*1 154 MARTIN v. EATON.
Aug. 10, v. Eaton. Martin 1876.
Will&emdash; Construction. “ * * and estate, real I and all my the words Held, bequeath give life,” devisee a and during goods life estate. “ and and all of our decease, paid, the clause after JTeld, that and to our followed good gravestones put graves,”
funeral charges, up did have the effect to limit or remaining property, aby gift clause, but, and so far as the debts, expenses, enlarge previous concerned, an her. was were additional bequest gravestones Rockingham Circuit Court. From this case whether Equity. In makes a Smith copy case) of James (a the will heirs of Smith but either refer Sally party may to the men, answer. and bill a farmer in Candia good circumstances, living Smith James 21, died July His will was written himself. He county. in said administrator plaintiff and 1860, died ex- 18,1874, owing Smith November Sally annexed. in this suit, embraced defendant was appointed claims cept had as an She been under his insane guardianship
her administrator. 9,1867. October from person by Foster, the bill answer reserved Questions arising upon of law and C.C. J.,C.
COPY OP WILL. “ God, amen. name of In “ weak in but of sound being body Candia James Smith do last will memory my make and publish mind disposing testament. “ all my Smith my beloved wife bequeath give lly. natural life. chattels personal goods and all of and funeral charges her decease our debts paid After 21y. to our of the remaining put up graves good five Candia hun- Society, Methodist give Episcopal 31y. fund from it as a the interest perpetual arising dollars dred at their preaching meeting-house. laid “ dollars. Nancy fifty sister Brown I give 41y. sister Brown one hundred dollars. fifty 51y. our to Ldia Frances Currier all household furniture I 61y. divided clothing&emdash;my remaining property S. Thorn Mary French Thorn Emery Roxany among'Mary Brown, George Johnson, Evans S. Evans Herrett S. Maryan Elijah *2 Eran- Timothy Currier Currier Jane Currier Soplironia Lydia Olive ces Currier to be divided. 71y. do wife executor of last will and testament appoint here me all wills made. revoking “ In I have set hand and witness whereof hereunto seal this 18 of day thousand hundred and eight fifty-eight October one the Signed sealed declared above named James published Smith to in be his last will and testament the of us who his presence have hereunto subscribed our as in the names witnesses presence of the testator. L. S.
JAMES SMITH Amos Thorn
Wm. B. Thorn Mary H. Thorn”
G. It. Morrison, the plaintiff.
Hatch and the Frinlc, for defendant. Cushing, C. wife, J. The testator has Smith, all his estate, real and personal, goods during her . life. It would if seem as could be no there doubt that this clause the testator intended to his give wife a life estate in all his property. effect of that would be to use and income life of such everything, excepting as would in the property perish using, and that she would have a to right consume. Under this clause, taken would by itself, there be doubt that widow, income would belong to savings and accumulations of it which, would be hers. Is absolutely there to limit this in will anything by any construction, fair ? can be claimed devise that the for the of provision her debts as as payment 1ns, erection of for her as well as for himself, payment own, as well as his his expenses indicates intention that she should a as right have use much of the as she life, dispose needed to balance, use and to either his interest, or will. cannot find any such evidence intention in reason, No doubt the testator had, will. and with any part his fully entire confidence wife’sintegrity prudence, income, believed that if she failed to from the left get support her, any behind It was through it would be fault hers. very therefore, that he should that all her debts as well proper, order paid his if own, were, and all there joint any before This was any other receive parties any property. a it natural and has and cannot see provision made, proper in the will the clause or
any limiting controlling effect consideration. his on dispose The other relied is his attempt every- considered argument seems be that he clothing. his had, subject have, which his wife or afterward thing control; the conclusion and from this be drawn attempted but only his a property, he did not wife life estate intend which she had and that lie it, everything a considered support a subject dispo- bought always part it view, house, keeping will. she were According sition she so doing for her invite would be because guest, improper some of what the surplus. consume portion ought The wife draw such bequest. I cannot conclusion from this any *3 will, he rely the testator’s executor this out. bequest her to see carried properly upon will, according to me be the construction Such appears has been suggested sense. No technical rule common principles meaning of tes- to me the plain which what seems evident estate of therefore, that whatever think, tator can be controlled. it is no so that it can be seen that Smith is separated administrator on husband, of her original is and that it law, him disposed according husband. controlled instrument, some J. of written parts In the interpretation Ladd, to those go it is advisable to obscure, parts, which are ambiguous rest, light meaning which are plain any, which are doubtful for darkness over- than those parts sufficiently which before plain. shadow his estate, testator of the life interest disposition clear and is wife real and explicit.
both respect and I think the confused doubtful provisions construction governed receive n rather than from that clause the reverse. preceding case, the only This is said be the main the will the see. . ac- My so far as can opinion is, question, cumulations Smith. heirs use of J. wife for life bequest Smith, belong The income therefrom personal property. not, my the will do over- remaining opinion, her. The provisions law; tins this conclusion of the come life must be distributed her estate. discharged.
Case