpt from Bentzon’s
Den
treatise,
Danske Arveret,
appears
opinion.
which
in footnote 15 to our
plaintiff’s
regard
contention in this
is without
place
merit. In the
think
first
we
that it is clear from the
that
testator’s will
he
that his widow’s
intended
retention
subject
guardianship
estate
be
to
should
By
contemplated
naming
guardian,
the Danish law.
a
19 Clen v.
Price, Cir., 1950,
Jorgensen,
[3]
and a successor survivor- steps took turn name successor testator which evidently thought adequate carry he would be out his nothing Certainly respect. will in this there is any part to indicate intention that testator absolutely pro- guardianship should terminate possibility visions fail. He did not -exclude the such, might appointment an made circumstances be the court. place plaintiff wrong
In think second ing that under the Danish of the court law guardian remaining appoint possession a a for widow of her and herself in husband succession guardian testamentary died is limited to who has applies to the court for cases in such which widow appointment. excerpt Indeed from treatise Bentzon’s contrary itself indicates the relies guardianship by suggesting in these widow *28 only on the Danish law not based under circumstances is living is also those the needs of the widow but of the Danish satisfies us sue. examination law Our guardianship for the assist not it such authorizes possession potection remains in of a widow who ance and protection tes for the of the of the but also estate, are from their inheritance children excluded tator’s who Accordingly in during case lifetime. widow’s testamentary guardian the Danish for a widow death of appoint power the court to a successor full law confers living re guardian or the issue the needs widow quire not limited cases which it appointment application is made the widow. for such rehearing petition be denied.