143 Ky. 160 | Ky. Ct. App. | 1911
RESPONSE to Petition eor Rehearing by
In the original opinion we said:
“Ewald left an estate of between $2,000,000 and $3,T 000,000. tie had adopted three children to whom he left the bulk of his estate in trust; and it is alleged that Iiq apprehended that his brothers and sisters might attack the validity of the adoption of the children, and might contest the will. His brothers and sisters and their descendants were his heirs at law, and would receive the property if the will was broken.” (See Shaver’s Admr. v. Ewald’s Exor., 142 Ky. 472.)
In saying that his brothers and sisters and their descendants were Ewald’s heirs at law and would receive the property if the will was broken, we did not have in mind the validity of the adoption of the children, or pass thereon, as this matter was not before us. We only meant that his brothers and sisters and their descend^ ants were by blood his next of kin. We merely stated the facts to illustrate the probable intention of the testator in making the third paragraph of the will and to explain the controversy before us.
Those legatees who accept the legacies will accept them under the will and in full of all interest in the estate. After " they have so accepted their legacies they cannot
Petition overruled.