A treatise on the American law of administration

TREATISE

ON THE

AMERICAN LAW OF ADMINISTRATION.

BY

J. G. WOER]S^ER,

in '

JUDGE OF THE PROBA IE COURT OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS.

IN TWO VOLIBIES.
Vol. L

BOSTON:
LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY.

1889;

Vi'

T

[U9

Copijnght, 1889,

By J. G. WOEKNER.

SEnibErsttg Press:
John Wilson and Son, CAMBPaDCE.

PREFACE.

The present treatise originated in the endeavor to qualify
myself for the office of judge of probate, now more than eighteen
years ago. The study of the statutes was found insufficient.
Questions often arose in practice to which they afforded no
adequate solution. Obscure provisions of uncertain application,
as well as the omission to provide for some cases of daily
occurrence, not altogether remedied by interpretation and con-
struction on the part of courts of last resort, made it necessary
to seek light elsewhere. Text-books by American authors, fur-
nishing valuable help certainly, served, on the other hand, to cre-
ate new perplexity by the widely differing constructions therein
shown to be put on statutes of similar import in different States,
even by courts of the same State on the same statute, and by the
unreconciled difference in the standpoints from which the sev-
eral courts deduced the principles governing them in their de-
cisions. Recourse to English books presented a new difficulty :
wliile to the English practitioner the grand works of Jarman on
Wills and of Williams on Executors and Administrators, consti-
tuting a masterly and thorough exposition of the law governing
estates of deceased persons, furnish a readily accessible and safe
guide, they are of assistance to the American practitioner only in
so far as he is conversant with the departure from the common
in the modern English law, as well as with the changes wrought
in the common law by American statutes, usage, and policy. Re-
liance upon them without continually remembering the bearing
of these changes is dangerously misleading, and may be looked
upon as accounting, in a large measure, for the vacillation and in-
consistency so often complained of as characterizing the decisions

7401 7.3

vi PREFACE.

of American courts. Late American editions of these woi'ks by
men of more than national reputation for learning and ability,
enriched by valuable and instructive editorial notes and compre-
hensive citations of American cases up to the time of publication,
have accomplished much in the way of guarding against this dan-
ger, and still constitute the most reliable books of reference to
American judges and practitioners, at least in all cases deter-
mined by the common law, unaffected by English or American
statutes. Their influence is plainly discernible in the briefs and
arguments of counsel and the opinions of courts, althougli not
always expressly acknowledged, — not alwa3^s, indeed, perceived
by them. But the heterogeneity beween text and notes is bewil-
dering to any but a very careful observer, thoroughly familiar
with the spirit at least and the general outline of the American
law on the subject. Tlie very excellence of these treatises — the
close sequence of reasoning and symmetry of arrangement which
place them so high as authority — serves to emphasize the in-
congruity between the English text and the American notes, by
increasing the difficulty of applying the former to the essentially
different conditions presented by American theory and practice.

In prosecuting tiiese studies I was impressed with the force of
the thought, so obvious when once suggested, that, as the stat-
utes cannot be fully understood without the knowledge and
presupposition of the common law, constituting at once the sub-
stratum upon which they rest and a not inconsiderable element
in the enactments themselves, so the nature and extent of the
transformation brought about in the common law by engrafting
upon it principles of American growth become clearly apparent
only when considered in the light of the underlying principles, —
the raison d'etre of the English as well as of the American law.
Thus, in searching for the reason of the distinction existmg in
both countries, though not in both to the same extent, between
courts intrusted with testamentary jurisdiction and those of
general or plenary powers, we are led to see that it lies deeper
than the historical one at the surface, — the recognition of secular
authority in ecclesiastical tribunals, which Blackstone character-
izes as a " peculiarity " of the British constitution, which earlier

PREFACE. Vll

English writers looked upon as an cncroachiuent by tlie Church,
and which common law courts jealously resented. The origin of
distinct courts with probate powers in America cannot, certainly,
be ascribed to such a cause, since ecclesiastical tribunals never
possessed secular i)Owers in this country. The reason is found
in the nature of property, which requires for its control, after the
owner's death, tribunals with functions different from those of
courts adjusting property rights between litigants sui juris.
Again, it is well known that the common law is shaped in many
particulars by the feudal principles introduced by the Con(picror,
while in America, at least since the Revolution, the feudal tenure
has never been recognized, and feudal theories are therefore in-
applicable here. It is obvious, then, that property means quite a
different thing at common law, as modelled on feudal principles,
from property in the sense of modern statutes, whether English
or American, and that the construction of such a statute from
the common law point of view would be liable to lead to error
and inconsistency.

In the following pages the attempt has been made to present the
American Law of Administration as it appears when expounded in
the light of the causes which called it into being, and contrasted
with its background of common law traced to the condition of
things from which it originated. In the Introduction will be found
a brief examination of the nature of property, the principle of its
devolution on the owner's death, and the officers and tribunals
necessary to accomplish the devolution. The body of the work
constitutes the amplification in detail of the principles deduced
from the nature of property and the logical functions of courts.
The common law as well as the statutes, the decisions of courts
as well as the rules which govern their procedure, not omitting
the reasoning and announcements of text writers, have all, so far
as my ability allowed, been considered in the light thrown upon
them by tracing them, as effects, to their causes. For the law,
which Blackstonc demands to be the perfection of human reason,
cannot be arbitrary or capricious in its requirements, aud must
therefore reflect some actual, real condition, which, when discov-
ered, makes apparent its purpose. Since the law is necessarily

Vlll PREFACE.

administered in the light of antecedent adjudications, — every
decision by a competent court of last resort constituting thence-
forth the law of the land, as much as the statute which it
construes, — the treatise necessarily deals with the law as so
announced. To give it value to practitioners, it must refer them
to the source of the law, whether a statute, the common law, or
adjudication by a court of binding authority. Hence the nu-
merous citations of text-books, statutes, and decided cases, which
yet constitute a small proportion of the innumerable authorities
which might be cited. In the selection made I was guided some-
what by my own experience, and received valuable assistance from
my son, whose fresh vigor and practical acquaintance with the
views and wants of the bar served to clear up doubts on many
controverted topics. In some few instances I did not hesitate to
announce my own views on points upon which I could not see the
logic of preponderating authorities, but was careful, in every such
case, to quote the arguments from which I dissented. English
cases are referred to only where American cases in point have
not been found, or to throw light on points upon which the latter
disagree.

I offer the result of my labors to my brethren of the bench and
bar, mistrusting that their uniform courtesy and kindness to me
personally may have unduly emboldened me to the venture ; be-
speaking for the work that indulgence and leniency of judgment
which I feel to be its chief passport to public favor. But, I may
add, I was sustained in the laborious task of many years by the
hope that it might, to some slight extent, lessen the wearying
work of over-burdened judges, assist the busy lawyer in finding
the authorities decisive of a case under examination, and furnish
to some of my brother probate judges suggestions not entirely
without value.

J. G. W.

St. Louis, Mo.,

March, 1889.

CONTENTS.

Volume I.

Page
TiBLE OF Cases Cited xxxiii

INTRODUCTION.

OF THE NATUKE OF PEOPERTY AND THE PRINCIPLE
DETERMINING ITS DEVOLUTION.

CHAPTER I.

OF PROPERTY IN GENERAL.

§ 1. The Acquisition of Property 1

2. Tenure and Use of Property ; its Loss by Non-user 2

3. Alienability of Property 3

4. Operation of the Owner's Will after his Death 3

5. Distinction between Rational and Capricious Will 4

6. Relation of Property to the Taniily 5

7. Testamentary Disposition of Property 0

8. Succession of Property at Law 7

9. The Law as the Rational Will of the Owner 8

10. Administration : Tunctions of Executors and Administrators .... 9

11. Functions of Courts controlling the Devolution of Property .... 10

CHAPTER II.

OF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN RE.\L AND PERSONAL PROPERTY.

I 12. Distinction between Movable and Immovable, or Real and Personal

Property 12

13. Origin of the Tenure of Real Estate at Common Law 13

14. Substantial Abrogation of the Feudal Tenure by English Statutes . . 14

15. The Devolution of Real Property to the Heir or Devisee, and of Per-

sonal Property to the Administrator or Executor 15

16 Incongruity of the Rule in America 16

CONTENTS.

TITLE FIRST.

OF THE DEVOLUTION OF PROPEETY ON THE DEATH
OF ITS OWNER.

PART FIRST.

OF THE DEVOLUTION AS DETERMINED BY THE ACT OF
THE OWNER.

BOOK FIRST.
OF TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY.

CHAPTER TIL

OF THE EXTERNAL LIMITS UPON TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY.

Page

17. Limitation of the Property disposable by Will 19

18. Limitations npon Testamentary Capacity 20

19. Incapacity of Aliens 22

20. Incapacity of Infants 23

21. Incapacity of Married Women 25

22. Incapacity of Criminals 28

CHAPTER IV.

INCAPACITY ARISING FROM MENTAL DISABILITIES.

23. Degree of Meiital Vigor requisite to make a W^ill 30

24. Incapacity of Idiots 32

25. Incapacity of Lunatics 32

26. Presumption of Sanity, and Lucid Intervals 35

27. Presumption of Insanity 38

28. Competency of Witnesses on Questions of Sanity 40

29. Incapacity from Imbecility 42

30. Incapacity in Consequence of Force, Fraud, or Intimidation .... 44

31. Incapacity arising from Undue Influence 45

32. Presumption against Legacies to Fiduciary Advisers 49

33. Presumption as to Seamen's Wills 50

34. Partial Avoidance of Will by Undue Influence 51

35. Wills of Deaf, Dumb, and Blind Persons 52

CONTENTS. XI

CHAPTER V.

FORM, EXECUTION, AND ATTESTATION OF WILLS.

Page

§ 30. Absolute and Conditioual Wills 54

37. Joint and Mutual Wills 56

38. General Rules as to the Form of Wills 59

39. The Signature 63

40. Attestation 66

41. Competency of Attesting Witnesses 72

42. Wills valid as to Personal, but not as to Real Property 76

43. Holographic Wills I'i

44. Nuncupative W'ills 79

45. Statutory Regulations in respect of Nuncupative Wills 81

46. Wills of Soldiers and Mariners 84

47. Codicils 85

CHAPTER VI.

OF THE REVOCATION OF WILLS.

§ 4S. Revocation by Cancellation, Obliterating, Burning, etc 88

49. Partial Revocation by Cancelling, Obliterating, etc 93

50. Revocation by Subsequent Will 95

51. Elfcct of Subsequent upon Prior Will 96

52. Revival of a Prior by the Revocation of a Later Will 99

53. Revocation by Inconsistent Dis])osition of the Testamentary Gift 101

54. Revocation by Marriage 104

55. Revocation by Marriage and Birth of Issue under English and Ameri-

can Statutes 107

56. Republication of Wills 112

BOOK SECOND.
OF GIFTS EXECUTED IN ANTICIPATION OF IMMEDIATE DEATH.

CHAPTER YH.

DONATIONES MORTIS CAUSA,

§57. Origin and Nature of Gifts J/o;-/fw Cc/ws^ 115

53. Deiiuitions of the Term 117

59. By whom, to whom, and of what a Donatio Mortis Causa may be made 117

00. Apprehension of Death 120

61. Delivery of the Thing Given 121

62. Revocability of Gifts Mortis Causa 125

63. Liability of Gifts Mortis Causa to Creditors of the Donor .... 126

xii CONTENTS.

PART SECOND.

or THE DEVOLUTION BY OPERATION OE LAW.

CHAPTER VIII.

DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY OF INTESTATES.

Page

64. Nature and Origin of the Rules of Descent and Distribution . . . . 130

65. Rights of Children 132

6G. The Surviving Husband as Heir 133

67. The Widow as Heiress 134

68. The Father as Heir 137

69. The Mother as Heiress 139

70. Brothers and Sisters : Heirs of the Full and of the Half Blood ... 141

71. Descendants taking by Representation 146

72. Computation of the Next of Kin 150

73. Devolution of Ancestral Estates 153

74. Posthumous Children 154

75. Illegitimate Children 156

76. Aliens 159

CHAPTER IX.

PROVISIONAL ALIMONY OF THE FAMILY.

( 77. Nature and Office of Statutory Allowances for the Provisional Support

of the Family 160

78. Statutory Provisions touching the Extent and Mode of the Allowance . 162

79. Rules governing the Amount of the Allowance 164

SO. To what extent Liberality should govern the Court 166

81. Cases illustrative of the Amount of the Allowance 168

82. The Allowance in Testate Estates 170

83. The Allowance with regard to the Solvency or Insolvency of the Estate 172

84. How affected by Marriage Settlements 173

85. How affected by Liens or Preferred Debts 175

86. When the Allowance takes Effect 177

87. Separate Property of the Widow affecting the Allowance 178

88. What constitutes a Family 180

89. Allowance to the Widow alone 182

90. Allowance to the Children alone 185

91. Out of what Property to be allowed 186

92. Time and Procedure to obtain tlie Allowance 188

93. Additional Allowances • 191

CONTENTS. XUl

CHAPTER X.

EXEMPTION OF THE HOMESTEAD,

Page

§ 94;. Nature of the liomestead Right of the Surviving family .... I'Ji

95. What Tenement constitutes the Homestead descending 198

96. Homestead Rights of the Widow 202

97. The Homestead as alfected by Dower 205

98. The Widow's Right to sell tiic Homestead 206

99. Homestead Rights of Minor Children 207

100. Homestead Rights as affected by Incumbrances 209

101. Homestead Rights as affected by Inconsistent Disposition of the Es-

tate by the Deceased Owner 212

102. Homestead Rights as affected by Administration 213

103. Procedure in Probate Courts in setting out Homestead 215

104. The Rights and Burdens connected with the Enjoyment of the Home-

stead 216

CHAPTER XL

ESTATES OF DOWER AND CURTESY.

§105. Nature and Purpose of Dower 218

lOG. Dower under the Statutes of the several States 219

107. Marriage as a Requisite to Dower 222

108. Alienage as Barring the Dower Right 225

109. Misconduct of the Wife as a Bar to her Dower 226

110. What Property is subject to Dower 229

111. The Estate or Interest in Property necessary to support Dower . . 231

112. Inchoate Dower 241

113. Dower as affected by Acts of the Husbaud 244

114. The Wife's Relinquishment of Dower 248

115. Dower Consummate before Assignment 253

116. Quarantine of Dower 255

117. Assignment of Dower 258

118. Ante-Nuptial Contracts as affecting Dower 263

119. Election between Dower and Devise 266

120. Dower as affected by the Statute of Limitations, and by Estoppel . . 273

121. Estate by the Curtesy 275

122. Community Property 277

CHAPTER Xn.

ESTATES OF DECEASED PARTNERS.

§ 123. Dissolution of the Partnership by the Death of one of its Members . 281

124. Powers and Liabilities of Surviving Partners 283

125. Remedies of Partnership Creditors in Equity 286

Xiv CONTENTS.

Page

§ 126. EfFect of Dissolution on rartnership Real Estate 288

127. Distribution of rartnership Effects . 290

128. Jurisdiction of Probate Courts over Partnership Estates .... 294

129. History of the Missouri Statute giving Jurisdiction over Partnership

Estates 297

130. Power of Probate Courts to require Bond 300

CHAPTER XIII.

ESCHEATS.

131. Devolution of Property in Default of Heirs 302

132. Escheat at Common Law 302

133. Escheats under tlie Statutes of the several States 304

134. Nature of the Title by which the State holds Escheats 308

135. Administration of Escheated Estates 310

TITLE SECOm).

OF THE INSTKUMENTALITIES EFFECTING THE
DEVOLUTION.

§ 136. Tribunals and OfEcers employed by the Law to accomplish the Devo-
lution 312

PART FIRST.

OF THE TRIBUNALS CONTROLLING THE ADMINISTRATION OF
THE ESTATES OF DECEASED PERSONS.

CHAPTER XIV.

PROBATE POWERS AS EXISTING AT COMMON LAW AND UNDER
ENGLISH STATUTES.

137. Origin of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over the Probate of Wills . 313

138. Origin of Administration in England 315

139. Powers of Ecclesiastical Courts in England ......•• 316

140. Probate Jurisdiction in other Englisli Courts 318

CONTENTS. XV

CHAPTER XV.

NATURE OF PROBATE COURTS IN AMERICA.

Page

§111. Origin of Probate Courts iu America 321

142. American Statutes the ouly Source of Probate Powers in the States . 322

143. Their Dignity as Courts 324

144. Their Powers as Judicial Tribunals 326

145. Conclusiveness of their Judgments in Collateral Proceedings . . . 327

146. How far Probate Courts may correct their Judgments 331

147. Entering Judgment Ntinc 'pro Tunc 333

148. Proceeding in Rem and in Personam 337

149. Method of Procedure in Probate Courts 339

CHAPTER XYI.

OF THE SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF PROBATE

COURTS.

150. Scope of the Jurisdiction 343

151. Jurisdiction as limited to the Devolution of Property on the Owner's

Death 344

152. Liabilities arising from the Administration 347

153. Adjudication of Claims against the Deceased 348

154. Incidental Powers conferred by necessai-y Implication 349

155. Power to construe Wills 351

156. Conclusive and Concurrent Jurisdiction 355

CHAPTER XVn.

DOMICILIAR AND ANCILLARY JURISDICTION.

§ 157. Authority of Representatives limited to the State granting it . . 358

158. Administration of the same Successions in different Countries . . . 359

159. Jurisdiction of Property removed to another Country after Owner's

Death 3G1

160. Legal Status of Foreign Administrators 362

161. Validity of voluntary Payment to Foreign Administrator .... 364

162. Extra-territorial Validity of Title once vested 366

163. Statutory Authority of Foreign Executors and Administrators . . 368

164. Liabilities of Foreign Administrators 370

165. Probate Jurisdiction affected by Change of Government 372

166. Procedure governed by the Law of the Forum 374

167. Payment of Debts and Distribution to Non-Residents 375

168. Real Estate governed by the Z^'j Zo« .S^/ <S'<V<? 378

169. Provisional Alimony of Widow and Minor Children 379

xvi CONTENTS.

PART SECOND.

OF THE OFFICE OF EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS.

CHAPTER XVIII.

NATURE OF THE TITLE VESTING IN EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS.

§170. Conduit of the luheritauce 381

171- Distiuction between Executors and Administrators 382

172. When the Title vests in the Executor, and when in the Administrator 383

173. Relation of the Appointment to the Time of the Testator's or Intes-

tate's Death 385

174. Title of Executors and Administrators in Auter Droit 386

175. Power of Alienation 387

176. Other Methods of Conversion 388

177. Property in Auter Droit distinguished from Property in Jure Propria 389

CHAPTER XIX.

OF SPECIAL AND QUALIFIED ADMINISTRATORS.

§ 178. Administrators cum Testamento annexo 392

179. Administrators de Bonis non 393

180. Public Administrators . 395

181. k^\x\\vi\s,ixdA.ov^ pendente Lite 400

182. Administrators durante Minore Mtate 403

183. Administrators durante Absentia 404

184. Other Temporary and Limited Administrators 405

TITLE THIRD.

OF THE DEVOLUTION TO THE LEGAL KEPRESENTATIVES.

PART FIRST.

OF THE ESTATE WITHOUT OFFICIAL REPRESENTATION.

CHAPTER XX.

WHAT MAY BE DONE BEFORE PROBATE OR GRANT OF LETTERS.

185. To whom the Real and to whom the Personal Property descends . . 408

186. Authority of Executors before Grant of Letters Testamentary . . . 410

187. Authority of Administrators before Grant of Letters 411

CONTENTS. XVll

CHAPTER XXI.

OF EXECUTORS DE SON TORT.

Page

§ 188. Definition 4i:i

189. Acts which create the Li.ability 415

190. Status of the Person, and other Circumstances fixing the Liability . 41G

191. Acts of Intermeddling which do not create the Liability 413

192. Coe.vistence of Executor or Administrator de Jure and de son Tort . 419

193. Nature of the LiabiHty of Executors f/<? *wi Tbr^ 420

191. Extent of their Liability to Creditors 422

195. Liability to the rightful Executor or Administrator 424

196. Effect of the Appointment of Executor de son Tort upon his previous

. Tortious Acts 425

197. Validity of the Title acquired from an Executor de son Tort . . . 426

198. Application of the Doctrine in America 427

CHAPTER XXn.

OF THE NECESSITY OF OFFICIAL ADMINISTRATION.

§ 199. Why Administration is necessary 430

200. Cases holding Administration necessary 431

201. Exceptions permitted in some States 433

203. Residuary or Sole Legatees taking Estates without Administration . 434

203. Administration in Louisiana 436

PART SECOND.

OF THE INDUCTION TO THE OFFICE OF EXECUTOR AND
ADMINISTRATOR.

CHAPTER XXni.

OF THE PRELIMINARIES TO THE GRANT OF LETTERS TESTAMENTARY
AND OF ADMINISTRATION.

§ 20 1. Local Jurisdiction to gi-ant Letters Testamentary and of Administration 438

205. Jurisdiction over Estates of deceased Non-Residents 440

20"). What constitutes Domicil or Residence 442

207. Proof of Death . 443

208. Administration of the Estates of Living Persons 447

209. Reasons for the Invalidity of such Administration 449

210. Cases holding Administration on Estates of Living Persons valid . 452

211. Conclusiveness of Judgments 455

212. Administration of the Estates of Absent Persons 459

213. Administration of the Estates of Persons civilly dead 462

VOL. I. — b

xviu CONTENTS.

CHAPTER XXIY.

OF THE PROBATE OP THE WILL.

Page

§214. Production of the Will for Probate 464

215. Validity of Probate in Probate Courts 467

216. Method of Proof in Common Form 470

217. The Probate in Solemn Form 472

218. Proof when the Testimony of Subscribing Witnesses cannot be obtained 474

219. Witnesses disqualified by Interest 476

220. Proof of the Testator's Sanity 478

221. Proof of Lost Wills 480

222. Probate of Wills in Part and in Fae Simile 484

223. Probate of Holographic Wills 487

224. Proof of Nuncupative Wills 489

225. Admissibility of Declarations as Evidence on Probate of Wills . . 489

226. Wills proved in a Foreign Jurisdiction 491

227. Revocation of Probate 496

228. Effect of the Probate 501

CHAPTER XXV.

OF THE GRANT OF LETTERS TESTAMENTARY.

§ 229. How the Executor is constituted 503

230. Residence as a Qualification to the Office of Executor 505

231. Infancy as a Disqualification 506

232. Coverture as a Disqualification 506

233 Mental Incapacity, Immorality, and other Disqualifications .... 507

234. Acceptance or Refusal of the Office of Executor 510

CHAPTER XXVI.

LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION.

§ 235. Principles governing the Grant of Letters of Administration . . . 515

236. The Husband's Right to Appointment 517

237. The Widow's Right to Appointment 519

238. Right of Next of Kin to Appointment 521

239. Right of Creditors to Appointment 522

240. Right of the Public Administrator 523

241. Disqualifications excluding from the Right to Appointment .... 524

242. Considerations governing the Discretion 527

243 Renunciation of the Right to administer 530

244. Effect of Renunciation or Waiver 532

245. Administrators cum Testamento annexo 534

246. Administrators of Estates of Non-Residents 536

247. Administrators de Bonis non 537

248. Administrators with Limited Powers 538

CONTENTS. XIX

CHAPTER XXVII.

OF THE ADMINISTRATION BOND.

Page

249. Origin of the Law requiring Ad ministration Bonds 540

250. Bonds of Executors 541

251. Power of Court to order Bond 543

252. Cireuinstanccs rendering Bond necessary 543

253. Invalidity of Administration without Boud 545

254. When Additional Bond may be ordered 54')

255. Liabihty of Sureties, and EflFect of New Bonds 547

256. Technical Execution of the Bond ' 552

257. Amount of the Penalty 555

258. Joint or Separate Bonds 557

259. Approval and Custody of Bonds 559

260. Special Bonds 560

CHAPTER XXVIII.

OF THE PROCEDURE IN OBTAINING LETTERS AND QUALIFYING FOR

THE OFFICE.

§ 261. The Petition for the Grunt of Letters Testamentary or of Administra-
tion 561

262. Notice to Parties entitled to Administer 563

263. Nature of the Proceeding 565

264. Nature of the Decree, and its Authentication 565

265. Oath of Office 567

CHAPTER XXIX.

OF THE REVOCATION OF LETTERS TESTAMENTARY AND OF
ADMINISTRATION.

266. Conclusiveness of the Decree or Order granting Letters .... 568

267. Jurisdiction to revoke Letters 569

268. llccall of Letters granted without Authority in the Court .... 570

269. Theory of Removal for Cause 572

270. Causes justifying Revocation of Letters 575

271. What deemed insufficient to justify Revocation 577

272. Who may move for Revocation 580

273. Resignation of Executors and Administrators 582

274. Consequences of the Revocation of Letters 584

XX CONTENTS.

PART THIRD.

OF THE PROPERTY TO WHICH THE TPrLE OF EXECUTORS AND
ADMINISTRATORS EXTENDS.

CHAPTER XXX.

OF PROPERTY IN POSSESSION.

Page

§ 275. Joint and Partnership Property 592

276. Real Estate 592

277. Chattels Real 593

278. Chattels Real of the Wife 594

279. Mortgages 595

280. Chattels Animate 596

281. Chattels Vegetable 597

282. Emblements 598

283. Fixtures, as between the Heir and the Personal Representative . . 600

284. Modern Statement of the Rule 602

285. Fixtures, as between Personal Representatives of Life Tenant and

Remainderman 605

286. Separate Property of the Wife 606

287- Ante-nuptial and Post-nuptial Settlements 608

288. The Wife's Savings from Separate Trade, Pin-money, Gifts, etc. . . 611

289. The Wife's Paraphernalia 613

CHAPTER XXXI.

TITLE OF EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS TO CHOSES IN ACTION.

§290. Survival of Actions at Common Law 615

291. Reason of the Rule 616

292. American Statutes regulating the Survival of Actions 618

293. Actions for Injuries to Property 620

294. Actions for Injuries to the Person 622

295. Actions for Injuries resulting in Death 626

296. Property conveyed by Decedent in Fraud of Creditors 630

297. Annuities and Rent Charges 633

298. Apprentices and Sen'ants 633

299. Copyi-ights and Patents 634

300. Rents 636

301. Apportionment between Life Tenant and Remainderman .... 637

302. The Wife's Choses in Action 638

303. Actions accruing to the Personal Representative 643

CONTENTS. XXI

Volume II.

TITLE FOURTH.

OF THE DUTIES OF THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE
IN RESPECT OF THE ESTATE.

PART FIRST.

OF ACQUIRING POSSESSION OF THE ESTATE.

CHAPTER XXXII.

WHAT CONSTITUTES ASSETS. Pa^g

§ 304. When Property becomes Assets 644

305. Meaning of the Term Assets 644

306. Assets not possessed by the Decedent 646

307. Accretions, Interest, Rents, Profits 647

30S. Property in Foreign Jurisdiction 648

309. Debts are Assets wliere Debtor resides 650

310. Property lost through Administrator's Negligence as Assets . . . 651

311. Debts of Executors or Administrators as Assets 65-2

312. Property in Aider Droit not Assets 655

313. Legal and Equitable Assets 656

314. Personal and Real Assets 658

CHAPTER XXXIII.

OF THE INVENTORY AND APPRAISAL.

§ 315. Office and Necessity of the Inventory 660

316. Within what Time the Inventory must be filed 661

317. What Property must be inventoried 664

318. Details of the Inventory 667

319. Indication of the Value of Assets 668

320. Appraisement of the Goods 669

CHAPTER XXXIV.

DUTIES OF EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS IN TAKING CHARGE OF

THE ESTATE.

§321. Duties of Administrators to take Estate into Possession 672

322. Right of Administrator paramount to the Heir or Legatee .... 674

323. Tlicir Duty to prosecute and defend Actions surviving to or against

the Personal Representative 675

324. Actions to recover the Estat« 677

325. Summary Proceedings to recover Assets 679

XXU CONTENTS.

PART SECOND.

OF THE MANAGEMENT OF THE ESTATE.

CHAPTER XXXV.

OF THE DUTIES OF EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS IN RESPECT OP
PERSONAL PROPERTY.

Page

§ 326. Compoundiug with Debtors 6b3

327. Arbitration 685

328. Duties in Relation to the Contracts and Trade of the Deceased . . 686

329. Preserving the Property 690

330. Sale of Perishable Property 691

331. Transfer of Property by the Executor or Administrator 692

332. Method and Notice of Sale 695

333. Terms and Method of Payment 697

334. Purchase by the Executor or Admiuistrutur himself 700

335. Record and Report of the Sale 703

336. Duties in Respect of the Investment and Custody of Funds . . . 704

CHAPTER XXXVI.

OP THE MANAGEMENT OF THE REAL ESTATE.

§ 337. States in which the Real Estate goes to the Executor or Administrator 712

338. Interest of the Executor or Administrator in Real Estate .... 715

339. Power over Real Estate conferred by Will 716

340. Power given in a Will not following the Office of the Executor . . 719

341. Statutes regulating the Power over Real Estate conferred by Will . 721

342. Constructive or Equitable Conversion 726

343. Powers vested in Devisee of a Life Estate 728

344. Duties and Liabilities arising to Executors and Administrators in

Respect of Real Estate 730

34.5. Power to mortgage the Real Estate 731

PART THIRD.

OF THE PRIVITY AMONG EXECUTORS OR ADMINISTRATORS OF
THE SAME ESTATE.

CHAPTER XXXVII.

UNITY OF ESTATE AMONG EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS OF THE

SAME DECEDENT.

§ 346, Power of Co-executors to bind each other by Acts of Administration 733
347. Acknowledging or Promising to Pay a Debt by one of several Execu-
tors or Administrators 735

CONTENTS. XXUl

§ 313. The Liability of one Co-executor or Co-administrator for the Acts ol'

another '"^'

349. Remedies in Trotcctiou of Co-admiuistrators against Liability for one

another's acts '"^"^

350. Executor's Executor representing the Executor's Testator .... 741

351. Succession iu the Administration 743

352. Administrators de Bonis no/i under American Statutes 740

353. Privity between Successive Administrators 750

354. Privity between Special and General Administrators 752

TITLE FIFTH.

OF THE PAYMENT OF DEBTS BY EXECUTORS AND
ADMINISTPvATOPvS.

§ 355. Origin of the Common Law System of Paying Debts of Deceased

Persons ^^^

PART FIRST.

OF THE PRIORITY OF DEMANDS AGAINST THE ESTATES OF
DECEASED PERSONS.

§ 356. Distinction between the Debts of the Decedent, and Liabilities con-
tracted by the Personal Representative 756

CHAPTER XXXVm.

OF THE PAYxMEXT OF LIABILITIES ARISING AFTER THE DEATH OF
THE DECEDENT.

§ 357. Funeral Expenses allowable as Incidental to the Administration . . 759

358. What constitutes Funeral Expenses 760

359. Extent of Allowance for Funeral Expenses out of Insolvent Estates . 763

360. Extent of Allowance in Solvent Estates 764

361. Expenses of Last Illness when preferred to Debts 765

362. Expenses necessary in the Administration of the Estate 766

363. Provisional Alimony for the Surviving Family 767

CHAPTER XXXIX.

OF THE PRIORITY OF DEBTS CREATED BY THE DECEDENT.

§ 364. Priority of Debts at Common Law 769

365. Expenses of Funeral and Last Illness as Debts » ■ 770

366. Debts to the Government of the United States 771

367. Debts to the State and State Corporations 772

xxiv CONTENTS.

Page

§368. Debts owing ill a Fiduciary Capacity 17 -i

369. Judgments against the Decedent iu his Lifetime 774

370. Recognizances, Mortgages, and Obligations of Record 778

371. Debts by Specialty 778

372. Rent ■ 77!>

373. Wages 77'.)

374. Simple Contract Debts 780

PART SECOND.

OF THE COMMON LAW SYSTEM OF PAYING DEBTS OF
DECEASED PERSONS.

§ 375. Payment of Debts according to their Priority 783

CHAPTER XL.

OP THE PAYMENT OP DEBTS AT COMMON LAW.

376. Preference among Creditors of equal Degree 785

377. Right of Retainer at Common Law 786

378. Application of the Doctrine of Retainer to the several Classes of Ad-

ministrators 787

379. Consequence of Paying Legatee before Notice of Debt 789

380. Defences against Actions for Debts of the Deceased 791

381. Effect of Admissions and Promises by the Administrator .... 794

382. Enforcing Judgments de Bonis Testatoris at Common Law .... 796

383. Liability of Executors and Administrators in Equity 798

PART THIRD.

OF THE SYSTEM OF PAYING DEBTS OF DECEASED PERSONS
UNDER AMERICAN STATUTES.

§ 384. Contrast between Common Law and American System 800

385. Notice to Creditors of the Grant of Letters 801

CHAPTER XLI.

OF THE EXHIBITION OF CLAIMS TO, AND THEIR ALLOWANCE BY, THE
EXECUTOR OR ADMINISTRATOR.

§ 386. Creditors required to exhibit Claims 803

387. What constitutes a sufficient Exhibition 804

388. Time for the Exhibition of Claims 806

389. Affidavit of Creditors necessary 808

390. Allowance or Rejection of Claims by the Administrator 810

CONTENTS. XXV

CHAPTER XLII.

OF ESTABLISHING CLAIMS AGAINST THE ESTATES OF DECEASED

PERSONS.

Page
§ 301. When Claims may be established in Probate Court 81o

392. What Demands and Defences arc triable in Probate Courts • . . 815

393. Claims not matured 817

39i. Contingent Claims 818

395. Claims of Executors and Administrators 820

396. Claims by Relatives of the Deceased 822

397. Notice to the Administrator of Claims to be established 82.'5

398. Set-offs in Probate Courts, and Parties as Witnesses 827

CHAPTER XLIII.

OF THE TIME WITHIN WHICH CLAIMS MUST BE ESTABLISHED.

§ 399. Time of establishing Claims with Reference to their Rejection by the

Administrator S38

400. Special Limitation of Time to establisli Claims against Estates . . . 839

401. Application of the General Statute of Limitations to Executors and

Administrators 843

402. Application of the Statute of Nou-Claim, or Special Limitation . . 845

403. Effect of Proving Claims after the Time fixed therefor by Statute . . 848

CHAPTER XLIV.

OF CLAIMS AGAINST INSOLVENT ESTATES.

§ 404. How Estates are declared Lisolvent 851

405. Special Administration of Insolvent Estates 853

40fi. Procedure in establishing Claims against Insolvent Estates .... 856

407. Time within which Claims must be presented against Insolvent Estates 856

408. Riglits of Creditors holding Collateral Security to Assets of Insolvent

Estates 859

409. Actions to foreclose Collateral Securities 860

CHAPTER XLV.

OF THE PAYMENT OF DEBTS WHEN ESTABLISHED.

§ 410. Nature and Effect of the Allowance or Judgment establishing Claims 802

411. The Order or Decree to pay Debts 86 1

412. Enforcement of the Order or Decree to pay Debts 865

XXvi CONTENTS.

TITLE SIXTH.

OF LEGACIES AND DEVISES.

Page

413. Legacies and Devises 868

PART FIRST.

OF ASCERTAINING TEE MEANING OF WILLS.

CHAPTER XL VI.

OF THE GENERAL RULES APPLIED IN EXPOUNDING WILLS.

414. Ascertaiuing the Testator's Intention 870

415. Rule requiring the several Parts of a Will to be construed together.

Precatory Words 873

416. General Intent controlling the Particular Intent 877

417. Rule allowing Words and Limitations to be Transposed, Supplied, or

Rejected 879

418. Testator's Intention viewed in the Light of Policy of the Law . . . 882

419. From what Period the Will speaks in Respect of the Law govern-

ing it 885

420. From what Period the Will speaks in Respect of the Testator's In-

tention . 888

421. Extrinsic Evidence in Aid of Construction 891

422. Testamentary Donees as Classes • . 895

423. Classes designated by Technical Terms 899

CHAPTER XL VII.

TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITIONS CONTROLLED BY PUBLIC POLICY.

I 424. Gifts for Immoral or Superstitious Purposes 907

425. Gifts prohibited by the Statute of Mortmain 909

426. Corporations as Testamentary JDonees 911

427. Rule against Perpetuities 914

428. Accumulation of the Income 917

429. Gifts to Charitable Uses 919

430. What constitutes a Charitable Gift in the Legal Sense 925

431. Validity of the English Statute of Charitable Uses in America . . . 928

432. The Doctrine of Cy Pres 929

433. Gifts of Benevolence or Private Charity 932

CONTENTS. XXvil

PART SECOND.

OF CARRYING WILLS INTO EFFECT.

CHAPTER XLVIII.

LEGAL INCIDENTS AFFECTING DEVISES AND LEGACIES.

Page
§ i3i. Lapse of Tcstameutary Gifts by the Death of the Donee before that

of the Testator 933

435. Statutory Exceptions in Favor of Representatives of Deceased

Legatees 938

436. The Doctrine of Lapse as affected by the Contingent or Vested Cliar-

acter of the Devise or Legacy 941

437. Devolution of Void and Lapsed Devises and Legacies 943

438. The Devolution of Void and Lapsed Devises and Legacies as affected

by Statutes 945

439. Remainders, and Executory Devises and Bequests 947

440. Devises and Legacies on Condition 951

441. Repugnant Conditions 954

442. Conditions obnoxious to Public Policy 957

443. Conditions in Restraint of Marriage 960

444. Classification of Legacies 964

445. Cumulative, Repeated, and Substituted Legacies 9G9

446. Ademption and Satisfaction of Legacies by Act of the Testator . . 972
447- Legacies in Satisfsiction of Debts 974

448. Ademption of Legacies given as Portions 977

449. Admissibility of Parol Evidence on Questions of Ademption . . . 979

450. Statutory Provisions affecting Ademption or Satisfaction of Legacies 982

CHAPTER XLIX.

OP THE SATISFACTION OF LEGACIES BY THE EXECUTOR.

§451. Preference of Creditors over Legatees 984

452. Order in which Legacies abate 985

453. Executor's Assent to Devises and Legacies 990

454. Time for Paying or Delivering Legacies 99 1

455. Time for Paying Legacies fixed by Statutes 990

456. Payment of Bequests for Life with Remainder over 998

457- Relative Rights of Life Tenants and Remaindermen to Dividends

of Stock 1003

453. Interest on Legacies 1005

459. Interest when Time ot Payment is fixed by the Will 1008

460. Persons competent to receive Payment of Legacies 1011

461. The Doctrine of Election 1015

462. Payment of the Residue 1017

xxviii CONTENTS.

TITLE SEVENTH.

OF THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSETS FOR THE PAY-
MENT OF DEBTS AND LEGACIES.

PART FIRST.

OF THE LIABILITY OF REAL ESTATE FOR THE DEBTS OF
DECEASED PERSONS.

CHAPTER L.

OF THE PROCEDURE IN OBTAINING THE ORDER OF SALE.

Page

^ 463. Nature of the Power to sell Real Estate for tbe Payment of Debts 1020

464. Who may apply for the Order to sell Real Estate 1022

465. Within what time Application may be made ........ 1024

466. Notice of the Application to Heirs and Devisees 1029

467. W^bo may appear, and what may be shown against the Application . 1031

468. What the Petition must show 1035

469. Proof of the Existence of Debts 1037

470. Proof of the Insufficiency of the Personalty 1040

471. What Interest of the Decedent in Lands may be ordered to be sold . 1 042

472. Of the Bond and Oath required of Executors and Administrators . 1045

473. The Order, License, or Decree to Sell • • 1047

CHAPTER LI.

OF THE SALE AND ITS CONSUMMATION.

§ 474. Time of Selling 1050

475. Notice or Advertisement of the Sale 1051

476. Appraisement required before the Sale 1053

477. Conducting the Sale 1055

478. Report and Confirmation of the Sale 1059

479. Payment of the Purchase Money 1063

480. The Deed of Conveyance 1065

CHAPTER LIT.

OF THE CONSEQUENCES ATTENDING THE SALE.

§481. Application of the Proceeds 1069

482. Purchaser's Liability for Encumbrances 1071

483. Purchaser's Liability to Dowrcss and Homestead Tenants . . . 1074

CONTENTS. XXIX

Page

§ 484. How Purchasers are affected by tlie Rule of Caveat Emptor . . . 1077

485. The Purchaser's Riglits iu Equity 1078

486. The Purchaser as aUcctcd by the Statute of Frauds 1082

487- Executors aud Administrators as Purchasers . 1082

488. VaUdity of the Sale iu Collateral Actions 1088

PART SECOND.

OF THE RELATIVE LIABILITY OF ASSETS TO CREDITORS AND

LEGATEES.

CHAPTER Llll.

OF MARSHALLING ASSETS FOR THE PAYMENT OF DEBTS AND

LEGACIES.

§ 489. Order of the Application of Funds Liable to the Payment of Debts . 1093

490. Charge of Debts on Real Estate 109.5

491. Charge of Legacies on Real Estate 1097

492. Effect of Devise of Rents aud Profits 1100

493. Exoneration of the Personalty 1103

494. Exoneration of Mortgaged Property 1105

495. Marshalling Assets in the Course of Administration 1106

496. Marshalling Assets among Creditors, Legatees, Devisees, Heirs, and

Distributees 1109

497. Statutes affecting the Marshalling of Assets 1111

TITLE EIGHTH.

OF ACC0UNTI:N'G and SETTLE]\rEXTS BY EXECUTORS
AND ADMINISTKATORS.

CHAPTER LIV.

OF THE COMMON LAW AND STATUTORY SYSTEM OP ACCOUNTING.

§ 498. Of Accounting at Common Law in Courts of Probate 1115

499. Accounting in Common Law Courts 1116

500. Accounting in Equity 1117

501. Statutes requiring Periodical Accounting 1118

502. Rendering the Account and Passing ui)on it 1120

XXX CONTENTS.

Page

§ 503. Exclusive and Concurrent Jurisdiction over Administration Accounts 1122

504. Conclusiveness of Partial Settlements 1123

505. Nature of Final Settlements 1126

50G. Conclusiveness of Final SetUements 1128

507. Setting aside Final Settlements in tlie Probate Court 1130

508. Setting aside Final Settlements in Cliancery 1131

CHAPTER LY.

OF THE DEBIT SIDE OF THE ACCOUNT.

§ 509. Wliat the Accountant must show 1134

510. Inventoried Assets to be charged in the Account 1136

511. What Interest Administrators are chargeable with 1136

512. Debts of Executor or Administrator to be charged 1139

513. Rents and Proceeds of Real Estate chargeable to the Executor or

Administrator 1141

CHAPTER LYI.

OF THE CREDIT SIDE OF THE ACCOUNT.

§514. What the Accountant may take Credit for 1144

515. What Counsel Fees will be allowed 1145

516. What Counsel Fees will not be allowed 1147

517. Costs of Probate and establishing the Right to administer .... 1149

518. Disbursements in Respect of the Real Estate 1151

519. Payments to Widow and Heirs 1152

520. Disbursements in Payment of Debts 1154

521. Payments at Discount, or in Depreciated Currency 1157

522. Credits for Difference between Inventoried and Actual Values . . 1158

523. Interest on Advancements by the Executor or Administrator . . . 1159

CHAPTER LVn.

COMPENSATION OF EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS.

§ 524. Commissions allowed by Statute 1160

525. Compensation allowed in the Absence of Statutory Provision . . . 1163

526. Compensation in Cases of Maladministration 1163

527. Discretion of the Court under the Statutes 1164

528. Upon what Property Commissions are allowable ....... 1166

529. Compensation for Extra Services 1168

530. Compensation of Joint Executors or Administrators 1170

531. Compensation to Successive Administrators 1172

532. Compensation determined by the Testator 1174

533. Credit for Commissions in the Administration Account . .... 1176

CONTENTS. XXxi

CHAPTER LYIII.

OP THE METHOD AND PROCEDURE IN ADJUDICATING THE ACCOUNT.

Page

§ 534. Devastavit 1178

535. Accouutiug by Co-executors or Co-admiuistrators 1179

536. Accounting by Successive Administrators 1181

537. Accounting for Assets received in Foreign Jurisdiction 1183

538. Compelling Fin;il Settlement 1185

539. Falsifications and Surcharges on Final Settlement 1186

540. Verification and Evidence 1187

541. Judgment on the Adjudication of the Account 1189

CPIAPTER LIX.

OF APPEALS FROM COURTS OF PROBATE.

§ 542. Treatment of tlie Subject 1192

543. Riglit of Appeal given by Statutes 1192

544. Who may Appeal 1193

545. From what Decisions of Probate Courts Appeals are allowable . . 1196

54G. How Appeal is taken 1199

547. Powers of the Probate Court after Appeal 1202

54S. The Question of Supersedeas under the Statutes 1204

549. Nature of the Trial in the Appellate Court 1206

550. Nature of the Trial de Novo 120S

TITLE ISTIS^TH.

OF THE CLOSE OF THE ADMINISTRATION.

PART FIRST.

OF DISTUIBUTION TO LEG.VTEES AND NEXT OF KIN.
551. Duty of Probate Courts to order Distribution 1211

CHAPTER LX.

OF ADVANCEMENTS.

552. Definition of Advancements 1213

553. Advancements in Testate Estates 1215

554. To whom the Doctrine ef Advancements applies 1216

555. What constitutes an Advancement 1217

556. Rights of Donees in Respect of Advancements 1219

XXxii CONTENTS.

Page

§ 557. Computation of the Value of Advancements 1221

558. How the Existence of Advancements may be shown 1222

559. Statutory Provisions as to Advancements 1224

CHAPTER LXI.

OF THE DECREE OR ORDER OF DISTRIBUTION.

§ 560. Refunding Bonds 1227

561. Parties to the Order of Distribution 1229

562. Nature and Scope of the Decree 1231

563. nights of Assignees of Distributees 1235

564. Set-off to Legacies and Distributive Shares 1236

565. The Law vesting the lliglits of Legatees and Distributees . . . 1238

566. Voluntary Distribution 1241

567. Partition of Real Estate in Courts of Probate 1243

568. Enforcing the Order to pay Legacies and Distributive Shares . . 1246

569. Enforcement of Distribution under American Statutes 1248

PART SECOND.

OF THE ESTATE AFTER OFFICIAL ADMINISTRATION.

CHAPTER LXn.

OF THE STATUS OF EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS AFTER FINAL

SETTLEMENT.

§ 570. i2i?5 /«f/2Va(f« as a Defence after Final Settlement 1253

571 . Duration of the Office at Common Law 1254

572. American Theory of the Duration of the Office 1255

573. Statutory Provisions for the Discharge of Executors and Adminis-

trators 1257

CHAPTER LXni.

OF THE LIABILITY OF THE ESTATE AFTER FINAL SETTLEMENT.

§ 574. Liability of the Estate at Common Law 1261

575. Principle of Liability under American Statutes 1262

576. Extent of Liability of the Heir 1264

577. Exhaustion of Remedies against Personal Representative before

Action will lie against Heirs 1267

578. Time within which Claims may be enforced against Heirs . . . 1268

579. Nature of the Action against Heirs and Devisees, Distributees, and

Legatees 1270

Index 1273

TABLE OF CASES.

Pnpe

Aaron's Succession (11 La. An. 671) 180

Abbav V. Hill (lU Miss. 340) 848, lOOO

Abbey v. Aymar (:i Dem. 400) 881

Abbis V. Winter ('-i Swaiist. .^78, n.) 785

Abbott y. Abbott (41 Mich. 540) 473, 475

V. Bosworth (.{ti Uli. St. 005) 2-K

v. Miller (10 Mo. 141) 3G7

V. People (10 III. App. G2) 4-34

V. Tennev (18 N. H. lOiJ) 031, li)70

V. Winchester (105 Mass. 115) 609

Abel I'. Love (17 Cal. 233) 5U2

Aberci'onibie v. Abercrombie (27 Ala.

4S^) 8U2

V. Sheldon (8 Allen, 532) 543

V. Skinner (42 Ala. 633) 678 '

Abila V. Burnett (33 Cal. 658) 1039

V. I'adilla (14 Cal. 103) 468

Abin^ton v. Travis (15 Mo. 240) 640

Abraham v. Wilkins (17 Ark. 292) 41, 67, 68

Abrani y. Cunningham (2 Lev. 182) 585

Academy v. Cleniens (50 Mo. 167) 920, 931

Acherlev v. Vernon (Willes, 153) 951,952

Ackerman's Case (40 N. .J. Eq. 533) 1140

Ackerman v. Emott (4 Barb. 626) 1138

V. Shelp (8 N. J. L. 125) 254, 2.56

V. Vreeland (14 N. .J. Eq. 23) 915

Ackermann, In re (33 j\linn. 54) 1029

Ackley v. Dygert (33 Barb. 170) 1049

Acklin V. Goodman (77 Ala. 521) 325

Ackroydi'. Smithson (1 Bm. C. C. 503) 728

Adair v. Brimmer (74 N. Y. 539) 654, 738,

1155
V. Brimmer (95 N. Y. 35) 1203

V Shaw (1 Sch. & Lef. 243) 401

Adams, Goods of (L. R. 2 P. & D. 367) 62
V. Adams (11 \i. Mon. 77) 375

V. Adams (46 Ga. 030) 204, 206

V. Adams (10 Met. 170) 161, 178

V. Adams (57 Miss. 207) 223

V. Adams (7 Oh. St. 8!) 1184

V. Adams (21 Vt. 102) 331, 3-32, 1131

V. Adams (22 Vt. 50) 325, 350, 001, 815,
1123, 1128, 1246
V. Bass (18 Ga. 130) 931

r. Beall (00 Ga. 325) 1201

V. Butts (10 Pick. 343) 760, 828

V. Chaplin (1 Hill, S. C. Eq. 265) 71

V. Eatherlv Hardware Co. (3 S. E.

H., (Ja. 430) 830

V. Edwards (115 Pa. St. 211) 8:!2

V. Field (21 Vt. 250) 05

V. Gillespie (2 .Tones Eq. 244) 9.50

«. Gleaves (10 Lea, 367) 1180

V. Jeffreys (12 Oh. 253) 330

VOL. I. — C

Pajre

Adams v. Larrimore (51 Mo. 1-30) 397, 1047

V. Lathan (14 Licli. K(i. 304) 1174

?•. Lewis (5 Sawv. 229) 350

V. Marsteller (7(J lud. 381) 296

V. Morrison (4 N. H. 166) 10-56

V. Palmer (51 Mc. 480) 251

V. Peirce (3 P. Wms. 11) 992

V. Smith (19 Nev. 259) 1155

V. Thomas (44 Ark. 267) 1062. 1079

V. Toomer (44 Ark. 271) 1002, 1079,1080

V. Turner (12 S. C. 594) 1242

■ V. Wilbur (2 Sumn. 200) 885

Addams v. Heffernan (9 Watts, .')29) 1011

Addington v. Wilson (5 Ind. 137) 34

Addison v. Bowie (2 Bl. Ch. GOG) 270

Aden v. Aden (16 Lea, 453) 1217

Adie V. Cornwell (3 T. B. Mon. 276) 992

Adkinson v. Breeding (56 Iowa, 20) 177

Adlum's Estate (0 Phila. 347) 375

Adriance v. Crews (45 Tex. 181) 089

Adshead v. Willetts (29 Beav 358) 881

Adsit's Estate (Mvr. 266) 498

Adsit V. Adsit (2 Johns. Ch. 448) 2o7

Adve V. Smith (44 Conn. GO) 928, 932, 934

/Etna Ins. Co. v. Swavze (30 Kan. 118) 084

Affleck V. Snodgrass (8 Oh. St. 234) 1075

Agnew V. Fetterman (4 Pa. St. 50) 1096

Agricultural Bank i'. Kice (4 How. 225) 2.50

Aguirre v. Packard (14 Cal. 171) 805

Ahearn v. Mann (63 N. H. 330) 1200

Ahem v. Steele (48 Hun, 517) 623, 1202

Aicard v. Dalv (7 La. An. 612) 1083

Aiken v. Bridgman (37 Vt. 249) 828

V. Coolidge (12 Or. 244) 812

V. Morse (104 Mass. 277) 8.58

V. Weckerlv (19 Mich. 482) 44

Aikin v. Dunlap (10 John. 77) 772, 777

Aikman v. Har.scll (98 N. Y. 186) 254

Aiuslie v. Kadcliff (7 Pai. 4.39) 776

Ake's Appeal (21 Pa. St. .320) 1129

Aken r. Geiger (52 Ga. 407) 212

Akers v. Ak.Ts (10 Lea, 7) 676

Akins V. Hill (7 Ga. 573) 1132

Alabama Conference v. Price (42 Ala.

.39) 1021

Alabama State Bank v. Glass (82 Ala.

278) 8.39

Albany Fire Ins. Co. r. Bav (4 N. Y. 9) 732
Albee'i'. Carpenter (12 Cush. 382) 639

Albers v. Whitnev (1 Sto. 310) 3-36

Alcorn v. State (.57 Miss. 273) 1057, 1058

Alden i'. Johnson (63 Iowa, 124) 110, 948

Aldrich v. Annin (54 Mich 230) 814

r. Howard (8 K.I. 125) 620

XXXIV

TABLE OF CASES.

Alciridge v. McClelland (36 N. ,1. Eii-

288) li:W, 1147, Hul, nr,2

Ales r. Plant (fil Miss. 259) H)2G

Alexander's Will (27 N. J. Eq. 4fi3) 499

Alexander v. Alexander (70 Ala. 212) 1128

V. Alexander (0 De G. M. & G. 533) 87G

r. Alexander (48 Ind. 559) 814

V. Barfield ((J Tex. 400) 432

V. Fisher (18 Ala. 374) 1229

V. Hening (54 Ga. 200) 1004

V. Kelso (1 Baxt. 5) 419

V. Kelso (3 Baxt. 311) 684

V. Lane (Yelv. 137) 422

V. McMurrv (8 Watts, 504) 1090

V. Maverick (18 Tex. 179) 1049, 1078

V. INIiller (7 Heisk. 65) 1104

V. .Mullens (2 R. c^' Mvl. 5G8) 798

V. Nelson (42 Ala. 462') 331

V. Kanev (8 Ark. 324) 752

V. Rice (52 Mich. 451) 330

V. Stewart (8 G. & J. 226) 394, 744

i: Wallace (8 Lea. 569) 902

V. W^aller (6 Bush, 330) 935, 1094

Alfonso's Appeal (70 Pa. St. 347) 369

Alfonso V. United States (2 Sto. 421) 671

Alford r. Lehman (70 Ala. 526) 212

Alfriend r. Daniel (48 Ga. 154) 418. 423

Allaire v. Allaire (37 N. J. L. 312) 71, 475, 493

V. Allaire (39 N. J. L. 113) 71

Allan r. Gillet (21 Fed. R. 273) 1085

Allefthenv Bank v. Havs (12 Fed. Rep.

663) " ' 989

AUenian v. Bergeron (16 La. An. 191) 437
Allen, F:x parte (89 III 474) 1148

Ex j.arie (15 Mass. 57) 1026, 1039, 1040
Allen's Will (25 Minn. .39) 68, 70

Allen V. Allen (12 A. c^ F. 451) 490

v. Allen (3 Deni. 524) 761, 1144

7'. Allen (112 111. 323) 275

r. Allen (28 Kan. 18) 58

r. Allen (26 jMo. 327) 795

V. Allen (18 Oh. St. 234) 708

v. Allen (13 S. C. 512) 978, 979, 980

V. Allen (18 How. U. S. 385) 892

V. Ashley (102 Mass. 262) 1070

V. Barnes (12 Pac. R. 912) 354, 1102

V. Bvers (12 Ark. 593) 807

V. Bfadford (3 Ala. 281) 337

V. Clark (2 BlackL .343) 857

V. Clavbrook (.58 Mo. 124) 111

V. Crosland (2 Rich. Eq. 08) 1009

V. Dundas (3 T. R. 125) 448, 449, 4,58, .587
V. Edwards (136 Mass. 138) 970, 1238
V. Elliott (67 Ala. 432) 807

r. Everett (12 H. Mon. .371) 05

11. Graffins (8 Watts, 397) 79.5

V. Griffin (09 Wis. 529) 37, 68 70

V. Hawlev (06 111. 164) 201

V. Irwin (1 S. & R. 549) 7.".2

V. .Jackson (L. R. 1 Ch. D. 399) 961. 902
V. .Jeter (0 Lea, 072) 489

i: Kimball (15 Me. 116) 417

V. Keith (20 Miss. 232) 857

V. McCoy (8 Ohio, 418) 2.10

V. McPher.son (1 H. L. Cas. 191) 485

V. INIanasse (4 Ala. 554) 182

V. Matthews (7 Ga. 149) 794

V. Pray (12 :\Ie. 138) 268

V. I'uhlic Administrator (1 Bradf. 378) 48
V. Russell (39 Oh. St. 336) 202

V. Sales (56 Mo. 28) 336

Page
Allen IV Sanders (?4 N. .1. Eq. 203) 549

r. Shepard (87 111. 314) 1058, 1061, 1003
r. Shields (72 N. C. .504) 209

V. Simons (1 Curt. 122) 432, 1241

V. Smith (29 Ark. 74) 860

V. Walt (9 Heisk. 242) 609

V. Whitaker (34 Ga. 6) 941

r. Wilkins (3 Allen, 321) 518, 642

Allensworth v. Kimbrough (79 Ky. 332) 207,

214

Ailing r. Chatfield (42 Conn. 276) 208

V. Munson (2 Conn. 691) 685, 811

Allison r. Abrams (40 Miss. 747) 1182, 1185

V. Allison (4 Hawkes, 141) 75

V. Chanev (03 Mo. 279) 873

,v. Kurtz "(2 Watts, 185) 1067

V. Smith (16 IMich. 405) 911

V. W^ilson (13 S. & R. 330) 555

Allmon V. Pigt;' (82 III. 149) 46

Allsup r. Allsup (10 Yerg. 283) 363, 369, 371

Alsop's Appeal (9 Pa. St. 374) 113

Alsop V. Mather (8 Conn. 584) 28-3, 1182

V. Russell (38 Conn. 99) ' 873

Alston V. Alston (7 Ired. Eq. 172) 1240

V. Davis (2 Head, 266) 951

i: Munford (1 Brock. 266) 1012, 1107

Altemus's Case (1 Ashm. 49) 519

Estate (32 La. An. 364) 323, 529

Alter r Kins%vorthv (30 Ark. 7-56) 809

Aliheimer v. Davis"(37 Ark. 316) 200

Alvord V. INIarsh (12 Allen, 603) 385, 426, 699

Ambler i'. Liudsav (L. K. 3 Ch. D. 198) 417.

421
Ambre v. Weisharr (74 111. 109) 68

Ambrose r. Kerrison (10 C. B. 776) 762

Ambs V. Caspari (13 Mo. App. 586) 782

American Academy r. Harvard College

(12 Gray, .582) 927

American," &c. Assoc, v. Lett (42 N. J.

Eq. 43) 1097

American Bible Society i'. Hebard (51

Barb. 552) " 1247

V. Hebard (41 N. Y. 619) 1247

V. Marshall (15 Oh. St. 537) 513

V. Pratt (9 Allen, 109) 892

V. Price (115 111. 623) 41

American Board's Appeal (27 Conn. 344) 743,

856
American Board ?'. Nelson (72 111. 564) 107
American Case Co. v. Shaughnessy (59

Mi^s. 398) ' 675

American Life Ins. Co. v. Shulz (82 Pa.

St. 46) 830, 836

American Tract Society v. Atwater (-30

Oh. St. 77) ' 913

Ames, In re (3 McArth. 30) 1182

Ames's F:state (52 Mo. 290) 359, 367, 368. 050

Succession (33 La. An. 1317) 1011

M'ill (51 Iowa, 590) 43

Ames r. Ames (128 IMass. 277) 820, 1234

v. Armstrong (106 Mass. 15) 558, 7-37

V. Downing (1 Bradf. .321) 281

V. Jackson (115 Mass. 508) 1155

Amherst College v. Smith (134 Mass.

543) 1100

Amis V. Cameron (55 Ga. 449) 433, 1241

Amiss V. Williamson (17 W. Va. 673) 999
Amnion's Appeal (31 Pa. St. 311) 1143

Amnrv r. Francis (16 Mass. 308) 8.59

Amos' V. Campbell (9 Fla. 187) 802, 1247,

1250

TABLE OF CASES.

XXXV

Pn-e
Amos V. Ilcatliprbv (7 Dana, 45) 1107

Aiiiphlott V. llil)l)i!id (iJ Midi. -iJS) -J 1 2

Aiulersoii's .Apjifiil ('-Hi I'a. St. 47G) '2&J

Appeal (IU2 I'a. St. 2.J8) U:^S

Afidersoii v. Acktnnian (88 Iiid. 481) 234

V. .Vnderson (;i7 Ala. 683) 1147

V. Arnold (7'J Kv. .■J70) G23

V. Buebe (22 Kan. 7tJ8) 2X)

V. Ik-lchoi- ( 1 Hill, S. C. 24G) fi-ii

V. ISradlcv (CO Ala. 2:3:j) 10G7

r. Biirwuil (G Grat. 405) 1247

V. Cary (:3G Oh. St. 503 955

r. Crist (113 Ind. G5) 876

V. Davison (42 llmi. 4-31)
V. i'.arle (!) S. C. 460)
V Feiton (1 Ired. Kq. 55)
V. Gruen (46 Ga. -30 1)
V. GroKK U^ il'^s. 170)
V. Hall (80 Kv. yi)
V. Irwin (lOriU. 411)
f. Lerv (8-3 Ark. 6G5)
V. McGowan (42 Ala. 230)
V. Norton (15 Lea, 14)
V. Piercy (20 W. Va. 282)

App v. Dreisbach (2 Kawlo, 237)

.Vppel I'. Bver.s (98 I'a. St. 479)
Apperbuii v. Boltou (2J Ark. 418)

989
721
942
702, 1087
-339, 11-37
949
483
1029
721
286
678, 1007,
1138,1147,1158
V. Potter (5 Cal. 63) 516

V. Stockdale (62 Tex. 54) 725

V. Tindall (2G Miss. 332) 853, 8 53

V. Wynne (62 Ala. 329) 6.)9

Andover v. Merrimack Co. (37 N. H.

437) G39

Andrade v. Superior Court (17 Pac.

531) 2:iG

Andres i-. Powell (97 N. C. 155) 1229, 12 17,

1269

Andress's Estate (14 Phila. 263) 190

Andress r. Weller (3 N. J. E(i. G04) 8J2

Andrew r. .Vnilrew (1 CoUv. 68(J) 936

V. Bible Soc. (4 Sandf." 15G) 936

r. (iallison (15 Mass. 325, n ) 426

I'. Hiiiderman (71 Wis. 148) 631

Andrews v. Andrews (8 Conn. 7 J) 234

V. Andrews (7 Heisk. 234) 725

V. Andrews (110 111. 223) 92.)

V. Andrews (12 Mart. 713) 79

V. Andrews (7 Oh. St. 143) 1149

V. -Avorv (14 Grat. 229) 452

V. Bernfiardi (87 111. 363) 329, 1089

V. Brown (21 Ala. 437) 283

t). Carr (2 R. I. 117) .579

r. Hall (15 Ala. 85) 1215,1217

V. Huckabee (-30 Ala. 143) 843

V. Hunneman (6 I'it-k. 126) 992, 993

r. ■Iones(10 Ala. 400) 608

V. Melton (51 Ala. 400) 215

V. Tucker (7 Pick. 250) 576. 666

Androscoggin Bank i; Kimball (10 Cush.

373) 52

Andrus r. Foster (17 Vt. 556) 824

Andruss v. Doolittle (11 Conn. 283) 631, 666
AngcU V. Angell ( 14 R. I. 541) 325

Anger's Succession (36 La. An. 252) 1110

Succession (38 La. An. 492) 1062

Angevine v. .lackson (103 N. Y. 470) 1208
Annal)le v. Patch (3 Pick. 360) 896, 8:)7

Annin r. Annin (24 N. .1. F.q. 184) 609

Anshutz V. Miller (81 Pa. St. 212) 8S8

Anslev v. Baker (14 Tex. 607) 420

Ansoii V. Stein (6 Iowa, l.'iO) 1234

Anthonv r. .\nthonv (55 Conn. 256) 266

Apel r.'Kelsev (47 Ark. 413) 1030, 1054, 1059

792, ]2.j4,

12."j5

892

2.54, 2 i7,

3(iO, 442

480, 481

990

608

2.32

479

V. Cottrell (3 Port. 51)
Apple's Estate (66 Cal. 432)
Appier. Allen (3 .Jones K-i. 120)

r. Apple (1 H .ad, 548)
Applebv i: Brock (76 Mo. 314)
Applegate v. Cameron (2 Bradf. 119) 164, 192

V. Conner (93 Ind. 185) 251

V. Gracv (0 Dana, 215) 249

V. Smith (31 Mo. 166) 378, 493, 494, 887
Appling r. Fades (1 Grat. 286) 91

Apthorp V. North (14 Mass. 167) 560

Arguelle, Estate ot (50 Cal. 308) 1046

,\niiingion v Armington (28 Ind. 74) 154
Armistead v. Bozman (1 Ired. Eq. 117) 554

I'. Dani;ertield (3 Munf. 20) 1240

Armitage v. Mace (96 N. V. 538) 612

V. Snowden (41 Md. 119) 836

Armour v. Kendall (15 R. I. 193) 1236

Armstrong's Appeal (63 Pa. St. 312) 965,937
Armstrong v. Armstrong (29 Ala. 538) 65

V. Armstrong (14 B. Mon. 333)

r. Armstrong (1 Greg. 207)

V. Armstrong (63 Wis. 1G2)

r. Baker (9 Ired. 109)

V. Crapo (72 Iowa, 604)

r. Huston (8 Ohio, 552)

V. Lear (12 Wheat. 169)

V McKelvev(104N. Y.179)

r. Moore (,59 Tex. 646)

V. .Moran (1 Bradf. 314)

r. Park (9 Humph. 195)

r. Storall (26 Miss. 275)

V. Stowe (77 N. C. 360)
Arneit r. .Vrnett (14 Ark. 57)

r. Arnett (27 III. 247)
Arnold I'. Arnold (62 Ga. 627)

V. .\rnold (8 R. Mon. 202)

V. Babbitt (5 .1. .1. Marsh. 665)

V. Blackwell (2Dev.Eq. 1)

r. Buff urn (2 Mason, 208)

V. Commonwealth (SO Kv. 135)

V. Dean (61 Tex. 249)

V. Farle (2 Lee Eccl. R. 539)

V. Haroun (43 Hun, 278)

V. Lanier (Car. Law Rep. 143)

f. Ru-gles (1 R. I. 16.5)

r. Sabm (1 Cush. .525)

873
1239
47
472
8/3
1062
492
728, 1271
210
938
725
632
576
230
82
441
2)2
552
1164
831
810
lO.'O
24
1215
625
6.39
522, 5.30
r. Sabin (4 Cush. 46) 588, 1204

V. Smith (14 R. I. 217) 1153, 1165, 1229,

1249

I'. Spates (65 Iowa, 570) 1122, 1132

Arringtou v. Dortch (77 N. C. 367) 372, 1217,

1239

r. Hair (19 Ala. 243) 751

V. McLemore (33 Ark. 759) 501

Arterburn v. Young (14 Bush, 509) 1200

Asburv V. Jlclntosh (20 Mo. 278) 298

Ash v'. Ash (9 Oh. St. 383) 110

V. Calvert (2 Camp. 387) 467

Ashbrook v. Rvon (2 Bush, 228) 119

Ashburn r\ Ashburn (16 Ga. 213) 393

Ashburner r. Macquire (2 Bro. Ch. 108) 973

Ashbv !•. Child (Stvles, 384) 420

Ashford r. Fwin- (25 Pa. St. 213) 344, 1249

Ashlev r. Gunton (15 Ark. 415) 809

V. Hendee (56 Vt. 209) 824

XXXVl

TABLE OF CASES.

Ashley r. Pocock (3 Atk. 208) 785

Ashiiicad's Appeal (27 Comi. 241) 855

Ashiuuad V. Wilson (22 l-la. 255) 7i;j

Ashtoii V. Miles (-i'J lawa, 504) 804, 825

Asiiiari v. Bangs (3 IJeni. 385) 89

Askew V. Bvnum (81 N. (J. 350) 200

Askew V. Hudgens ('J'J 111. 468) 1102

Aspden s Estate (2 Wall. C. C. 3G8) 902, 903
Asp.len V. Nixon (4 How. 407) 300, 301

Aspinwall v. Pirnie (4 Edw. Ch. 410) 1174
Aston's Estate (5 Whart. 228) 1172

Astor V. Hoyt (5 Wend. 603) 646

Atclieson o.'Eobertson (4 Kith. Eq. 39) 1146

828
627
225
993
505
793
819
540
530

532,

529

207

610
620

848
907
927
931
910
933

927

310

922

949

933

1135

543, 545

232

1108, 1114

3 ), 502

621, 715

922

340

931,

Pafio

Avers v. Donnell (57 Mo. 396) 844

■ V. Dixon (78 N. Y. 318) 621

Aynsworth v. Pratehett (13 Ves. 321) 10ii9

Avres V. Probasco (14 Kaii. 175) 212

V. Shannon (5 Mo. 282) 1073

V. Weed (16 Conn. 291) 512

Ayrey v. Hill (2 Add. 200) 39, 40

Atchison v. Smith (25 Tex. 228)

V. Twine (9 Kan. 350)
Atkins V. Atkins (18 Neb. 474)
V. Hill (Cowp. 284)
t'. McCormiek (4 Jones, 274)
V. Sawyer (1 Pick. 351)
V. Scarborough (9 Humph. 517)
Atkinson r. Christian (3 Grat. 448)
V. Hasty (21 Neb. 663)
V. Kowson (1 Mod. 208)
V. Sutton (23 W. Va. 197)
Atlantic Bank v. Tavener (130 Mass.

407)
Atterbury r. Gill (2 Flip. 239)
Attorney General v. Brigham (142 Mass.
248) 646,

V. Fishmongers' Co. (2 Reav. 151)
V. Garrison (101 Mass. 223)
V. Gibson (2 Beav. 317)
V. Goulding (2 Bro. C. C. 428)
V. Hewer (2 Vern. 387)
V. Ironmongers' Co. (2 Myl. & K.

570) 927, 931

V. .Tolly (1 Ptich. Eq. 99) 919, 929, 9-30

V. Meeting-house (3 Gray, 1 ) 923

V, Painter-Stainers (2 Cox Ch. 51)

V. Provident e (8 R. I. 8)

V. Trinity Church (9 Allen, 422)

V. Wallace (7 B. Mon. 611) 929,

V. Williams (4 Bro. C. C. 394)

Atwater r. Barnes (21 Conn. 237)

Atwell V. Helm (7 Bush. 504)

At wood V. At wood (22 Pick. 283)

V. Frost (59 Mich. 409)

Aubert v. Aubert (6 La. An. 104)

Aubuchon v. Lory (23 Mo. 99)

Auch's Succession (39 La. An. 1043)

Auguisola V. Arnaz (51 Cal. 435)

Augustus )' Seabolt (3 Met. Kv. 155) 880

Aulick V. Wallace (12 Bush. 531) 880

Austell V. Swann (74 Ga. 278) 257, 258

Austin, Matter of (45 Hun, 1) 70

V. Austin (50 Me. 74) 258, 2.59

V. Fielder (40 Ark. 144) 71

V. Gage (9 Mass. 395) 650

V Holmes (1 Ired. .399) 827

V. .lordan (35 Ala. 042) 1185, 1180

V. Lnmar (23 Miss. 189) 332

V. Munro (47 N. Y. 360) 757

Avery v. Averv (12 Tex. 54) 632

V. Chappei (6 Conn. 270) 892

V. Dufrees (9 Ohio, 145) 1043

V. Myers (00 Miss. 367) 285

V. Pixlev (4 IVLass. 460) 94

Axtell's Appeal (0 Atl. 550) 1151

Aver V. Aver (128 Mass. 575) 1000

' V. Messer (59 N. H. 279) 1131

Ayers v. Ayers (43 N. J. Eq. 565) 68, 70

Babbv. Reed (5 Rawle, 151)
Babbett v. Doe (4 Ind. 355)
Babbitt v. Bowen (.32 Vt. 437)
V. Dav (41 X. J. Eq. 392)
Babcock v. Babcock (53 How. Pr. 97)

V. Booth (2 Hill, N. Y. 181)
V. Cobb (11 Minn. 349)
V. Eckhr (21 N. Y. 023)
Backhouse r. Jett (1 Brock. 500)
Bacon v. Crandon (15 Pick. 79)
V. Fairman (6 Conn. 121)
V. Gassett (13 Alien, 334)
V. Morrison (57 Mo. 68)
V. Parker (12 Conn. 212)
V. Pomerov (104 Mass. 577)
V. Thorp (27 Conn. 251)
Badger v. Daniel (79 N. C. 372)

r. .Tones (60 N. C. -305)
Badillo V. Tio (7 La. An. 487)
Baggott V. Boulger (2 Duer, 160)
Bahnerfs Estate (12 Phila. 27)
Baier v. Baier (4 Dem. 102)
Bailev. Goods of (2 Sw. & Tr. 156)
Bailev's Appeal (32 Pa. St. 40)
Bailey's Case (1 Atl. 131)
BaileV's Succession (30 La. An. 75)
Bailev v- Bailey (35 Ala. 687)
V. Bailev (115 111. 551)
V. BaileV (25 Mich. 18.5)
V. BaileV (8 Oh. 239)
V. Blanchard (12 Pick. 160)
V. Bovce (4 Strobh. Eq. 84)
V. Bovd (59 Ind. 292)
V. Br'iggs (56 N. Y. 407)
V. Brown (9 R. I. 79)
V. Miller (5 Ired. L. 444)
v. Munden (.58 Ala. 104)
V. Patterson (3 Rich. Eq.
V. Sanger (108 Ind. 264)
V. Scott (13 Wis. 618)
V. Spofford (14 Hun, 80)
V. Stewart (2 Rcdf. 212)
V. Stiles (2 N. J. Eq 220)
v. Strong (8 Conn. 278)
r. Tavlor (11 Conn. 531)
Baillio V. Wilson (5 Mart. N. S. 214)
Bailv V. Osborn (33 Miss. 128)
Bainbridge's Appeal (97 Pa. St. 482)
Baines v. McGce (1 Sm & M. 208)
Bainwav v. Cobb (99 Mass. 457)
Baird v. Baird (7 Ired. Eq. 205)
V. Brooks (05 Iowa, 40)
V. Boucher (00 Miss. 326)
Bake v. Smilev (84 Ind. 212)
Baker's Appeal (107 Pa. St. 381)
Baker's Will (2 Redf. 179)
Baker v. Baker (8 Gray, 101)
r. Baker (51 Wis.'5-;8)
V. Baker (.57 W^s. 382)
V. Bean (74 Me. 17)
V. Brailsby (23 111. 632)

932

1040
434
233

245.
204
658

104i;
60!)

1124
811
653

1210

1060, 1086

415, 420

1207

632,

850

1200

748

1103

(-03

1229

584

29

1048

721

654

63

1018

.54, 873, 903

407

1188, 1189

268

157

354

722

414

11.53

901

884

395

730

499

473, 482

1122

94

3-23

498

705

694

605

873, 884

431

880

1190

64, 65

51

903

193

170, 171

1265, 1267, 1209

1068

156)

TABLE OF CASES.

XXXVU

Pa Re

Baker r. Brown (18 111.91) 844

V. Chase (0 Hill, 482) 244

V. Craiulal! (78 Mu. 584) 025

17. Deniii-(8 Ad. & El. U4) GJ

I' D(.l)viis (4 Dana, 220) 483

V. FuikT (GU .Ale. 152) 7'J.5

v. Hciirv (G3 Mo. 517) lOGO

V. Joliiistoii (;jy N. J. Eq. 49.;]) 1175

■ V. Keith (72 Ala. 121) 197

V. Moor (G;j Me. 44.J) 795

V. O'Uiordaii (G5 Cal. .3G8) rS-i:)

V. Pender (5 Jones, 351) 88 I

V. Railroad (91 N. C. 308) G28

V. K('d (4 Dana, 158) 639

V. Scott (ii2 III. 8G) 901

V. Smith (3 Met. Kv. 2G4) 371

V. State (17 Ela. 40fi) 214

v. Williams (34 Ind. 547) 121

Balch V. Hooper (32 Minn. 158) 583, 748, 1128

V. Smith (12 N. H. 437) 54

Baldo/.ier (,-. Ilavnes (57 Iowa. 083) 271

15aldrid<,^e v. Scott (48 Te.x. 178) 1079

Baldwin i\ Ashbv (54 Ala. 82) 83G

V. IJaldwin (22 lieav. 41-i) 'J8

V. Baldwin (7 xM. J. Eq. 211) 8:)3

V. Baldwin (81 Va. 405) 67, G8

17. Bnford (4 Yerg. IG) 571

V. Carleton (15 La. 394) HOG

V. DonghertA- (39 Iowa, 50) 796

V. Sheldon (48 Mich. 580) 970

V. Standish (7 Cnsh. 207) 554, 550

V. Timmins (3 Grav, 302) 348

V. Tuttle (23 Iowa,"OG) 8o0

Baldwine i'. Spriu'i^s (05 Md. 373) 105, lOG

V. State (12 .Mo. 223) 41

Baldv's Appeal (40 l>a. St. 328) 175

Bales V. Elder ai8 III. 43G) l.jJ

Ball V. Hall (3 South K., La. 644) 873

17. Brown (Bai. Ch. 374) UOJ

V. First National Bank (80 Kv. .501) 63 ;,

637, 1009, 1142

V. Hawis (4 Mvl. & Cr. 2G4) 732, lOJG

Ballantine i7. Proudfoot (62 Wis. 216) 31, 34

Ballanrvne v. rurner (G Jones Eq. 224) 873

Ballard" (7. Ballard (18 Pick. 41) 935, 939

V. Charlesworth (1 Deni. 501) 524

Ballentine's Estate (45 Cal. GOG) 202

Estate (Mvr. 86) 202, 1145, 1148

Ballentine v. Povner (2 Havw. 110) 230

V. Wood (42 N. J. Eq.'5.52) 9.37

Ralliet's Appeal (14 Pa. St. 451) 9G6

Ballon 17. Tilton (52 N. H. 605) 835

Baltimore Co. v. Kitchie (31 Md. 191) 022

Bancroft v. Andrews (6 Cash. 493) 394, 1194

17. Curtis (108 Mass. 47) 609

Bane v. Wick (14 Oh. St. 505) 171, 111)3

Banes v. Gordon (9 Pa. St. 421) 1064

Bank v. Alexander (85 N. C. 352) 859

17. Carpenter (7 Oh. pt. 1, p. 2i) 112!)

17, Fairbank (49 N. H. 131) 857

Bankhead r. Hubbard (14 Ark. 298) 5.,'2, 543

Bank of Alabama v. ILioks (2 Port. 271) 792

Bank of Bri-jliti.n r. Uusscll(13 Allen, 221) G75

Bank of Hamilton c. Dndley (2 Pet. 492) 1051

Bank of Lansingbnrgh i\ Crarv (1 Barb.

542) ■ 597

Bank of Lonisville r. Board (83 Kv. 219) 444
Bank of Mi^sonri r. White (23 M(">. 342) 693
Bank of Mobile v. Smith (14 Ala. 416) 809
Bank of Montgomery*. Plannett (37 Ala.
222) " 842 ,

Page
Bank of Newburgli v. Seymour (14 John.

219) .336

Bank uf Orange i7. Kidder (20 Vt. 519) 865
Bank of Poiighkeepsie t7. Ilasbrouck (G

N. Y. 216) 1156, 125,')

Bank of the State i-. Gibbs (3 M. Co. 377) 773

Bank of Iroy v. Topping (9 Wend. 273) 795

t'. idpping (13 Wend. 557) 795

Bank of Ukiah ?7. Shoemake (G7 Cal. 147) 838

Bank of United States v. Beverlv (1 How.

134) ■ 1016

I-. Burke (4 Blackf. 141) 032, 633, 1070

V. Dandridge (12 Wheat. 64) 560

V. Moss (6 How. U. S. 31) 336

V. Planters' Baidc (9 Wheat. 904) 773

Banks )-. Amnion (27 Pa. St. 172) 1078

V. Banks (65 Mo. 432) iil

V. Banks (2 Th. & C. 483) 262

17. Machcn (40 Miss. 250) 677

V. Sutton (2 P. Wms. 700) 218

Bannatvne v. Bannatyne (14 Eng. L. &

Eq. 581) c2

Banta v. Moore (15 N. J. Eq. 97) 360

Bantz V. Bantz (52 ^U. 683) 112G, 1144

liaptist Association r. Hart (4 Wheat. 1 ) 920

Baptist Church 17. Roberts (2 Pa. St. 110) 91

Baptist Conven-ion r. Ladd (58 Vt. 95) 1010

r. Ladd (59 Vt. 5) 893

Baraclid'e i7. Griscom (1 N. J. L. 165) 792

Barasien i7. Odum (17 Ark. 122) 428, 429

Barbee v. Perkins (23 La. An. 331) 32.)

Barber, Goods of ( L. R. 1 1 Prob. D. 78) 1015

V. Babel (.36 Cal. 11) 212

V. Barber (3 Mvl. & Cr. G88) 937, 1008

17. Bush (7 Mass. 510) 523

V. Converse '1 Redf. 330) 530, 571

17. Eno (2 Root, 150) 465

17. Slade (30 Vt. 191) 039

V. Williams (74 Ala. .331) 203, 2.57

Barbero r. Thurman (49 111. 283) 826

Barbour v. Barbour (46 IMe. 9) 243

r. De Forest (95 N. Y. 13) 918

Barcliy's Estate (11 Phila. 123) 118, 765

liarclav v. Kimsev (72 Ga. 725) 5G8

Barclift 17. Treece (77 Ala. 528) .329, 362

Barcroft r. Snodgrass (1 Cold. 4-30) 286, 283

Barings v. Willing (4 Wash. U. S. C. C.

248) 740

Barker, Ex parte (2 Leigh, 719) 526, 569

Goods of (1 Curt. 592) 530

In re (2,Iohn. Ch. 2i3) 32

Succession of (10 La An. 28) 1154

17. Barker (3G N. J. Eq. 259) 490

1'. Barker (14 Wis. 131) 330

I'. Bell (46 Ala. 216) 112

17. Comins (110 Jlass. 477) 41, 478

17. Koneman (13 Cal. 9) 60:1

1'. Kunkel (10 111. App. 407) 348

V. Parker (17 Mass. 504) 246

r. Parker (1 T. R. 295) 281

1'. Pearce (30 Pa. St. 173) 895

Barkesdale v. Hopkins (23 Ga. 332) 100

Barksdale v. Barksdalc (12 Leigh, 535) 96

V. Cobb (16 Ga. 13) 556

V. Garrett (64 Ala. 277) 273, 274

Barlage i7. Railway (54 Mich. 564) 622, 714,

1185, 1186, 1242

Barnard r. Edwards (4 X. H. 107) 273

r. Fall River Bank (135 Mass. 326) 269

V. Greijorv (3 Dev. 223) 419

V. Pumfrett (2 Mvl. & Cr. 63) 991

XXXVIll

TABLE OF CASES.

Barnawell v. Smitli (5 Jones Eq. 1G8) 8-iJ,

H88
Barnes v. Barnes (CO Me. 286) 37. 46

V. Brasliear (2 B. Mon. 'MO) ;!08

V. Uow (.^9 Vt. b-M) 8U

V. (ireciizebach (1 Edw, Cli. 41) 8J9

V. Hanks (55 Vt. 317) 971, 972

r. Husou (tJU Barb. 5!J8) 940

V. .laniagin (12 Sni. & M. 108) 791

V. Mowry (11 K. 1. 42i)) 854, 855

V. Kyder (3 McLean. a74) 8(i7

V. Underwood (54 Ga. 87) 684

Barueit's Appeal (104 I'a. St. 342) 935, 930,

938, 985

Laraett v. Kincaid (2 I.ans. 320) 1036

V. Tarrence (23 Ala. 4G3) 1127

V. Wolf (70 111. 70) 1030

Barnevr. Chittenden (2 Green. 105) 472

t'.'Saunders ( 10 Huw. U. S. 535) 707, 1138

Banihart i'. Smith (80 N. C. 473) 31

Baruhizel v. Eerrell (47 Ind. 335) 140

Barnitz v. Casey (7 Cr. 450) 903

Barnslev, Ex parte (3 Atk. 108) 32

Barnuni v. Baltimore (02 Md. 275) 913, 958

V. Uonghton (55 Conn. 117) 101

V. FarlhiniT (40 How. Pr. 25) GIO

Ban- V. Galloway (1 McLean, 470) 277

V. Gravbill '{Vi Pa. St 390) 470

Barrett r. Barrett (8 Me. 340) 300

V. Durham (5 S. E. R. 102) 190

V. Morriss (33 Grat. 273) 1214, 1222

V. Plvmpton (13 Mass. 454) 620

V. Richardson (70 N. C. 429) 214

Barron v. Barron (24 Vt. 375) 611

V. Burnev (38 Ga. 204) 414, 424, 425

Barrus v. Kirkland (8 Grav, 512) 871

Barry's Appeal (88 Pa. St! 131) 376

BarrV v. Barry (15 Kan. 587) 28

V. Brown" (2 Dem. 309) 70, 90

f. Briggs (22Micli. 201) 284

V Havis (33 Mich. 515) 679

V. Harding (1 Jones & I.at. 475) 1106

V. Limbert (98 N. Y. 300) 708, 733

Barsalou v. Wri-ht (4 Bradf. 104) 812

Barstow v. Goodwin (2 Bradf. 413) 903, 904

V. Spragiie (40 N. H. 27) 494

Bartpe v. Thompson (8 Baxt. 508) 37

Barth v. Lines (118 111. 374) 264

Bartholomew's Appeal (75 Pa. St. 169) 97

Bartholomew v. YL^-nhv (3 Phillim. 317) 61

V. Jackson (20 John. 28) 823

r. May (1 Atk. 487) 1100

Bartles Case (33 N. J. Eq. .50) 1221

Bartlett v. Fitz (.59 N. H. 502) 1137, 1147

V. Hyde (3 Mo. 490) .-565, 427, 432

V. Jiineway (4 Sandf. Ch. 396) 242

V. King (12 Mass. 537) 922

V. Nye (4 ]Met. 378) 923

V. Parks (I Cash. 82) 286

V. Slater (.53 Conn. 102) 1005

V. Sutherland (24 Mi-s. 305) 723

Barto V. Tomkins (15 Hun, 11) 1078

Barton, Ex parte (70 N. C. 134) 1200

Barton's Estate (55 Cal. 87) 1173

Barton's Trust (L. R 5 Eq. 238) 1003

Barton v. Higpins (41 Md. 539) 359, 366

V. Rice (22 Pick. 508) 1226

V. Robins (3 Phillim. 455) 484

Barwick v. Rackley (45 Ala. 215) 1128, 1131

Basan v. Brandon (8 Sim. 171) 974

Bascom v. Albertson (34 N. Y. 584) 920, 932

Basket 0. Hassell (107 U. S. 602) 116, 119, 121

Baskin's Ai)peal (38 Pa. St. 65) 190

Bask in v. Bask in (48 Barb. 200) 71

Basknis v. Wvlds (39 Ark. 347) 825

Bason v. Holt (2 Jones, 323) 1014

Bass r. Cliambliss (9 La. An. 370) 099

Bassett r. Bassett (9 Bush, 090) 224

V. Elliott (78 Mo. 525) 1073

V. Granger (130 Mass. 174) 053

V. Hawk, 118 Pa. St. 94) 901

V. McKenna (52 Conn. 437) 631

V. Miller (8 Md. 548) 534, 1172

V. Slater (81 Mo. 75) 770, 1073

Batchelder r. Russell (10 N. H. 39) 435

Eatehelor, Matter of (04 How. Pr. 350) 531,

564

V. Batchelor (1 Dem. 209) 504

Bate V. Bate (11 Bush, 039) 1172

i\ Graham (11 N. Y. 237) 631

V. Licisa (59 Miss. 513) 495

Bates r. Bates (27 Iowa, 110) 43

V Bates (97 Mass. 392) 205

V. Bates (134 I\Iass. 110) 728, 917, 934

V. Dewson (128 Mass. 334) 905

V. Elrod (13 Lea, 156) 806, 843

f. Kempton (7 Grav, 382) 119

r. Officer (70 Iowa," 343) 75

V. Rvberg (40 Cal. 403) 1195

V. Vary (40 Ala. 421) 348, 1146

V. Webb (8 Mass. 458) hbi

Batson v. IMurrell (10 Humph. 301) 821, 822

Battle V. Speicht (9 Ired. L. 288) 887

Batton r. Allen (5 N. J. Eq. 99) 1236

Batts V. Scott (37 Tex. 59) 210

Baucus V. Barr (45 Hun, 582) 654, 1140

V. Barr (107 N. Y. 624) 654, 1140

V. Stoyer (24 Hun, 109) 187, 1160, 1167

V. Stover (89 N. Y. 1) 6,54, 1140 1107

Bauer v. Grav (18 Mo. App. 104) 1243

Baugarth v. Miller (20 Oh. St. 541) 480

Baum's Succession (9 La. An. 412) 706

Bauman's Succession (30 La. An. 1138) 1187

Banskett v. Keitt (22 S. C 187) 92

Baxter v. Abbott (7 Grav, 71) 37, 41, 479

V. Baxter (23 S. C. '114) 772, 773

V. Burfield (2 Strange, 1200) 087

r. Robinson (11 Mich. 520) 730, 1043

Baxter and Bale's Case (1 Leon. 90) 585

Haveaux v. Baveaux (8 Pai 333) 503

BaVless v. Baviess (4 Coldw. 359) 177, 187

■ V. Powers (02 Iowa, 001) 809, 826

Baylies i;. Davis (1 I'ick. 200) 1194

BaVliss's Trust (17 Sim. 178) 88!

Bavlor r. Dejarnette (13 Grat. 152) 1096

Bavne v. Garrett (17 Tex. 330) 1258

Bazzo V. Wallace (10 Neb. 293) 1199

Beach v. Baldwin (9 Conn. 476) 791

V. Fulton Bank (2 Wend. 225) 1197

V. Norton (9 Conn. 182) 740, 1122

Beadle v. Beadle (2 McCra. 586) 593, 719, 728

Beadles v. Alexander (9 Baxt. 004) 475, 491

Beaird v. Wolf (23 III. App. 486) 1155

Beale v. Hall (22 Ga. 431) 396, 631

Beall V. Blake (10 Ga. 119) 980

V. Darden (4 Ired. Eq. 76) 651

V. Drane (25 Ga. 430) 921

V. Fox (4 Ga. 404) 929

V. Holmes (0 H. & J. 205) 884

V. New Mexico (16 Wall. 535) 744

v. Schlev (2 Gill, 181) 1010

Beals V. Crowlev (59 Cal. 005) 122

TABLE OF CASES.

XXX IX

Pase

Beamoiid v. Lons (Cro. Car. 208) 387

Bean i'. lUiiki-li (4 N. H. 550) 1200

V. Faniaiii (U 1 ick. 20'J) G85, 811

V. M vers (I Coklw. 220) 1)48

V. Patterson (122 U. S. 4!t6) UIO

Beane v. Yurbcv (12 (Jrat. 2VJi TO

Beard v. Dudolpli (2i) Wis. 13tj) 613

V. Hale (8 S. W.K. 150; S. C. 95

Mo. IG) 274

V. Knox (5Cal. 252) 221, 2u0

r. Mosulv (.iO Ark. 617) 153

Beardslee v. Beardslee (5 liarb. 324) 232

Beardblev v. American Society (45 Conn.

327) 8<J3

V. Selectmen (53 Conn. 489) !)24

Ikaston t'. Fanners' Bank (12 IVt. 102) 771

Beattie v. Abercronihle (18 Ala. !') 387

Beatty v. Trustees of Societ}' (31) N. J.

Eq. 452) 893. 001, 1147

V. Wray (19 Pa. St. 316) 284

Beaubien v. Cicotte (12 Mich. 459) 41 , 48,

478, 471)

r. Ponpard (Harr. Ch. 200) 1058

Beaufort i'. Collier (0 Hum ph. 487) 607

Beaumont v. Fell (2 P. Wms. 140) 893

r. Keim(.50Mo. 28, 91,100

Beauregard v. Lampton (33 La. An. 827) 522

V. New Orleans (18 How. 497) 1030

Beazlev r. Den^^on (40 Te^x. 416) 37

Beck t". Beck (04 lowa, 155) 213

V. McGillis (9 Barb. 35) 973 974

V. Kebow (1 P. Wms. 94) 601

Becker, Matter of > 28 Hun, 207) 499

V. Lawton (4 Dem. 341) 580

Beckett, In re (103 N. Y. 107) 70

Matterof (35 Hun. 447) 70

V. Selover (7 Cal. 215) 397, 713, 1033

Becklord r. Parnecott (Cro. Eliz. 493) 112

Beckham r. Newton (21 Ga. 187) 1079

V. Wittkowski (64 N. C. 404; 30f)

Beckton v. Barton 27 Beav. 99) 978

Beddoe v. Wadsworth (21 W.Mid. 120) 621

Bedell V Carh (33 N. Y. .581) 116

Bedford's Succession 38 La. An. 244) 11!))

Bedloe V. Homer (10 Grav, 432) 873

Beebe v. Estabrook (79 N, Y. 240) 1224, 1225

t. Lockert (6 Ark. 422) 1193

Beebei's Appeal (8 Atl. K. 191) 1120

Beech's Estate (03 Cal. 458) 526

Beecher v. BuckinL'ham (18 Conn. 110) 387,

693

V. Crouse (19 Wend. -306) 432

Beecroft, Curatorship of (28 La. An. 824) 1125

Beekman r. Beekman (2 Dem. 635) 491

V. Bousor (23 N. Y 298) 925

V. Vanderveer (3 Dem. 619) 272

Beeler i'. Dunn (3 Head. 87) 363, 370

Beene e. Collenberf,-er (38 Ala. 647) 696

Beers v. Haughton (9 Pet. 329) 202

V. Shannon (73 N. Y. 21)2) 441

Beeson v. Beeson (1 Harr. 100) 1010

V. Beeson (9 Pa. St. 279) 1087

Beeston v. Brootli (4 Madd. 161) 9.^7

Begien v. Freeman (75 Ind. 398) 433

Belirens v. Leucht (2 Cin. 217) 758

Beirne v. Imboden (14 Ark. 237) 809

Belcher's Will (06 N. C. 51) 00

Belcher v. Belcher (12 Atl. 2-30) 968, 990

V. Branch (11 K. L 226) 720, 1142

Belden v. Meeker (47 N. Y. 307) 568

B.ilford V. Crane ( 16 N. J. Eq. 205) 609

Belfour r. Ranev (8 Ark. 479)
Bell's Appeal (66 I'a. St. 498)
Appeal (71 Pa. St. 471)
E>tate (25 Pa. St. 92)
Bell, E.x parte (14 Ark. 70)

Goods of (L. K. 4 P. D. 85)

r. Andrews (34 Ala. 538)

V. Armstrong,- (1 Add. 365)

V. Hell (1 Ga.637)

v. Bell (25 S. C. 149)

V. Bell (4 Southern \l. 189)

r. Fleniint;(12N. J. Kfj. 13)

Page
690
720
350
G(J9
1105
504
829
501
639
727
212
858, 8.j9
V Fotheriiili (L. R. 2 P". & D. 148) 94
r. Green '(38 Ark. 78) 1054

V. Hall (70 Ala. .546 i 166, 189

V. Ilewett (24 Ind. 280) 680

V. Humphrev (8 W. Va. 1) 718

V. McMaster (29 Hunt. 272) 479

V. Mousset (71 Ind. 347) 1196

V. Nealv (1 Bai. 312) 227

V. Nichols (38 Ala. 078) 3G8, 073

V. People (94 111. 2.30) 551

V. Phvu (7 Ves. 453) 235

r. Scammon (15 N. H. .381) 950

V. Schwartz (37 Tex. 572) 198

V. Speight (11 Humph. 451) 751

V. Timiswood (2 Phillim. 22) 529

Bell County v. Alexander (22 Tex. 3.50) 922,

929, 951
Bellerjean v. Kotts (4 N. J. L. 359) 1180

Bellew 1-. Jockleden (1 Roll. Abr. 929) 792
Bellingers. Foid (21 Barlj. 311) 384, 411

Belloc'q, Succession of (28 La. An. 154) 112"i,

1127

Bellows V. Cheek (20 Ark. 424) 812

V. Goodall (32 N. H. 97) 423

V. McGinnis (17 Ind. 04) 1068

V. Sowles (.57 Vt. 104) 960

Belslay v. Engel, (107 111. 182) 901

Bern is v. Bemis (13 Grav, 559) 839

Bender v. Dietrick (7 W ^' S. 284) 882

Benedict i-. Ball (38 N. .1. Fq 48) 899

V. Bonnot (39 La. An. 972) 1204

V. :\Iontgomerv (7 W & S. 238) 5()0

V. Webb (98 N. Y. 460) 884

Benescli v. Clark (49 Md. 4971 949

Bengough v. Edndge (1 Sim. 173) 881

Benjamin v. DeGrot (1 Demo, 151) 385

V. Dimmick (4 Redf. 7) 978

V. LeBaron (15 Oh. 517) 429, 0-32

Bennet v. Bradford (1 Coldw. 471) 758

Bennett's Appeal (33 Conn. 214) 854, 855

Bennett v. Coldwell (8 Baxt. 483) 1040, 1080

«j Dawson (15 Ark. 412) 12(i8

V. Dawson (18 Ark. 334) 817, 818. 819

V. (i.-iddis (79 Ind. 347) 1024

«. Graham (71 Ga. 211) .548

V. Harms (51 Wis. 251) 225

v Hutchinson (11 Kan. 398) 28

V. Ives (30 Conn. 32it) 414, 424, 760

V. Tiernav (78 Kv- 580) 336

V. Woolfolk (15 Ga. 213) 287

Benoist V. Murrin (58 :Mo. 307) 31. 34

Benoit t'. Brill (7 Sm. & M. 32) 12-31

Benslev v. Haeberle (20 Mo. App. 648) 1200

Benson. Matter of (96 N. Y. 499) 273, 944

t?. Bruce (4 Des. 463) 1164

f. Maude (6 Madd. 15) 1005

V. Rice (2 N. c^- McC. 5V7) 568

V. Wolf (43 N. J. L. 78) 402

Bent's Appeal (35 Conn. 523) 485, 502

xl

TABLE OF CASES.

Paf;e

Bent's Appeal (38 Conn. 2G) 485

Bent r. Bent (44 Vt. 555) (ill

V. Weeks (44 Me. 45) ■&2'.>

Bentham v. Wiltshire (4 Mad. 44) 710

Bentlev's Estate ('J Pliila. ;J44) 118U

Berauf's Succession (21 La. An. 000) 52;j

Berfuse's Succession (y4 La. An. b'M) 503

Herg V. Anderson (72 Pa. St. 87) 949

Bergey's Appeal (GO Pa. St. 408) 612

Bergin v. McFarland (26 N. H. 533) 636

Berkey v. Judd (27 Minn. 475) 777

liermingham v. For.sythe (26 S. C. 358) 1206

Bernes v. Weisser (2 Bradf. 212) 777

Beniheimer v. Calhoun (44 Miss. 426) 340, 814

Berry v. Bellows (30 Ark. 198) 577

V. Folkes (60 Miss. 576) 283

V. Furhman (30 Iowa, 402) 274

«;. Graddv (1 Met. Kv. 553) 787

V. Hamilton (10 B. Mon. 129) 76

V. Hamilton (12 B. Mon. 191) 508

V. Parkes (3 Sm. & M. 625) 084

Bertrand v. Elder (23 Ark. 494) 609

Berwick v. Halsev (4 Kedf. 18) 1138

Besan(;on v. Brownson (39 Mich. 388) 404.

498, 561, 563

Best V. Farris (21 111. App. 49) 902

V. Jenks (123 111. 447) 207, 212

V. Vedder (58 How. Pr. 187) 025

Betha v. McColl (5 Ala. 308) 432

Bethel v. Stanhope (1 Cro. Eliz. 810) 415, 422

Bethell v. Moore (2 Dev. & B. L. 311) 93, 475

Bettes V. Magoon (85 Mo. 580) 612

Belts V. Belts (4 Abb. N. C. 317) 727, 1174

V. Blackwell (2 St. & P. 373) 697

r. Harper (39 Oh. St. 639) 58

Bevan v. Cooper (72 N. Y. 317) 352

V. Tavlor (7 Serg. & R. 397) 154

Bevers v. Park (88 N. C. 450) 843

Bewick V. Whittield (3 P. Wms. 206) 597

Biavs V. Roberts (68 Md. 510) 1242

Bibb V. Averv (45 Ala. 691) 372

r. Mitchell (58 Ala. 657) 856

Bible Society v. Oaklev (4 Dem. 450) 1183

Bice V. Hair(120 111. 597) 30, 474

Biddison v. Mosely (57 Md. 89) 1200, 1202,

1205

Biddle's Appeal (99 Pa. St. 278) 1004

V. Biddle (.36 Md. 630) 81

V. Carraway (6 Jones Eq. 95) 1098

V. Wilkins'(l Pet. 686) -300

Bieber's Appeal (11 Pa. St. 157) 516, 525, 574

Biedennan v. Seymour (3 Beav. 308) 1094

Bienvenu v. Parker (30 La. An. 100) 1030,

1033

Bigelow V. Bigelow (4 Oh. 138) 1 1 40

V. Folger'(2 Met. 255) 827

V. Gillott (123 Mass. 102) 93, 1018

V. Moron g (103 Mass. 287) 147

V. Paton'(4 Mich. 170) 045

V. Poole (10 Gray, 104) 1220

Bigge V. Bigge (3 Notes of Cas. 601) 89

Bigu^s r. Angus (3 Dem. 93) 89, 96, 100

^v. Beckel (12 Oh. St. 49) 1043

Billings's Estate (04 ("al. 427) 79

Billings r. Hanver (05 Cal. .593) 22

V. Taylor (10 Pick. 400) 229

Billingslca v. Henry (20 Md. 282) 11.59

V. Moore (14 Ga. 370) 953

Billing-slev v. Harris (17 Ala. 214) 346

Bills V. Scott (49 Tex. 4.30) 577, 1205

Biudley's Appeal (09 Pa. St. 295) 1029

Pafje

Bingham, In re (32 Vt. 329) 1182, 12.50

Bingham's Appeal (04 Pa. St 345) 490

Bingham v. Crenshaw (34 Ala. 083) 42(i

V. Maxey (15 III. 295) 1077

Binion v. Miller (27 Ga. 78) 1151

Binnerrnan v. Weayer (8 Md. 517) 525

Binns V. State (35 Ark. 118) 334

Biou, Goods of (3 Curt. 379) 400

Bird V. Bird (77 Me. 499) 280

V. Graham (1 Ired. Eq. 196) 1247

V. Jones (5 La. An. 643) 583

Rirdsall i; Api)legate (20 N. J. L. 244) 882

Bird well o. Kauftman (25 Tex. 189) 820, 1131.

1-258
Birkholm v. Wardell (42 N. J. Eq. 337) 1189
Biimmgham v. Kir wan (2 Sch. & Lef.

444) 206

V. Lesan (77 Me. 494) 952

Birnie v. Main (29 Ark. 591) 237

Biscoe V. Madden (17 Ark. 533) 842

V. Moore (12 Ark. 77) 699

Bishop V. Bisho]) (UN. Y. 123) 604

V. Boyle (9 Ind. 169) 239

V. Curphey (60 Miss. 22) 647

V. Dayenport (58 111. 105) 149, 1221

V. Dillard (49 Ark. 285) 828

r. Lalouette (67 Ala. 197) 441

V. O'Conner (69 111. 431) 1077

Bissell V. Axtell ( 2 Vern. 47) 798, 1117, 1253

V. Briggs (9 Mass. 462) 326

V. Taylor (41 Mich. 702) 242

Bissett V. Antrobus (4 Sim. 512) 7(3

Bitner i\ Bitner (05 Pa. St 347) 35

Bilzer V. Hahn (14 S. & R. 232 i 994

Black's Estate (Tuck. 145) 737, 1153, 1240

Black V. Black (4 Brad. 174) 320

V. Black (34 Pa. St. 354) 344

V. Blakely (2 McCord Ch- 1) 1104

V. Bush (7 B. Mon. 210) 856

V. CartmcU (10 B. Jlon. 188) 903

V. Curran (14 Wall. 403) 195

V. Dressell (20 Kan. 153) 731

V. Meek (1 ind. 180) 1048

I- Richards (95 Ind. 184) 57

V. Whjtall (9 N. J. Eq. 572) 669. 1131,

1214, 1216

D. White (13 S. C. 37) 1140

Blackborough v. Dayis (1 Salk. 38) 788

Blackburn v. Crawfords (3 Wall. 175) 2i,0

Blackerby v. Holtou (5 Dana, 520) 1123

Blackint.in v Blackinton (110 Mass. 461) 173

Blacklaws v- Milne (82 111. 505) 157

Blackler v. Boott (114 Mass. 24) 1236

Blackman v. Wadsworth (65 Iowa, 80) 939

Blackmer r. Mercer (2 Saund. 402 a) 797

Blackstone v. Blackstone (3 Walts, 335) 973

Black.stone Bank v. Dayis (21 Pick. 42) 955

Blackwell v. Broughton (50 Ga. 390) 181

Blain )) H.irrison (11 Hi. 384) 237,254,255

Blair v Thorp (33 Tex. 38) 210

V. Wilson (57 Iowa, 177) 207

Blake r. Blake (85 Ind. 65) 149

V. Blake (53 Miss, 182) 632

r. Chambers (4 Neb 90) 1123

V. Dexter (12 (lush. 559) 392, 719

V. Griswold (104 N. Y. 613) 676

V. Kimball (22 Vt. 632) 1202

V. Pegram (109 Mass. 541) 1126

V. Rourke (38 N. W R. 392) 39. 47

t'. StoiK^ (27 Vt. 475) 901

Blakely's AViU (48 Wis. 294) 35

TABLE OF CASES.

Xli

Pape

Blakcly v. Carter (70 Wis. 540) ;J88

V. Frazier (20 S. C. 144) 5();i

Blanchard v. Hlanclianl (1 Allen, 223) T.JO

V. Blanchard (32 Vt. G2) 68, 89, HO

V. Chapman (22 III. App. 341) 870

t;. Nestle (3 Deiiio, 37) 42

V. Sheldon (43 Vt. 512) 120

V. Williamson (70 III. 647) 816, 1185, 12,J5

Blanchin v. Martinez (18 La. An. 699) 1201

Bhuick V. Morrison (4 Uem 297) 404, 535

Bland r. Bland (103 111. 11) 873

V. Hartsoe (65 N. C. 204) 1040, 1153

V. Muncaster (24 Miss. 62) 704

V. Umstead (23 I'a. St. 316) 688

Blandv V. Asher (72 Mo. 27) 204

Blanev's Estate (34 N. W. 768) 267

BianeV v. Blaney (1 Ciish. 107) 968

Blank, Matter of (2 Redf. 443) 400

Blank's Appeal (3 Grant's Cas. 192) 1150

Blanton i-. Kim,- (2 How. Miss. 8.56) 340

Blasini v. Blasini (30 La. An. 1388) 351

BlassinRamc v. Ro.se (34 Ga. 418) 192

Blatchford v. Newberrv (99 111. 11) 267, 951

Blnvs V. Roberts (68 Md. 510) 1247, 1248

Bleaklev's Estate (5 Whart. 361) 535

Bleecker v. Hennion (23 N. J. Eq. 123) 254.

256

V. Lvnch (1 Bradf. 458) 42

Blewitt V. Nicholson (2 Fla. 200) 440

Blight V. Blight (51 Pa. St. 420) 638, 1011

V. Rochester (7 Wheat. 535) 22

Bliss V. Amer. Bib. Soc. (2 Allen, 334) 923

V. Olmstead (3 Dem. 273) 1006

Bliven v. Sevmour (88 N. Y. 469) 987

Blize V. Castlio (8 Mo. App. 290) 336

Blizzard v. Filler (20 Oh. 479) 749

Blociier V. Ilostetter (2 Gr. Cas. 288) 63

Block V. Block (3 Mo. 594) 111

Blockley v. Blockley (L. R. 29 Ch. D.

2.50) 1214, 1218

Blodgett V. American National Bank (49

Conn 9) 282

V. Hitt (29 Wis. 169) .3.30,1031,1052,1080

Blood V. Blood (23 Pick. 80) 244

V. Havnian (13 Met. 231) 703, 1080

Bloodgood V. Bruen (2 Bradf. 8) 658, 1069

Blood worth v. Stevens (51 Miss. 475) 636,

6-37

Bloom V. Gate (7 Lea, 471) 1022

Bloomer v. Bloomer (2 Bradf. 339) 105, 115,

126, 127, 1151

V. Waldron (3 Hill, N. Y. -361) 732

Blount V. Burrow (4 Bro. C. C. 72) 118

V. Pritchard (88 N. C. 446) 10-37

Blower V. Morret (2 Ves. Sr. 420) 986

Bloxham (•. Hooker (19 Fla. 163). See

Governor v. Honker.
Blue V. Blue (38 III. 9) 201

Bluehill Academvr. Ellis (.32 Me. 260) 854
Bluett V. Nicholson (1 Fla. 384) 12.39

Bluevelt v. De Novelles (25 Hun, 550) 1102
Blum V. Carter (63 Ala. 235) 201

Blume V. Hartman (115 Pa. St. -32) 50

Blvdenburgh v. Lowrv (4 Cr. C. C.) 370

BlVthe V. Hoots (72 N. C. 575) 73.5, 1024,

1037, 1047
Board of Commissioners v. Rogers (55

Ind. 297) 922

Board of Education v. Edson (18 Oh. St.

221) 931

Board, &c. v. Ladd (26 Oh. St. 210) 888

P.ITC

Boardman v. Woodman (47 N. 11. 120) 34,

35, 40, 41
Bobb's Succession (27 La. An. 344) 350, 547
Bobo V. Vaiden (20 S. C. 271) 5.50

Bockover v. Ayres (22 N. J. Eq. 13) 1028
Bodciiheimer's Succession (35 La. An.

1034) 542, 545

Bodle V. Hulse (5 Wend. 313) 739

Boerum v. Schenck (41 N. Y. 182) 702, 703
Bofenschen's Succession (29 La. An. 711) 1190
Botil V. Fisher (3 Rich. Eq. 1) 1.55

Bogaii r. Camp (30 Ala. 276) 695

Bogart r. Van Velsor (4 Kdw. Ch. 718) 709
Bogert V. Hertell (4 Hill, N. Y. 492) 718, 734,

1070

V. Furmon (10 Pai. 496) 596

V. Indianapolis (13 Ind. 134) 591

Boggs r. Bard (2 Rawle, 102) 643

V. Branch Bank (10 Ala. 970) 806

V. Hamilton ( 2 Mill. 381) 541

Bogv V. Roberts (48 Ark. 17) 1218

Bo'hannon v. Madison (31 Miss. 348) 696

Bohanon r. Walcot (1 How. Miss. 3o6) 91, 100

Bohn r. Sheppard (4 Munf. 403) 12(i2

Bohon r. Barrett (79 Kv. 378) 876

Boland's E.state (55 Caf. 310) 330, 1035, 1090

Bolles r. Harris (34 Oh. St. 38) 81, 489

Boiling 0. Jones (67 Ala. 508) 1043, 1077

Holman v. Overall (80 Ala. 451) 58

Bolt V. Dawkins (16 S. C. 198) 844

Bolton V. Jacks (6 Rob. N. Y. 166) 448, 453

V. Whitmore (12 Mo. App. 581) 748

Boltz V. Stolz (11 Oh. St. 540) 2.55

Bomford o. Grimes (17 Ark. 567) 690, 768,

1144

Bompart v. Lucas (21 Mo. 598) 684

Bond V. Bond (10 Lea, 306) 246

r. Clav (2 Head, 379) 348

r. Coiiwav (11 Md. 512) 639

V. Ramsev (89 111. 29) 1077

V. Seawefl (3 Burr. 1773)

V. Wat.son (22 Ga. 637) 1058

Bone V. Sparrow (11 La. An. 185) 639

Bonham v. Bonham (33 N. J. Eq. 476) 986

V Bonham (38 N. J. Eq. 419) 986, 1010

Boniface v. Scott (3 S. & R. 351) 780

Bonifant v. Greentield (Cro. Eliz. 80) 721

Bonner v. Greenlee (6 Ala. 411) 1059

V. Y'onng (68 Ala. 35) 952

Boody V. Emerson (17 N. H. 577) 1034

Boofter V. Rogers (9 Gill, 44) 84

Book V. Book (104 Pa. St. 240) 54, 61

Booker v. Armstrong (93 Mo. 49) 677, 1138,

1158, 11.59
V. Booker (5 Humph. 505) 950

Boone )■. Boone (3 Har. & IMcH. 95) 270

Boor V. Lowrey (103 Ind. 468) 625

Booream v. Wells (19 N. J. Eq. 87) 718

Booth V. Ammermann (4 Bradf. 129) 1005
V. Goodwin (29 Ark. 633) 196, 200, 214,

215

V. Kitchen (7 Hun, 255) 497

V. Northrop (27 Conn. 325) 675

V. Patrick (8 Conn. 106) 631, 661

V. Radford (57 Mich. 357) 760, 765

V. Starr (5 Dav, 419) 1271

r. Stebbins (47 Miss. 161) 268

r. Timonev (3 Dem. 416) 495

Rootle V. Blundell (19 Ves. 404) 1104

Boozer v. Addison (2 Rich. Eq. 273) 639

Borden v. Fowler (14 Ark. 471) 805

xlii

TABLE OF CASES.

Pafro

Borden r. Jenks (140 Mass. 5G2) 985, 98G

V. State (11 Ark. 519) 329

Borer v. (Jhapnuin (119 U. S. 587) 3:U, 357,

847, 12G4
Borland v. Dean (4 Mason, 174) 309

Borueinan v. Sidlinger (15 Me. 42D) 118. 119,

122, 127
Borst r. Corev (IG Barb. 13G) (il)9

Bosio's Estate (2 Aslini. 437) G!)2

Boson V. Stathiun (1 Eden Cb. 508) 910

lU.st V. Bost (87 N. C. 477) 478

Bustick V. Blades (59 Md. 231) 9(12

Boston V. Bovlston (4 Mass. 318) 113G

V. Murrav (94 Mo. 175) 81G

Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Plum- .

mer (142 Mass. 257) 9GG, 988

Bostwiek, Matter of (4 .Jolin. Ch. 100) 1012

V. Atkins (3 N. Y. 53) 10U2

V. Beach (103 N. Y. 414) 255

V. Bostwick (71 Wis. 273) 823

V. Skinner (80 111. 147) 328, 103G

Roswell V. Towuseiid (57 Ala. 308) 1132

Bosworth V. Smith (9 K. I. G7) 842

Bothwell I'. Dobbs (59 Ga. 787) 991

Bott V. Barr (95 Ind. 243) 757

Botts V. Fitzpatrick (5 B. Mon. 397) 793

Boudinot V. Bradford (2 Dall. 266) 96

Boudreaux, Succession of (6 La. An. 78) 1037

Bougere, Succession of (30 La. An. 422) 400

BouKhton V. Flint (74 N. Y. 476) 350, 975,

* 1189, 1191

Bouknight v. Brown (16 S. C. 155) 911

Boulton V. Scott (3 N. .J. Eq. 231) 1131

Bourke V. Wilson (38 La. An. 320) 82

Bourne v Stevenson (58 Me. 499) 661, 606

Bouslough V. Bouslough (68 Pa. St. 495) 631

Boutiller v. Steamboat (8 Minn. 97) 627

Boutte's Succession (32 La. An. 556) 549

Bowden v. Pierce (73 Cal. 459) 428, 1U85

V. Pierce (15 Pac. 64) 428

Bowditch V. Andrew (8 Allen, 339) 906

Bowdlear v. Bowdlear (112 Mass. 184) 140

Bowdoin v. Holland (10 Cush. 17) 441

Bowen v. Allen (113 III. 53) 893

V. Bond (80 III. 351) 1050

V. Bowen (2 Bradf. 336) 825

V. Bowen (.38 Oh. St. 426) 354

V. Collins (15 Ga. 100) 235

V. Crow (16 Neb. 5.56) 287

V. Dean (110 Mass 438) 948

V. Dorrance (12 K. L 269) 987

V. Evans (70 Iowa, 368) 865, 12-36, 12;J9

V. Goranflo (73 Pa. St. 357) 76

V. Johnson (6 Ind. 110) 887, 890

V. Johnson (5 R. I. 112) 498

V. Montgonierv (48 Ala. 353) 678

r.Payton (14 "R. 1.2.57) 1102

V. Preston (48 Ind. 367) 221, 261

V. Richardson (1-33 Mass. 293) 741

V. Shav (105 111. 132) 697

Bowers's Appeal (84 Pa. St. 311) 1198

Bowers v. Bowers (53 Ind. 430) 109

V. Bowers (26 Pa. St. 74) 533

V. Emerson (14 Barb. 652) 393

V. Hammond (1.39 Mass. 360) 332, 865

V. Hurd (10 Mass. 427) 121

V. Keesecker (14 Iowa, 301) 621

V. Porter (4 Pick. 198) 901

V. Smith (10 Pai. 193) 353, 354

V. Williams (34 Miss. 324) 1144, 1151

Bowersox's Appeal (100 Pa. St. 434) 524

Pa?e
Bowie V. Ghiselin (30 Md. 553) 348, 811, 863
Bowker v. Pierce (1^0 Mass. 262) 710, 1172
V. Smith (48 N. II. Ill) 287

Bowles V. Rouse (8 111. 409) 440

V. Winchester (13 Bush, 1) 1217

Bowlin V. Pearson (4 Baxt. 341) 237

Bowiini,^ r. Bowling (8 Ala. 538) 473, 475

V. Cobb (6 B. Mon. 356) 1191

V. Estep (56 Md. 564) 1201

Bowman's Appeal (34 Pa. St. 19) 941

Appeal (62 Pa. St. 166) 566

Bowman v. Bailev (20 S. C. 550) 236

r. Long (23 Ga. 242) 952

V. Woods (1 Green, Iowa, 441) 480

V. Wootton ^8 B. Mon. 67) 544

Bovce V. Citv of St. Louis (20 Mo. 543) 913
' V. Davis (13 La. An. 554) 1122

r. Foote (19 Wis. 199) 825

V. Wabash R. R. Co. (63 Iowa, 70) 629
Bovd's Appeal (38 Pa. St. 240) 520

' Estate (25 Cal. 511) 1199

Succession (12 La. An. 611) 580, 674

Bovd, In re (4 Redf. 154) 1142

' V. Blankman (29 Cal. 19) 1090

v. Bovd (66 Pa. St. 283) 43

V. Bovd (1 Watts, 305) 558

V. Buckle (10 Sim. 595) 996

V. Carlton (69 Me. 200) 261

V. Cook (3 Leigh, 32) 89

V. Ebv (3 Wat'ts, 66) 32, -39

V. Harrison (36 Ala. 533) 243

V. Hawkins (2 Dev. Eq. 195) 702

v. Hawkins (2 Dev. Kq. 329) 1160

v. Hunter (44 Ala. 705) 239

V. Martin (9 Heisk. 382) 237

r Oglesby (23 Grat. 674) 684

V. Sloan (2 Bailev, 31 1) 389, 745

V. White (.32 Ga." 530) 1239

Bovden v. Ward (38 Vt 628) 164

Boyer v. Bover (21 111. App. 534) 168, 170, 189
V. Frick (4 Watts & S. 357) 82

Bovers v. Newbanks (2 Ind. 388) 258

Boyett V. Kerr (7 Ala. 9) 12-30

Bovkin V. Bovkin (21 S. C. 513) 966, 985

Bovlan V. Meeker (28 N. J. L. 274) 37, 49'^
BoVle V. Parker (3 Md. Ch. 42) 96, 875

Bovles v. Latham (61 Iowa, 174) 229

Bovlston V Carver (4 Mass. 595) 595, 648
BoVnton r. Brastow (53 Me. 362) 1084, 1086
r. Nelson (46 Ala. 501) 342

V. Peterborough R. R. (4 Cush. 467) 408,
636, 1142
Bovse V. Rossborough (6 H. L. Cas. 2) 44,

45, 46, 48

Brace r. Black (17 No. E. R. 66) 34

Brackenridge v. Holland (2 Blackf. 377) 3.57

Brackett v.'Goddard (54 Me. -309) 597

V. Griswold (103 N. Y. 425) 625. 626

V. Hoitt (20 N. H. 257) 385

i;. Tillotson (4 N. H. 208) 761,1151

V. Waite (4 Vt. .389) 609

Bradburv v. Reed (23 Tex. 268) 1059

Bradford v. Boudinot (3 Wash. 122) 1149

V. Bradford (66 Ala. 252) 263

V. Bradford (19 Oh. St. 546) 960

i: Cook (4 La. An. 229) 1060

V. Felder (2 McC. C. 168) 432

V. Forbes (9 Allen, 365) 1105

V. Havnes (20 Me. 105) 964

V. McConihav (15 W. Va. 732) 1053, 1054

V. Monks (132 Mass. 405) 718

TABLE OF CASES.

xli

Bradfurd Academy v. Grover (55 Vt.

4G-2) ](><18

BraJtoids V. Kents (43 Pa. St. 474) •20lt

Bradluirst v. Brailliuist (1 I'ai. ;i-Jl) 'J4'.l

Brailisli V. McCli;llaii (100 I'a. iSt. OUT) 00

BraUlee v. Aiulvews (Vi7 Mass. 50) 871, OOli

bi-adlov's Estate (9 Pliila. 327) 1182

Estate (11 Phila. 87) 705, 1147

Bradlev v. Andress (27 Ala. 500) 480

V. Bradlev (3 Kedf. 51 2) 534, 5:58

V. Bri-ham (144 Mass. 181) 280

V. Coiuiuoii wealth (31 Pa. tit. 522) 417,

546, 552

V. Deroche (7 S. W. R. 770) 204

V. Hunt (5 GilUV- J. 54) 118

V. Kees (113 111. 327) 802

V. Saddler (54 Ga.(iSl) 008

V. Vail (48 Conn. 375) 812

Bradlv v. Westeott (13 Ves. 445) 720

Bradner v. Faulkner (12 N. Y. 472) 1005

Bradshaw v. Simpson (6 Ired. Eii. 243) 387,

003
Bradstreet v. Kinsella (76 Mo. 63) 404

Bradwin v. Harpur (Amb. 374) 803

Bradv v. Cubit (1 Douc:]. 31) 100

V. McBride (33 N.J . Eq . 49.5) 38

Bragden v. Brown (2 Add. 441) 40

Bragg V. Beers (71 Ala. 151) 1022

Braham v. Burchell (3 Add. 243) 501

Braidsher v. Cannady (70 N. C. 445) 1217
Brainard v. Colehester (31 Conn. 407) 231
Braiuerd i'. Cowdrev ( 16 Conn. 1) 893, 907,

1100

Bralev v. Simonds (61 N. H. 360) 1050

Braman's Ajipeal (BiJ Pa. St. 78) 705

Bramblet v. Webb (11 Sm. & M 438) 8" 2

Bramhall v. Ferns (14 N. Y. 41) 95.i

Branch Bank v. Donelson (12 Ala. 741) 845

V. Hawkins (12 Ala. 755) 846

r. Wade (13 Ala. 427) 380

Brandon v. Allison (66 N. C. 5-32) 1003

V. Hoggatt (32 Miss. 335) 1137, 1148,

1140, 1207

V. Judah (7 Ind. 545) 077

V. Mason (1 Lea, 015) 4 34

V. Phelps (77 N. C. 44) 1271

V. Robinson (18 Ves. 429) 956

Branger r. Lucy (82 111. 91) 1272

Branham v. Commonwealth (7 J. J. Marsh.

190) 1144

Brannon v. Oliver (2 Stew. 47) 702

Bransbv v. Grantham (Plowd. 52."i) S86

V. Haines (1 Cas. Temp. Lee, 120) 26
Branson lu Yancv (1 Dev. Eq. 77) 258

Brant's Will (40'Mo. 266) 272.987, 1094,1103
Brant i\ Virginia Coal Co. (93 U. S. 320) 729
V. Willson (8 Cow. ,56) 87, 07

Branton v. Branton (23 Ark. 569) 110, 357
Brasbridge v. Woodroffe (2 Ark. 69) 8 '5

Brasfield v. French (59 Miss. 632) 282, 689
Brashear v. Williams (10 Ala. 630) 443

Brasher u. Marsh (15 Oh. St. 103) 881

Bratney v. Curry (33 Ind. 399) 177

Brattle v. Converse (1 Root, 174) 394

V. Giistin (1 Root, 425) 394

Brattleboro v Mead (43 Vt. 5.56) 915

Brattle Square, &c. v. Grant (3 Gray,

143) 917. 920, 9.50

Brawner v. Sterdevant (9 G.n. 69) 620, 624

Braxton v. Freeman (6 Rich. L. 35) 267

V. State (25 Ind. 82) 558, 559

Pnge

Braxton r. Wood (4 Grat. 25) 7i)0

Brav )'. Dudgeon (0 Muuf. 132) 517

'v. Lamb (2 Dev. Eq. 372) 1098

i: McCUnv (.55 Mo. 128) 337

V. Neill (21 N.J. Eq. 343) 272, 1035,

1030, 1048

Bravfield v. Brayfield (3 H. & J. 208) 489

Brav lev v. Ross" (33 Iowa, 505) 796

Brazeale v. Brazeale (9 Ala. 491) 077, 1220

Brazer v. Dean (15 Ma.ss. 183) 186

Brazier v. Clark (5 Pick. 90) 558, 7:i8

Biearlcy v. Brearlev (0 N. J. Eq. 21) 720

Breathitt v. Whittakcr (8 B. ^lon. 530) 57, .58

Bredow v. Mut. Sav. lust. (28 Mo. 181) 231

Brec r. Bree (51 111. 307) 1036

Breed r. Pratt (18 Pick. 115) 49

Breidiam v. Storv (30 Cal. 179) 1038

Brennan's Appeal (05 Pa. St. 16) 1164

Estate (65 Cal. 517) S05

Brennan v. Harris (20 Ala. 185) 396

Brenner v. Gauch (85 111. 308) 175

Brent V. Bank of Washington (10 Pet.

596) 772

V. Clevinger (78 Va. 12) 1138

V. Washington (18 Grat. 526) 905

Bresee v. Stiles (22 Wis. 120) 205, 1230

Brett V. Cumberland (3 Bulst. 163) 504

Brcttun v. Fox ( 100 Mass, 234) 200, 212

Brewer v. Blougher (14 Pet. 178) 156

V. Browne (68 Ala. 210) 290

V. Connell (11 Humph. 500) 248

V. Vanarsdale (0 Dana, 204) 11.^2

Brewster, Matter of (5 Dem. 2-39) 532

V. Brewster (8 Mass. 131) 768, 1153

V. Gillison (10 Rid). Eq. 435) 12.0

V. Hill (1 N. H. 350) 593

V. McCall (15 Conn. 274) 886, 944

V. Shelton (24 Conn. 140) 1200

Brick's Estate (15 Abb. Pr. 12) 331, 404

Brick V. Brick (43 N. J. Eq. 107) 49

V. Brick (GO N. Y. 144) 46

Bricker v. Lightner (40 Pa. St. 199) 42

Bridge r. Swavne (3 Redf. 487) 1036

Bridgers v. HLitcliiiis (11 Ired. 08) 1218

Bridges r. Pleasants (4 Ired. Eq. 20) 924

V. Wilkins (3 Jones E(\. 342) 607

Bridgewater r. Brookfield (3 Cow. 299) 1055

- •■ " ■ " ■■ —'' 610

641
899
49
181
404
1198

Bridgford t'. Riddeli (55 111. 201)

Bridgman v. Bridgman (138 Mass. 58)

Bridgnorth v. Collins (15 Sim. 5-38)

Bridwell v. Swank (84 Mo. 455)

Brien, Ex parte (2 Tenn. Ch. 33)

Briers v. Goddard (Hob. 250)

Brigel V. Starbuck (34 Oh. St. 280)

Briugs V. Barker (145 Mass. 287) 1192, 1200

^v. Briggs (69 Iowa, 017) 890

V. Greene (10 R. I. 495) 156

r. Hartley (14 Jur. 083) 927

V. Smith "(83 N.C. .300) 1270

V. Starke (2 Mills Const. R. Ill) 736

J). Titus (13 R.I. 136) 276,277

Brigham v. Elwell (145 Mass. 520) 1143

' r. Shattuck (10 Pick. 306) 951

Bright r. White (8 Mo. 421) 494

Brightman v. Keighlev(Cro. Eliz. 43) 505

Brimmer v. Sohier (1 Cush. 118) 872, 886

Brinckerhoff v. Lawrence (2 Sand. Ch. 400) 124

Brinckerhoof ?•. Remsen (8 Pai. 488) 69

Brine i-. Insurance Co. (106 U. S. 627) 379

Brinker v. Brinker (7 Pa. St. 53) 340, 341

Brinkman's Succession (5 La. An. 27) 517

xliv

TABLE OF CASES.

Pape
Briiikman ?•. Rueg^fjesick (71 Mo ilZ) 4-i

Briiiley r. Gron (50 Conn. CU) 1004

Bnnson, In re (7;i N. C. 278) 320, 577

Brinton's Estate (la I'liila. 2-34) 34

Briscoe r. Tarkington (5 La. An. G92) 52.5
V. Witkliffe (fi Dana, 157) 514

Bristcd V. Week.s (5 Kedf. 52'J) 4'J

Bristol V. Bristol (53 Conn. 242) 024, 925

Bristol Sav. Bank v. Woodward (137

Mass. 412) 859

Bristor v. Bristor (93 Ind. 281) 012

Britain v. Kinnaird (1 B. & B. 432) 457

Briitin v. Phillips (1 Dem. 57) 323, 345

Britton V. Miller (63 N. C. 208) 896

r. TiKirntun (112 U. S. 526) 937

Broach v. Sing (57 Miss. 115) 81, 489

V. \Valke;-(2Ga. 428) 588

Broadaway's Succession (3 F.a. An. 591) 1153

Broadwater v. Richards (4 Mont. 80) 1050

Broadway r. Adams (133 Mass. 170) 956

Brock u. "Frank (51 Ala. 85) 493

V. Philips (2 Wash. 68) 1077

V. Slaten (82 III. 282) 825

Brockenborough v. MeUtbn (55 Tex. 493) 1081

Brockenbrough v. Tnrner (78 Va. 438) 093

Brockley's Appeal (4 Atl. 210) 729, 948

Broderick's Will (21 Wall. 503) 497

Bioderick v. Smith (3 Lans. 26) 842

Brodess v. Thompson (2 H. & G. 120) 324

Brodie v. Brickley (2 Rawle, 431) 361, 369

Brodnax v. Brown (Dudley, Ga. 202) 423

Broe V. Boyle (108 Pa. St^ 76) 409, 501, 502

Brokaw v Hudson (27 N. J. Eq. i:J5) 900

V. McDougall (20 Fla. 212) 195, 200, 212

Bromley v. Miller (2 Th. & C. 575) 494

Bronaiigh v. Pronaugh (7J. J. Marsh. 621) 501

Bronsdon «. Winter (1 Anib. 57) 905

Bronsnn v. Burnett (1 Chand. 130) 3;!2

Brook V. Brook (3 Sm. & G. 481) 224

V. Chappell ,34 Wis. 405) 339, 351, 815

v. Turner (1 Mod. 211) 20

V. Turner (2 Mod. 170) 20

Brookbank v. Kennard (41 Ind. 339 610

Brooke v. Craxton (2 Grat. 500) 881

V. Lewis (Madd. & G. 358) 994

V. Townshend (7 Gill, 10) .32, 39

Brooking r. Farmers' Bank (83 Ky. 431) 1155

V. Jennings (1 Mod. 174) " 404

Brooks's Folate (54 Cal. 471) 42, 47

Brooks V. Barrett (7 Pick. 94) 39

V. Bicknell (3 McLean. 250) 634, 635

V. Brooks (12 S. C. 422) 119, 999, 1000,

1001, 1138

V. Duckworth (59 Mo. 48) 334

r. Kskins (24 Mo. App. 296) 1097, 1100

V. Fyerett (13 Allen, 457) 232

V. Hyde (37 Cal. 366) 200

V. Jackson (145 Mass. 307) 1143, 1163

V. Lynde (7 Allen, 64) 994

V. Mastin (69 Mo. 58) 1183

V. Oliyer (1 Amb. 406) 798

V. Rayner (127 Mass. 268) 1267

V. Whitmore (139 Mass. 356) 549

r. AVhitmore (142 Mass. 399) 548

Brophv's Estate (12 Phila. 18) 576

Brothers v. McCur.iy (.36 Pa. St. 407) 955

Brotherton v. Hellier (2 Cas. Temp. Lee,

131) 404

Brotzman's Appeal (119 Pa. St. 645) 345

Broughton v. Bradley (34 Ala. 694) 358, 571,

673

Page

Browder v. Faulkner (82 Ala. 257) 331

Browcr r. Hunt (1« Oli St. 311) 154

Brown's Ajjpeal (1 Dall. 311) 737

Appeal (12 Pa. St. 333) 356

Aiipeal (08 Pa. St. 53) 1062

Appeal (84 Pa. St. 457) 346

Appeal (89 Pa. St. 139) 284

Estate (93 N. Y. 295) 883

F:state (8 Phila. 197) 705,1186

Estate (11 Phila. 127) 529

Petition (14 R. I. 371) 1005

Will (1 B. Mon. 56) 93

Brown. Fx jiarte (2 Bradf 22) 393, 542, 545

V. Anderson (13 Ga. 171) 472, 473, 1196

V. Anderson (13 Mass. 201) 846

V. Armistead (6 Rand. 594) 724

V. Beaver (3 Jones, 516) 79

V Bell (58 IMich. 58) 1230

V. Benight (3 Blackf. 39) 416, 419

V. Bokee (53 Md. 155) 640, 042

V. Bronson (35 Mich. 415) 245

r. Brown (41 Ala. 215) 1047

V. Brown (1 Barb. Ch. 189) 363, 375

V. Brown (6 Bush, 648) 904

V. Brown (18 Conn. 410) 116, 119

V. IJrown (8 El. & Bl. 875) 96, 98, 483

V. Brown (137 Mass. 539) 972

V. Brown (35 Minn. 191) 370

V. Brown (33 Miss. 39) 182

V. Brown (68 Mo. 388) 202

f. Brown (2 Murphy, 350) 81

V. Brown (8 N. H. 93) 1244

r. Brown (43 N. H. 17) 892

I- Brown (44 N. H. 281) 941

V. Brown (48 N. H. 90) 8C2

V. Brown (79 Va. 048) 985

r. Brightman (11 Allen, 226) 630

V. Burke (22 Ga. 574) 1218

V. Carroll (-36 Ga. 508) 81

V. Clark (44 Mich. 309) 27 S

V. Clark (77 N. Y. 369) 71, 86, 108, 475

V. Cretchell (110 Ind. 31) 1239

V. Durbin (5 J. J. Marsh. 170) 414, 421

V. Dye (2 Root, 280) 157

V. Eaton (91 N. C. 20) 78

f. Fggleston (53 Conn. 110) 758, 1150

f. Elton (3 P. Wnis. 202) 1014

V. Evans (15 Kan. 88) 1057, 1074

V. Finlev (18 Mo. 375) 632

V. F'orsche (43 Mich. 492) 1242

V. Gaslight Co. (58 Cal. 426) 358

V. Gibson {IN. ik McC. 326) 326, 499

V. Grimes (60 Ala. 047) 1097

V. Hanauer (37 Ark. 155) 1028

V. Harris (9 Baxt. 380) 489

t;. Hinman (Bravi. 20) 1199

V. Hodgdon (31 Me. 65) 165, 169, 170,

186, 270

V. James (3 Strob. Fq. 24) ll(i8

v. Johns (02 Md. 333) 350

V. .Toiner (3 S. E. R. 157) 177

V. Joiner (5. S. E. R. 497) 177

t". Keller (32 111. 151) 200

V. Kelsev (2 Cush. 243) 923

V. King'(2 Ind. 520) 565

V. Knapp (79 N. Y. 136) 366, 1007,1009,

1099, 1100

V. Lambert (33 Grat. 250) 1002

V. Leavitt (20 N. H. 493) 421, 422, 423

V. Lewis (9 R. I. 497) 385, 643

V. McAllister (34 Ind. 375) 70

TABLE OF CASES.

xlv

Drown V. Merchants' Bank (79 N. C. 244) 859

r. Noble (4-2 Oil. St. Wo) 741

V. Parrv (2 Uick. (;8."i) 2(i()

f. lYMukM-irast (7 Allen, 427) 580, fi77, 7-02

V. Porter (7 Humph. •J7:!) 841, 84;5

V. Public Adm'r(2 Brudf.lOS) 777

V. Hedwyne (16 Ga. (!7) 1002

V. Uiciiards (17 N. J. Eq. 32) 2:i0

V. Kitrsin (94 111. 5110) 30, 39

V. Kobert.s (21 La. An. 508) 10-33

V. livdcr (42 N. .1. Kq. -i.ili) 401, 1203

V. Selwin (Cas. Temp. Talb. 240) 652

V. Slater (16 Conn. 192) 8.")6

V. Starke (3 I);n;a, 316) 2.-j0

V. Stewart (4 Md. Cli. 308) 533, 534

V. Strickland (2S Ga. 38?) 505, 576

V. Strickland (32 Me. 174) 622

V. Sullivan (22 lud. 35!)) 414. 417, 418

V. Sumner (31 Vt. 671) 816, 856

V. Taylor (62 Ind. 295) 121';

V. Temperlev (3 Hu<s. Ch. 263) 1009

V. Thorndike (15 Tick. 388) 8.)3

V. Torrev (24 IJarb. 583) 37

V. Tutweiler (61 Ala. 372) 676

V. Van Duzee (44 Vt. 52!)) 1066

V. Ventriss (24 La. An. 187) 576

V. Vinvard (Bailev Eq. 460) 1149

V. Wafter (58 Ala." 310) 422, 425

V. Ward (53 Md. 376) 34

V. Weatherby (71 Mo. 152) 559

V. Wheeler (18 Conn. 199) 675

V. Whitmore (71 ISIe. 65) 631, 794

V. Williams (31 Me. 403) 244

V. Williams (5 H. L 309) 896

1-. Williamson (36 Pa. St. 333^ 918

V. Wood (Alevn. 30) 574

V. Wood (17 Mass. 68) 502

V. Woody (22 Mo. App. 253) 1057

Browne v. MbDonald (129 Mass. 66) 688

V. Molliston (3 Whart. 129) 43

«. Preston (.38 Md. 373) 811

V. Rogers (1 Houst. 458) 766

Browiiell v. Curtis (10 Pai. 210) 631

Rrownfield v. Wilson (78 111. 467) 873

Browning, Goods of (2 Sw. & Tr. G34) 519

«. Harris (99 III. 4.56) 207

V. Headley (2 Rob., Va. 340) 640, 642

V. Heane (2 Phill. 69) 518

V. Watkins (10 Sm. & M. 482) 4-32

Brownlee v. Lockwood (20 N. .T. Eq. 239) 363

Brownson v. Gifford (8 How. Pr. 389) 960

V. Lawrence (L. R. (i Eq. 1) 1111

Brubaker's Appeal (98 Pa. St. 21) 532

Bruce r. Griscom (9 Hun, 28 ») 1219

V. Slemp (82 Va. 352) 1218, 1222, 1223

Bramfield v. Drook (101 Ind. 190) 718

Hrummagim v. Ambrose (48 Cal. 366) 1064

Bruscup'v. Taylor (26 Md. 410) 1203

Brush V. Button (36 Conn. 2J2) 1122

V. Wear (15 Pet. 93) 1077

V. Wilkins (4 .John. Ch. 506) 105, 106

V. Young (28 N. J. L. 237) 1175

Bryan's Estate (4 Phila. 228) 776

Bryan v. Bacheller (6 R. I. 543) 227

' V. Bauder (23 Kan. 95) 329, 1037, 1089

V. Hicksou (40 Ga. 405) 356

V. Mc<iee (2 Wa<h. C. C. 3.37) 371, 374. 649

V. Mulligan (2 Hill Ch. 361) 697

V. Mundy (14 Mo. 458) 775, 776, 826

V. Rooks" (25 Ga. 622) 642

V. Thompson (7 J. J. Marsh. 586) 733

Pa?e

Brvan i) Walton (14 Ga. 185) 568

■ V. Weems (25 Ala. 195) 11.56

Bryant v. Allen (6 N. II. 116) 326, ll;/3

V. Helton ((i6 (ia. 477) 421, 425

V. Horn (42 xVla. 4(52) 331

V. Livennore (20 Minn. 313) 1267

V. McCuiie (49 Mo. 540) 171, 229, 231

Brvar's Appeal (HI Pa. St. 81) 24U, 1074

HrVcc, Goods of (2 Curt. 325) 6 !

BrVson v. Nickols (2 Hill Cn. 113) 1146

Buchan r. Uintoul (10 Hun, 183 ; S. C. 70

N.Y.I) 1181

V. Sumner (2 Barb. Ch. 165) 234. 289, 290

Buchanan's Ai)peal (72 Pa. St. 448) KC-'S

Buchanan c. Llovd (64 Md. 306) 972

V. Matlock (8 Humph. 390) 470

V. Tiiomason (70 Ala. 4oi) 1128

V. Wagnon (62 I'ex. 375) 8il

Buchanon v. Buchanon (99 N. C. 308) 91-)

Bucher V. Biicher (86 III. 377) 11 12

Buck V. Paine (75 Me. 582) 951

Buckingham v. Ludlum (37 N. J. Eq. 137) 287

V. Wesson (54 Miss. 526) 723, 1U84

Buckley v. Barber (6 Exch. 164) 427

r. Buckley (U Barb. 43) 2;i0

V. Gerard" (123 Mass. 8) 110

Bucklin V. Chapin (1 Lan^. 443) 767

Buckminster r. Ingham (Bravt. 116) 421

Bucknam v. Phelps (6 Mass. 448) 193

Buckner v. Wood (45 Miss. 57) 1046

Buck worth v. Thirkell (3 Bos. & Pul.

6.52) 232

Budd )•. Brooke (3 Gill, 198) 494

V. Garrison (45 Md. 418) 10O9

V. Hiler (27 N. J. L. 43) 230, 599

r. Williams (26 Me. 265) 1097

Buddecke v. Bnddeckc (31 La. An. 572) 346

Buehler v. Bullington (43 Pa. St. 278) 568,

1096

Buell V. Dickey (9 Neb. 285) 435

r.uffaloe v. Baugh (12 Ired. 201) 991

Bufford V. Johnson (34 N. H 489) 857

Buffum V. Sparhawk (20 N. H. 81) 165, 1200

Buford V. McKee (3 B. Mon. 224) 1022, 1040

Bug-bee v. Sargent (23 Me. 269) 1097

V. Surrogate (2 Cow. 471) 439

Buie V. Pollock (55 Miss. 309) 1123

Bulfinch V. Benner (64 Me. 404) 8-58

Bull V. Bull (8 Conn. 47) 923, 924

c. Harris (31111. 487) 863

Bullard v. Benson (1 Dem. 486) 1007

V. Benson (31 Hun, 104) 273

r. Briggs (7 Pick. 533) 242

Bullion V. Campbell (27 Tex. 653) 804

Bullock's Estate (17 Pac. R. 540) 1123

Bullock r. Bullock (2 Dey. Eq. 307) 902

V. Rogers (16 Vt. 294) 38.5, 650

Bundv V. McKnight (48 Ind. ,502) 31, 43

Bunn"v. Mavkham (7 Taunt. 224) 121, 125

Bunnel r. Witherow (29 Ind. 123) 608

Bunnell v. Post (25 Minn. 376) 1156

l^iiiitiu V. Johnson (28 La. An. 796) 70

l?untyn v. Holmes (9 Lea, 319) 1045

Burbank's Will (69 Iowa, 378) 948

Biubaiik V. Payne (17 La. An. 15) 360, 693

V. Whitney (24 Pick. 146) 912

Burch r. Atchfson (82 Kv. 585) 199

f. Burch(19 Ga. 174) 513.742

Burckhartt r. Helfrich (77 Mo. .381) 781. 1243

Burdett r. Silsbee (15 Tex. 604) 1080

V. Wrighte (2 B. & Al. 710) 910

xlvi

TABLE OF CASES.

Pago

Biirdyne v. Mackev (7 Mo. 374) 367, 622

Hurfoot V. Burt(Hit-(2 Leigh, ll'J) 94!)

Burford r. Steele (80 Ala. 147) 847

Burnu V. Bi-iittuu (2 Ihiie, '376) 787

\\ Hamilton (72 (ia. 568) 80, 483, 484

Burger v. Hill (1 Bradt. ;j(iO) 46!), 484

Burgess v. Burgess (109 I'a. St. 312) 58

V. VVIieate (I Wm. Bl. 123; S. C 1

Eden, 177) 304

Bnrgie v. Sparks (11 Lea, 84) 826

Burgovne v. Showier (1 Kob. 5) !)4

Biirgwin v. Hostler (1 Tavl. 75) 287

Burk V. Baxter (3 Mo. 207) 602

V. Gleason (46 Pa. St. 297) 190

V. Jones (13 Ala. 167) 8.J2

Burke v. Burke (34 Mich. 451) 145

V. Coll>ert (114 Mass. 160) 28

V. Coolidge (35 Ark. 180} 1151, 1186

V .Volan (1 Dem. 43(i) 476

V. Terrv (28 Conn. 414) 795, 1195

V. Wilder (1 McCord Vh. 551) 898

Burkhalter v. Burkhalter (88 Ind. 368) 268

r. Norton (3 Ueni. 610) 654

Burkhead v. Colion (2 Dev. & B. Eq. 77) 992,

1247

Bnrkholder's Appeal (105 Pa. St. 31) 610

Burks r. Bennett (62 Tex. 277) 838

V. Oshorn (9 B. Mon. 579) 256

Burleigh v. Clough (.52 N. H. 267) 949

f.^Coffin (22 N. H. 118) 642

Burlevson v. Whitlev (97 N. C. 295) 953

Burlington v. Fosbv"'(6 Vt. 83) 156

Burneil's Estate (13 Phila. 387) 1142

Burnell v. Malonev (36 Vt. 636) 622

Barnes v. Burton (1 A. K. Marsh. 349) 1125

Burnet r. Burnet (30 N. J. Eq. 595) 944

Burnett v. Meadows (7 B. Mou. 277) 443

i;. State (14 Tex. 455) 336

V. Strong (26 Miss. 116) 952

Burnev, Ex parte (29 Ga. 33) 1168

Burnham v. Aver (.35 N. H. 351) 94

V. Comfort (37 Hun, 216) 973, 978

V. Conif(n-t (108 N. Y. 535) 103, 978

V. Lasselle (35 Tiid. 425) 621

V. Porter (24 N. H. 570) 2.59

Burnlev r. Duke (1 Rand. 108) 537, 567

r. Duke (2 Kob. Va. 102) 568

Burns's Estate (.54 Cal. 223) 1198

Burns V. Burns (4 Serg. & Pt. 295) 89

V. Clark (37 Barb. 496) 951

V. Cox (10 Phila. 8) 1141

V. Grand Pt. R. Co. (15 N. East. •230) 629,

630
V. Hamilton (33 Ala. 210) 1077

V. Keas (20 Iowa, If!) 1200

V. Keas (21 Iowa, 257) 195, 203

V. Van Loan (29 La. An. 560) 4.50, 461
Burnside's Succession (34 La. An. 728) 400,

581, 944

Burnside v. Savier (6 Oreg. 154) 295

Burr, Matter of »2 Barb. Ch. 208) 39

r. ]McEwen (l'.aldw. 1.54) 1146

V. Sherwood (3 Bradf. 85) 639, 641

V. Smith (7 Vt. 241) 921, 929

Burras^e v. Britrars (120 Mass. 103) 140

Burris v. Page (12 Mo. 358) 232

Burrouchs v. Adams (78 Ind. 160) 158

V. iVIcLain (37 Iowa, 189) 796, 806

Burrow v. Rac;land (6 Humph. 481) 497

Bursen v. Goodspeed (60 111. 277) 214, 102.5,

1028, 1076

Pase

Bushee v. Freeborn (11 R. L 149) 1004

Burt V. Hurt (41 N. Y. 46) 739

V. Herron (66 I'a. St. 400) 876

r. Kaiidlett (.59 N. II. 130) 136, 205

Burtch )•. Klliott (3 Ind. 99) 6.32

Burton's Estate (63 Cal. 36) 216

Estate (64 Cal. 428) 210, 346

Burton i\ Burton (4 Harr. 73) 665

V Burton (26 Ho. V. Pr. 474) 226
f. Hintrai^er (18 Iowa, 348) 5!.5
v. Lockirt (9 Ark. 411) ]2'-8
r. Mill (78 Va. 468) 210
V. Newberv (L. R. 1 Ch. D. 234) 101
V. Rutherford (49 Mo. 255) fc19
V. Scott (3 Rand. 399) 42
V. Spiers (87 N. C. 87) 211, 212

Burtonshaw v. Gilliert (1 Cowp 49) 89

Burwell ;.-. Cawood (2 How. 560) 281, 282

V. Corbin (1 liand. 131) 473

V Shaw (2 Bradf. 322) 565
Buscher v. Knapp (107 lad. 340) 1219, 1220,

1223

Bush's Appeal (.33 Pa. St. 85) 817

Appeal (102 I'a. St. C02) 648

Bush ». Adams (22 Fla. 177) 712, 805, 841. 861

r Bradley (4 Day, 298) 277

V. Bush (5 Hnust. 245) 236

V. Hush (87 JIo. 480) 4!.'0

V. Clark (127 Mass. Ill) 187. 290, 293

V. Lmdsev (44 Cal. 121) 343

Bushee r. Sufles (77 N. C. (2) 1247

Bushnell v. Carpenter (92 N. Y. 270) 941

r. Dennison (13 Fla. 77) 1239

Buster r. Newkirk (20 John. 75) 596

Bute V. Kneale (109 111. 652) 248

Butler's Estate (38 N. Y. 397) 605

Butler IJ. Ben.'^on (1 Barb. 526) 472

V. Butler (3 Barb. Ch. 304) 888

I'. Butler (5 Harr. 178) 484

v. Emmett(8 Pai. 12) 1072

V. Huestis (68 111. 594) 900

V. Ives (139 Mass. 202) 609

r. Johnson (41 Hun, 206) 843

V. Lawson (72 Mo. 227) 340, 815, 844

I'. Perrott (1 Dem. 9) 399

V. Ralston (69 Ga. 485) 898

V. Rickets (11 Iowa. 107) 609

Butnian v Porter (100 Mass. 337) 264

Butterfield r. Haskins (33 Me. 392) 881

V. Stanton (44 Miss. 15) 611

Butterlv's Succession (10 La. An 258) 1166

Button'v. Am. Tract Society (23 Vt. 33fi) 892

Ruttrick v. King (7 Met. 20) 392, 1070

Butts V. Genung (5 Pai. 254) 1266

r. Phelps (79 Mo. 302) 8-30

V. Trice (69 Ga. 74) 265

Bverly r. Donlin (72 Mo. 270) 5-37, 1132, 1133

Bvers'r. Hoppe (61 Md. 206) 61, 77

■ V. McCartney (62 Iowa, 339) 923

Bvng V. Bvng (10 H. L. Cas. 171) 590

BVnnm i;."Bynum (11 Ired. L. 632) 57

BVram v. Evram (27 Vt. 295) 215, 1198

Bvrd v. Governor (2 Mo. 102) 1152

* V. Wells (40 Miss. 711) 844, 1144

Bvrn V. Fleminij (3 Head, 658) 822

Bvrne v. Bvrne (3 S. & R. 54) 975

" r. McDow (23 Ala. 404) 863

V. Stewart (3 Des. 135) 516

Byrnes r. Dibble (5 Redf. 383) 519

" V. Stilwell (103 N. Y. 4.53) 878, 942

Byron v. Bvron (Cro. Eliz. 472) 441

TABLE OF CASES.

xlvii

Caballero's Succession (25 La. An. 646) 1125
Cabaniu'- v. Skinker (56 Mo. 357) 362, ;JU-'J, fioO
Cabells v. Purvfar (27 (irat. 902) 1222

Caliles r. Prescott (67 Mc. 582) 146, 647

Caboiiret's Succossion (9 l,a. An. 520) ll'.H)
CadL- r. Pavis {'.»> N. C. l;i'J) 1239

Caclell V. I'alniei- (7 Bli. 202; 1 CI. & Fin.

372) 915

Cadman v. Richards (13 Neb. 383) 402

Cadmus V. Jackson (52 Pa. St. 2J5) 1073

("adv V. Bard (21 Kan. 667) 369

( 'aeinan v. Van Ilarke (33 Kan. 333) 95. 98

Cai.alan, In re (70 Cal. 604) 1130

Cai- Ex parte (T. U. P. Cliarlt. 159) 522

Cain V. Chicago & li. L K. U. (54 Iowa.

255) 217

V. Haas (18 Tex. 616) 523

V. Warford (7 Md. 282) 752

Cairns v. Chaubert (9 I'ai. 160) 1173

Calahan's Estate (60 Cal. 232) 1192, 1197

Calanau v. McClure (47 Barb. 206) 805, 806,

842

Calder v. Pvfer (2 Cr. C. C. 430) 744, 751

Calderwood v. Tevis (23 Cal. 335) 2U0

Caldwell V. Anderson (104 Pa. St. 199) 50

V. Caldwell (7 Bush, 515) 892

V. Caldwell (15 N'o. E., Ohio, 297) 340

V. Caldwell (45 Oh. St. 512) 1086

V. Hardin;.- (5 Ulatchf. 501) 363

V. Hawkins (73 .Mo. 456) 300

V. Kinkead (1 15. Mon. 228) 941, 975

V. l.ockrid-e (9 Mo. 362) 333

I'. McVicar (12 Ark. 746) 684

V. Renfrew (33 Vt. 213) 118

Calhoun's Estate (6 Watts, 185) 707, 708

Succession (-38 La. An. 323) 58i)

Calhoun v. Crossirro ve (33 La. An . 1001 ) 150,

1216

V. Fletcher (63 Ala. 574) 713, 714, 1142

V. Kiiii? (5 Ala 523) 370, 371

V. McLendon (42 Ga. 405) 182

Calkins i\ Johnston (20 Oli. St. 539) 1031

V. Smith (41 .Mich. 40.)) 720

Call V. Ewinf? (1 Blackf. 301) 558, 733

V. Houdlette (70 Me. 308) 645. 82.»

Callaghan r. Hall (1 Serif. & U. 241) 1159, 1176

Callaiian's Guardian (tuck. 62) 12-50

Callahan v. Griswold (9 .Mo. 784) 397, 1033

Calloway v. Gilmer (36 Ala. 354) 1083

Calmes v. McCracken (8 S. C. 87) 211, 238

Calvert v. Holland (9 B. Mon. 458) 1137, 1 14;),

1157
V. Marlow (18 Ala. 67) 286

V. Williams (9 Gill, 172) 1203

Calvit V. Calvit (32 Miss. 124) 188

Calyer v. Calyer (4 Redf. 305) 345, 346, 1 142
Cambridge v. Lexinpjton (1 Pick. 505) 224
Camden i\ Plain (91' Mo. 117) 330, 1059, 1060
Camden Co. v. Ingham (40 N. J. Eq. 3) 28,

466, 510
Camden Mutual Association v. Jones (23

N. J. Eq. 171) 264

Cameron v. Cameron (82 Ala. 392) 436

V. Cameron (15 Wis. 1) 559, 669

V. Wurtz (4 McCord. 278) 777

Cameto v. Dupuv (47 Cal. 79) 199, 216

Camp's .4ppeal (-36 Cmin. 88) 124

Estate (74 Mo. 192) 1138

Estate (6 Mo. App. 563) 1138

Camp I'. Camp (18 Hun, 217) 1215

V. Crocker (54 Conn. 21) 921

Camp V. Grant (21 Conn. 41)

V. Shcrlcy (9 Lea, 2.55)

Page
287, 865

, , 1045

Canq)au's AiJpcal (48 .Mich. 236) 120J

Campau r. Canq)au (25 .Mich. 127) 712, 714

V. Gillett (1 Mich. 416) 1050

Campl)cll, Appellant (2 Dougl. 141) 230

Estate of (Tuck. 24o) lOdl

Goods of (2 Hagg. 555) 406

In re (12 Wis. .369) 1120

I'. Baldwin (6 Blackf. 364) 643

V. Beaumont (91 N. V. 464) 999

V. Browdcr (7 Lea, 240) 24

r. Brown (6 How. Aliss. 230) 1080

r. Hrown (64 Iowa, 425) 367

V. Campbell (30 N. J. Eq. 315) 234

r. Johnson (41 Oh. St. 588) 053, 6-54

V. Johnston (1 Sandf. Cb. 148) 636

V. Knights (26 Me. 224) 1046

V. Logan (2 Bradf. 90) 71, 4!)8

r. McDonald (11 Watts, 179) 953

V. Mesier (4 John. Ch. 334) 675

V. Miller (-38 Ga. 304) 699

V. Moore (15 III. App. 129) 258

V. Murphv (2 Jones Eq. 357) 260, 274

V. Owens'(32 La. An. 265) 1048

V. Purdv (5 Redf. 434) 761

V. Rawdon (18 N. Y. 412) 872

V. Renwick (2 Bradf. 80) 1033

V. Sheldon (13 Pick. 8) 363, 492

V. Thatcber (54 Barb. 382) 332

V. Tousev (7 Cow. 64) 363, 374, 415, 422,

649

V. Wallace (10 Grav, 162) 492

V. Winston (2 Hen" & M. 10) 1127

V. Young (3 How. Miss. 301) 8o8

Camptield v. Ely (13 N. J. L. 1.50) 700, 765

Canada's .■\ppeal (47 Conn. 450) 70

Candler r. Candler (2 Dem. 124) 949

V. Dinkle (4 Watis, 143) 942

Candor's Appeal (5 W. lS: S. 513) 825

Cantield v. Bentlev (12 Atl. 6-55) 834

V. Bostwick (21 Conn. 550) 889, 946, 1150,

1187

V. Canfield (4 Dem. Ill) 86,95

Cannon r. Apperson (14 Lea, 553) 269, 705.

951, 953, 1008, 1103, 1138, 1139, 1151

r. Bonner (38 Tex. 487) 215

r. Crook (32 Md. 482) 680

f. Jenkins (1 Dev. Eq. 422) 696

V. rimer (Bai. Eq. 204) 990

r. Windsor (1 Houst. 143) 463, 823

Canole c. Hurt (78 Mo. 649) 197

Canterburv r. Tappen (8 B. & C. 151) 1212

Cantine ('."Phillips (5 Harr. 428) 823

Cantrell r. Conner (51 How. Pr. 45) 181

Cantrill r. Risk (7 Bush, 158) 247

Capen r. Skinner (139 Mass. 190) 1200

Capper v. Siblev (65 Iowa, 754) 342

Caraway v. Smith (28 Ga. 541) 81

(Jard r. Grinman (.5 Conn. 164) 93

Care v. Keller (77 Pa. St. 487) 274

Carey's Estate (49 Vt. 236) 104

CareV v. Dennis (13 Md. 1) 1036

V. Goodim^e (3 Bro. C C. 97) 652

r. Gnillow (105 INIass. 18) 422, 424

Carhart iv Vann (40 Ga. 389 1 1072

Carl's Appeal (106 Pa. St. 635) 87, 911

Carl r. Poelman (12 La. An. 344 429

Carlisle r. Burlev (3 Me. 2.50) 643, 674

r. Mulhern (19 Mo, 5(i) 289

Carlton r. Bvers (70 X. C. 091) 1040

xlviii

TABLE OF CASES.

Paj;e

Cailton r. Carlton (40 N. II. 14) 72

V. Uavaiit (u8 Ga. 451) 107;j

Carlvie v. Camion (3 Hawie, 489) 1102

Caiivsle v. Cailv.sli; (10 Md. 440) 342

Caniiicliaul. In re (W Ala. 514) 41

V. Carinicliat'l (5 Iliini])li. liG) 274

V. Carmichaul (2 Phiil. Ch. 101) 420

V. Foster (GO Ga. ;J72) 1084, 108G

V. Kav (5 Ired. Eq. ;J05) 375

V. KaV (1 Kith. 21G) .350

V. Sta'te (12 0h. St. 553) 222

Caruall v. Wilson (21 Ark. 02) 254, 2G0, 714

Cariuu) r. Turner (G H. & J. 05) 1033

Carnoclian v. Abrahams (T. U. P. Charlt.

100) 420, 1208

Carondelet v. Desnover (27 Mo. 36) 826

Carow V. Mowatt (2"Edw. Ch. 57) 572

Carpenter, In re (73 Cal. 202) UQ'-i

V. Boiilden (48 Aid. 122) 879, 881

V. Brownlee (38 Miss. 200) 183

V. Calvert (83 111. 62) 35, 37, .38

V. Cameron (7 Watts, 51) 503

V. Denoou (29 Oh. St. 379) 465, 494

V. Dod;,^e (20 Vt. 595) 124

V. Garrett (75 Va. 129 276, 277

V. Going (20 Ala. 587) 427

V. Grav (32 N. .J. Eq. 692) 580

V. HeaVd (14 Pick. 449) 881

V. Murjjhy (57 Wis. 541) 829

V. Probate Jndge (48 Mich. 318) 555, 55G

r. Solicitor (L. K. 7 P. D. 235) 557

Carr's Estate (25 Cal. 585) 581

Carr v. Bradv (04 Ind. 28) 221

V. Catlin"(13 Kan. 393) 295, 301

V. E.still (IG B. Mon. 309) 898

V. Givens (9 Bush, 679) 277

V. Green (2 McCord, 75) 872

r. Iluette (73 Ind. .378) 431, 12G5

V. Lowe (7 Heisk. 84) 359, 1247

Carrick v. Carrick (2:J N. .T. Eq. 3G4) 744

Carriere's Succession (34 La. An. 1056) 1198

Carroll v. Bonham (42 N. J. Eq. 625) S2

V. Carroll (20 Tex. 731) 899

V. Connet (2 -L J. :\Iarsh. 195) -394, 513, 6G9

17. Cockerham (-38 La. An. 813) 1084

V. Huie (21 La. An. 561) .582

r. Lee (3 G. & ,J .504) 607

Carrolton v. nhoniberj? (78 Mo. 547) 62G

Carruthers r. Bailev, (3 Ga. 105) 622, fi72

Carson v. Carson (i Met. Ky. .300) 149, 940

V. McFadden (10 Iowa, 91) 624

V. Murray (3 Pai. 483) 253, 2G5

Carswell v. Spencer (44 Ala. 204) 356

Carter v. Anderson (4 Ga. 516) 12-59

V. Balfour (19 Ala. 814) 9-32

V. Barnadiston (1 P. Wms. 505) HOG

V. Carter (39 Ala. 579) 957

V. Carter (10 B. IMon. 327) 384, 410, 567

V. Crawler ( T. Rvan. 496) 148

V. Cutting (5 Mun'f. 223) 1170, 1191

V. Dixon (69 Ga. 82) 34, 50

V. Edmonds (80 Va. 58) 1124

V. Hinkle (13 Ala. 529) 177

V. Lowell (76 Me. 342) 873

V. McManus (15 La. An. 676) 1031, 1054

V. National Bank (71 Me. 448) 386, 387,

693
r. Parker (28 Me. 509) 261

V. Randolph (47 Tex. 376) 198, 199, 214,

1075
f. Robbins (8 Rich. 2D) 416

Paprc

Carter r. Waufrh (42 Ala. 452) 1062

V. Worrell (9G N. C. 358) 1098

Carthev v. Webb (2 Murph. 208) 522

Cartwrij^Mit v. Cartwright (4 llavw. 134) 677,

1247

V. Cartwright (1 Phillim. 90) 36

Caruth v. Anderson (24 Miss. GO) 326

Caruthers v. Caruthers (2 Lea, 2(54) 725

V. Corbin (38 Ga. 75) 774, 1157

V. Mardis {3 Ala. 599) 73G

Carver v. Hallett (26 Ala. 722) 1171

V. Lewis (104 Ind. 438) 1120

Case, In re (4 Dcm. 124). 69

r. Abeel (1 Pai. 393) 283, 290, 291, 292,

739

V. Case (Kirbv, 284) 1099

V. Dennison (9 R. I. 88) 121

V. Phelps (.39 N. Y. 164) 610

V. Towle (8 Pai. 479) 1208

Casebolt v. Donaldson (67 Mo. 308) 211

Casev, Ex parte (71 Cal. 269) C81

i: Casev (55 Vt. 518) 952

V. Gardiner (4 Bradf. 13) 513

V. Inloes (1 Gill, 430) 309

V. Murphv (7 Mo. App. 247) 1033, 1132

Cash V. Dickens (2 Lea, 2.54) 852

Caskie v. Harrison (76 Va. 85) 558

Cason r. Cason (31 Miss. 578) 1127, 1128, 12.30

Casoni v. .Jerome (58 N. Y. 315) 553. 554, 589

Casperson v. Dunn (42 N. J. Eq. 87) 354, 672

Cass V. Thomp.son (1 N. H. 65) 233

Cassatt v. Vogel (94 Mo. 646) 818

Cassilv V, Mever (4 Md. 1) 375

Castleburv r.'Mavnard (95 N. C. 281) 204

Caston r.Caston (2 Rich. Eq. 1) 271, 274

Castor r. Jones (80 Ind. 289) 61

Castro V. Richardson (18 Cal. 478) 498

Catham v. State (2 Head, 553) 307

Cathey r. Kerr (15 La. An. 228) 1190

Catholic Association v. Flrnane (50 Mich.

82) 156

Catlett V. Catlett (55 Mo. 330) 65

Cat-lin V. Underbill (4 McLean. 337) 643

Catter.son's Appeal (100 Pa. St. 9) 1197

Cauffmann v. Long (82 Pa St. 72) 469

Caulfield v. Sullivan (85 N. Y. 153) 60, 495
Caulkins r. Bolton (98 N. Y. 511) 749

Cave V. Cave (2 Vern. 508) 604

Cavendish r. Fleminir (3 Munf. 108) 1165
Caviness v. Rushton (101 Ind. 500) 58

CawlHeld v. Brown (45 Ala. 552) 1215, 1242
Cawthon v. Coppedge (1 Swan, 487) 1221
Cawthorn v. Jones (73 Ala. 82) 1133

Cawthorne v. Havnes (24 Mo. 23G) 490

Cavuga Bank v. Bennett (5 Hill, 236) 736
Cecil i: Cecil (19 Md. 72) 1193, 1254

r. Rose (17 Md. 92) 809, 994

Central Bank r. Little (11 Ga. 346) 773

Central Park Extension (16 Abb. Pr. 56) 240
Chace v. Chace (6 R. I. 407) 111

Chadbourn i'. Cliadbourn (9 Allen, 173) 685
Ciiadbourne v. Rackiiff (30 Me. 354) 1050
Chadwick r. Chadwick (13 Pac. R. 385) 353
V. Cornish (26 Minn. 28) 831

Chaffee v. Baptist Miss. Convention (10
Pai. 85) 66,71

r. Franklin (11 R. I. 578) 237

Chaffin V. Hanes (4 Dev. L. 103) 789

Chafin Will Case (32 Wis. 5.57) 34

Chalker v. Chalker (5 Redf 480) 761

Chalmers's Estate (64 Cal. 77) 216

TABLE OF CASES.

xlix

PaRC
Chalmers v. TLiniipfced (21 S. C. 12R) IDC.

214, 217

V. WinRfield (I.. R. 30 Ch. D. 400) 443

Chamberlain v. (Jhambeilain (43 N. Y.

424) 273, 912

V. Stearns (111 Mass. 267) 933

V. Tavlor (36 Hun, 24) 720

V. TaVlor (105 N. Y. 185) 728, 882

V. Williamson (2 M. & Sfl, 408) 017

Chamberiayne v. Ti;ini)le (2 Kan.l. 384) 420

Chamberliii v. Chaiiil)orliii (4 Allen, 184) 103(5

Chambers's Appeal (11 I'a. St. 430) 078, 1129

Chambers v. I5iimpass (72 N. C. 429) 1000

V. Cit3' of St. Louis (29 Mo. 543) 910,

913,926

V. Davis (15 B. Mon. .522) 272

V. McPhaiil (55 Ala. 367) 1!)9

V. Smith (2:; Mo. 174) 1269

V. Wri-ht (52 Ala. 444) 1228

V. Wright (40 Mo. 482) 715

Champion i'. Cavce (54 Miss. 695) 843, 1032

Champiiey v. Blanchard (39 N. Y. Ill) 117,

123, 124

Chandler's Appeal (34 AVis. .505) 726

Chandler v. Haeiieldcr (61 N. H. -370) 1227

V. Davidson (6 Miackf. 367) 416, 419

V. Delaplaine (4 Del. Ch. 503) 723

V. Ferris (I Ilarr. 454) 36, 46

V. Hocket (12 Iowa, 269) 782

V. Rider (102 Mass. 268) 719

V. Schoonover (14 Ind. 324) 698

V. Thompson (Hob. 265 b) 404

Chanev i'. Barker (3 Bast. 424) 154

u.'Brvan (16 Lea. 63) 34

Chipin i\ Hill (1 R. I. 466) 268, 892

V. Marvin (12 Wend. 5-38) 951

V. Waters (110 Mass. 195) 6.54

V. Waters (116 Mass. 140) 1103

Chaplin r. Savvver (35 Vt. 286) 205

V. Simmons (7 T. B. Mon. .3-37) 2-57

Chapman v. Fenwick (4 Cr. C. C. 431) 991,

993

V. Halev (43 X. H. -300) 8-54

V. Holii'^ter (42 Cal. 462) 713

17. Kelloii-i? (102 Mas^. 246) ~ 609

V. Robertson (6 Pai. 627) 379

V. Schroeder (10 (ia. 321) 230

Chappel V. Averv (6 Conn. 31) 951

Chappell V. Akin (39 Ga. 177) 570

V. Brown (1 Bai. 528) 632

V. Chappell (7 Eccl. R. 451) 520

Charles v. Hunnicutt (5 Call, 311) 927

V. Jacobs (9 S. C. 295) 6.54

Charlick's Estate (11 Abb. N. C. 56) 976

Charlton's Appeal (34 Pa. St. 473) 677

Appeal (88 Pa. St. 476) 1242

Chase's Case (1 Bland Ch. 206) 248

Chase v. Bradlev (26 Me. 531) 684

V. Chase (2"Allen, 101) 906

V. Fitz (132 Mass. 359) 624

V. Kittredije (11 Allen. 49) 67

V. Lincohr(3 Mass. 236) 473

V. Lockerman (11 Gill & J. 185) 878,

966, 1109

V. Reddinsr (1.3 Grav, 418) 119, 127, 631

V. Ross (36 Wis. 267) 330

V. Whitini,' (.30 Wis. 544) 326, 1089

Chasmar v. Bncken (37 N. .1 Eq. 415) 895

Chaworth ;•. Beech (4 Ves. 556) 61

Cheairs v. Smith (37 Jliss. 646) 952, 957

Cheatham v. Burfoot (9 Leigh, 580) 745, 1182

VOL. I. — d

PllKG

Cheatham r. Hatcher (30 Grat. 56) 50, 476

r. Jones (68 N. (J. 1.53) 201

Cheevcr v. Jn.lge (45 Mich. 6) 499, 1194

r. llora (22 Ga. 600) 10,58

Chenerv v. Davis (16 (Jrav, 89) 1141

Chenev's Case (5 Co. 68 h) 8.)1

Chenev »•. Chenev (73 G.i. 66) 167, 170

t'."Selman (71 (Ja. 384) 893, 896

Cherrv r. Jarratt (25 Miss. 221) 1173

r." Spii^ht (28 le.x. 503) 366

Cheshire r. Cheshire (2 Dev. & B. 254) 991

V. .Mct'ov (7 Jones L. 376) 270, 271

Chesnut i'. Chesnut (15 ill. App. 442) 235, 2.53
Ch.'snutt V. McBride (1 Hei-^k. 38'J) 796

Chess's Appeal (4 Pa. St. .52) 326

Chester r. Chester (L. R. 12 Eq. 444) 910

V. Greer (5 Humph. 26) 389, 991

r. Urwick (23 Beav. 404) 976

Chetle V. Lees (Carthew, 167) 3.36

Chevalier v. Wilson (1 Tex. 161) 11.57

Chew's Appeal (45 Pa. St. 228) 9.59

Estate (2 Parsons, 1.53) .577

Chew V Chew (3 (Jrant Cas. 289) 570, 576

V. Chew (1 Md. 16-3) 222

V. Nicklin (45 Pa. St. 84) 726

Chewett V. Moran (17 Fed. R. 820) 1269, 1271
Chewning v. Peck (6 How. Miss. .524) 8.55
Chicag-o & E. L R. R. v. O'Connor (119

111. 586) 622

Chicasro & N. W. R. R. v. Chisholm (79

111. 584) 905

Chicago, B. & Q. Railroad v. Gould (64
Iowa, 343) 526, 581

V. Wasserman (22 Fed. R. 872) 111

Chicago Dock Co. v. Kinzie (49 III. 289) 253
Chicago R. R. Co. r. Dovie (60 Miss. 977) 630
Chidester v. Chidester (42 Ind. 469) 807

Chidgev r. Harris ( 16 M. & W. 517) 992

Chighizola v. Le Baron (21 Ala. 406) 714

Child r. Pearl (43 Vt. 224) 608

Childers v. Bumffarner (8 Jones L. 217) 296

y. Childers(21.Ga. .'377) 901

Children's .\id Societv v. Loveridge (70

N. Y. .387) ■ 46

Childress r. Bennett (10 Ala. 751) 375

Childsr. Russell (11 Met. 16) 941

V. Updvke (9 Oh. St. 3-33) 685, 811

Chinmark's Estate (Mvr. 128) 93, 1147

Chinnubbee r. Nicks (3 Port. .362) 226

Chipman r. Alontgomerv (63N. Y. 221) 1016
Chism V. Williams (29 Mo. 288) 91G, 917

Chisolm r. Chisolm (4 Rich. Eq. 266) 1007
Chittenden v. Knight (2 Lee, 559) 529

Choate r. Arrin^ton (116 Mass. 5,52) 1120

V. Thorndike (138 Mass. 371) .5.=S0

Chouteau v. Suj'dam (21 N. Y. 179) 684

Chowning v. Stanfield (40 Ark 87) 714

Chrisman v. Chrisman (18 Pac. R. 6) 43

Christ's Hosp. e. (iraiuffer (16 Sim. 83;

S. C. 1 Mac. & G. 460) 920

Christian r. Clark (10 Lea. 630) 434

V. Morris (50 Ala. 585) 795

Christie's Succession (20 La. 383) 185

Christler v. Meddis (6 B. Mon. 35) 727

Christman v. Siegfried (5 W. & S. 400) 1223
Christopher v. Christopher (Dick. 445) 105

V. Cox (25 Jliss. 162) 506

Christophers r. Garr (6 N. Y. 61) 842

Christv's Appeal (1 Grant Cas. 369) 1214.

1217, 1222

Appeal (110 Pa. St. 5-38) 1196

TABLE OF CASES.

Pa<,'e

Christy's Succession (6 La. An. 427) 706

ChristV V. Bad-iT (72 Inwii, 581) 8114

v.'Vest (;J6 Iowa, 285) 440, 442

(^hrvstie V. Phvfe (19 N. Y. 344) 871

Church V. ChuVcii (15 K I. 138) 938. 944

V. Kenible (5 Sim. 525) 1016

1-. Warren Maiuif. ( o. (14 R. T. 53!)) 890

Churcliill r. liovdeii (17 Vt. 31!!) 375, 37U, 377

V. Churchill (2 Met. Kv. 406) 897

V. (Worker (25 Ga. 479) 611

V. Monroe (1 H. I. 209) 252

Cilley V. Cillev (34 Me. 162) 37, 70

Cincinnati R. R. Co. v. Heaston (43 lad.

172) 1267

Ciples V. Alexander (3 Brev. 558) 795

V. Alexander (2 Const. R., S. C. 767) 795

Citizens' Bank v. Sharp (53 Md. 521) 365, 391

Citizens' M. Ins. Co. v. Ligon (59 Miss.

305) 283

Clack K>. Clack (20 Ala. 461) 1186

Cla^ett V. Hawkins (11 Md. 381) 498

Claiborne v. Yoeman (15 Tex. 44) 1080

Clap, In re (2 Low. 168) 282

V. Cofran (7 Mass. 98) 553

Clapp V. Beardslev (1 Vt. 151) 595

V. Clapp (44 iiun, 451) 758

V. Coble (1 Dev. & B. Eq. 177) 1147

V. Fullerton (34 N. Y. 190) 34, 41, 479

V. Ins-rahani (126 Mass. 200) 656

V. Meserole (38 Barb. 661) 1154

Clare v. Hedges (3 \V. & M., 1 Lutw. 342) 405

Clark's Estate (53 Cal. 355) 1138

Estate (3 Redf. 225) 1045, 1048

Succession (11 l.a. An. 124) 488

Will (Tuck. 445) 91

Clark, Matter of (40 Hun, 233) 490

Matter of (5 Redf. 466) 536

V. Atkins (90 N. C. 629) 880

«. B.iker (14Cal. 612) 263

V. Blackington (110 .Mass. 369) 387, 441,

595
V. Bogardus (2 Edw. Ch. 387) 982

V. Bottorp (1 Th. & C. 58) 230

V. Browne (2 Sni. & G. 524) 974

r. Burnsidc (15 111.62) 604

V. Carroll (.59 Md 180) 624

V. Clark (8 Cush. 385) 224

V. Clark (86 Mo. 114) 607

V. Clark (8 Pai. 152) 738, 1069

V. Clark (17 Nev. 124) 135, 136

V. Clark (21 Vt. 490) 1208

V. Clark (6 W. & S. 85) 518. 520

V. Clement (33 N. H. 563) 360

V. Cress (20 Iowa, 50) 1120

». Davis (32 Mich. 154) 679,854

V. Denton (36 N. .1 . Eq. 419) 719

V. Drake (63 Mo. 354) 1085

V. Dnnnavant (10 Leigh, 13) 472

f. Ellis (9 Greg. 128) 37

V. Eubank (65 Ala. 245) 855

V. Fisher (1 Pai. 171) 39

V. Fleminir (4 S. E. R. 12) 436

r. Head (75 Ala. 373) 3,57

». Hogle (52 111.427) 812

V. Holt (16 Ark. 2.57) 358, 442

V. Hornthal (47 Miss. 434) 718, 719

V. Jetton (5 Sneed, 229) 978

V. Knox (70 Ala. 607) 1139, 1143, 1169
V. Leupp (88 N. Y. 228) 957

V. IMiddlfSworth (82 Ind. 240) 271, 7.30
V. Morton (5 Rawie, 235) 483

PafC
Clark V. Miizzv (43 N. H. 59) 258

V. Ncwniaii ((i T. B. IMon. 342) 1165

I'. Niles (42 Miss. 460) 543, 545, 577

V. Nolan (38 Tex. 416) 198

V. Norwood (12 La. An. 598) 221

V. Parkville R. R. (5 Kan. 634) 806, 826
V. Perry (5 Cal. 58) 3.56

V. Pislion (31 Me. .503) 385

V. Piatt (30 Conn. 282) 1163

r. Shallcr (46 Conn. 119) 154

V. Shelton (16 Ark. 474) 681, 082, 805,

1131
i\ Smith (34 Barb. 140) 89

r. State (12 Oh. 483) 42

V. Tainter (7 Cush. 567) 721

V. Tonnison (33 Md. 85) 962

V. Thompson (47 III. 25) 1037

V. Warner (6 Conn. 355) 1218

V. Willson (27 Md. 693) 1219, 1221, 1223

1267

63

103

1145

976

556

1120

691, 738

1124

617

1127

546

39

89

558

1000

435

1190

1004

799

42

257

1102

171

1163

416,

V. Winchell (53 Vt. 408)
Clarke, Goods of (1 Sw. & Tr. 22)

r. Berkeley (2 Vern. 720)

V. Blount (2 Dev. Eq. 51)

V. Bogardus (12 Wend 67)

I'. Chapin (7 Allen, 425)

V. Clav (31 N. H. 393)

V. .Tenkins (3 Rich. Eq. 318)

V. Johnpton (10 N. J. Eq. 287)

V. McClelland (9 Pa. St. 128)

I'. Perry (5 Cal. 58)

V. Rice" (15 R. I. 132)

V. Sawyer (3 Sandf. Ch. 351)

V. Scipps (2 Rob. 563)

V. State (6 G. & J. 288)

V. Terrv (34 Conn. 176)

t'. Tufts (5 Pick. 3.37)

V. West (5 Ala. 117)
Clarkson v. Clarkson (18 Barb. 646)

11. De Pevster (Hopk. 274)
Clary v. Clary (2 Ired. L. 78)

V. Sanders (43 Ala. 287)
Clason V. Lawrence (3 Edw. Ch. 48)
Claudel v. Palao (28 La. An. 872)
Clauser's Estate (84 Pa. St. 51)
Claussen v. Lafrenz (4 G. Greene, 224)

419
Clawson v. Clawson (25 Ind 229) 613

». McCune (20 Kan. 3.37) 808,846

Clav V. Field (115 U. S. 260) 1046, 1062

"«. Giirlev (02 Ala. 14) 3.54

V. Hart (7 Dana, 1) 271, 724, 727

V. Irvine (4 W. & S. 2.32) 642

V. .lackson (!'. U. P. Charlt. 71) 535

V. Waiter ;79 Va. 92) 608

Clavcnmb V. Clayconib (10 Grat. 58f0 1171

Claypool V. Norcross (.36 N. J. Eq. 524) 1199

' V. Norcross (42 N. J. Eq. 545) 919

Clavton V. Aiken (38 Ga. 320) 985, 986

'jj. Brown (30 Ga. 490) 609

V. Drake (17 Oh. St. 367) 151

V. Liverman (2 Dev. & B. L. 558) 56

V. Somers (27 N. J. Eq. 230) 941

r. Tucker (20 Ga. 452) 417

v. Warden (2 Bradf. 1) 189

Cleaver v. Cleaver (39 Wis. 96) 9.39

Cleaves v. Dockrav (67 Me. 118) 553

Cleere v. Cleere (82 Ala. 581) 356

Clegg V. Rowland (L. R 3 Eq. 368) 790

Cleghorn «. .Johnson (69 Ga. 369) 187

Cle'land v. Waters (16 Ga. 496) 880

Clemens v. Caldwell (7 B. Mon. 171) 570, 575

TAUr.E OF CASES.

li

Page 1
Clemons v. Walker (40 Ala. 180) ";V2

Clement's Appeal (W Conn, rjlii) 1122, 11-24,

112r,, Uau, lU'.) I
Clement v. Brainard (-tG Conn. 174) \.>.'A

V. Foster (71 N. C. ;iti) l('-i;i

Clements v. Henderson (4 Ga. 148) l<):i7.

11)48

V. Lacy (51 Tex. 150) 200, 200

V. Kosers (91 N. C. m) 'Ml

V. Swain (2 N.H. 475) 420

Clondeninfc v. CIvmcr (17 Ind. 155) !I78

('lerv's Apiieal (% I'a. St. 54) 1 104

Clevi-land r. Carson (37 N. .). Eq. 377) 880

V. Cliandlor (:j Stew. 4810 545

V. Harrison (15 Wis. (170) (iO.-J

v. Qiiilty (128 .Mass. 578) 1203

V. Spiinian (2') Ind. il.j) 8'J8

Cliett V Cliett (1 Tex. Unrep. Cas. 408) 80

Clifford V. Davis (22 111. App. 310) 1007

Clift V. Kaufman (f;0 Tex. 04) l!)0

V. Moses (44 Hun, 312) 030

Cline's Appral (100 I'a. St. 017) 283, 08:)

Cline V. Lindsev (110 Ind. 337) 31, 40, 41

Clinuan v. Miti-lieltree (31 I'a St. 25) 'J2

Clopton V. Booker (27 Ark 482) 371

I'. Hausliton (57 Miss. 787) 1123

Cloud V. Barton (14 Ala. 347) 1037

V. Bruce (01 Ind. 171) 151

V. Cllnkinbeard (8 B. Mon. 3D7) 975, tt8l

r. Golisrhtlv (5 Ala. 0.54) 308

Cloudas V. Adams (4 Dana, 003) 100:j

Clounh v. ClouRh (117 Mass. 83) 118

Cluett V. Mattiee (43 Barb. 417) 535

Clute V. Bool (8 Pai. 83) 950

Clvce V. Anderson (49 Mo. 37) 1132, 1137,

1104

Coale r. Smith (4 Pa. St. 370) 888

Coati'. Coat^03Ill. 73) 1084

Coatos's Estate (12 Phila. 171) 184

Coates V. Clieever (1 Cow. 400) 229

V. Coates (33 Beav. 249) 976

V. (Jerlach (44 Pa. St. 43) 611

V. Hushes (3 Binn. 4:)8) 980

Cobb V. Beardslev (37 Barb. 192) 538

V. Brown (Speers Eq. 5:14) 432, 042

V. Newcomb (19 Pick. 330) 519, 530, 533

V. Norwood (11 Tex. 5.50) 03:

V. Tavlor (04 N. C. 193) 699

V. Wood (1 Hawks, 9.j) 337

Cobble V. Tomlinson (50 T'd. 550) 290

Cobiirii I'. Harris (58 Md. 87) 838

V. Looinis (49 Me. 400) 1125, 1186

Cochran v. Miller (74 Ala. 50) 201

V. Thompson (18 Tex. 052) 432,740

V. YoimiT (104 Pa. St. 333) 498, 501

Cochrane's Will (1 T. B. Mon. 203) 40

Cochrane ('. Robinson (11 Sim. 377) 790

V. Sorrell (74 Ala. 310) 210

Cockavne v. Harrison (L. K. 13 Eq. 4-32) 1001

(^ockburn r. Wilson (20 La. An. 39) 699

Cocke V. Hailev (42 Miss. 81) 2-37

V. Finlev (2;) Miss. 127) 390

V. Phillips (12 Leiffh, 248) 232

Cockin's Appeal (111 Pa. St. 20) 901

Cockrill I'. Armstrong (31 Ark. .580) 233

('(K-kroft r. Black (2 P. Wms. 298) 787

Cocks r. Varnev (42 N. -T. Eq. 514) 303

Coddin- I'. Newman (3 Tb. .S: C. 304) 513

CoddiiiKton v. Bispham (30 N. J. Eq.

•221) 1227, 1230, 1208

Cody i\ Conly (27 Grat. 313) 55

Pajre
Codv r. Raynaud (1 Col. 272) 324

Coe'v. .lames (54 Conn. 511) 949

V. Talcott (5 Dav, 88) 1000

Cofer V. Flanni-an ('l (ia. .538) 712

Coffee V. Rufliu (4 Coldw. 4«7) 1 150

Coffev r. Joseph (74 Ala. 271) 210

CoiHn V. Cottle (4 Pick. 454) 085

V. Otis (11 Met. 1.50) 495

Cogbill V. Coiibill (2 Hen. & Munf. 467) 93,

1190
Cogburn v. McQueen (46 Ala. 551) 588

Cogdell V. Widow (3 Desaus. 340) 900

Coggeshall v. Pelton (7 .loiin. Ch. 292) 919
Coggins V. Griswold (04 Ga. 323) 1047, 1089
Cogswell V. Cogswell (2 Edw. Ch. 231) 1000

V. Tibbeits (3 N. H. 41) 220. 227 .

Cogwell V. Lvon (3 .1. .1. Marsh. 38) 1206

Cohea V. State (34 Miss. 179) 554

Cohen's Appeal (2 Watts, 175) 577

Will (Tuck. 280) 04

Cohen V. Atkins (73 Mo. 163) 1199

Coit V. Campbell (82 N. Y. 509) 675

V. Comstock (51 Conn. 352) 920

Coke V. Bullock (Cro. Jac. 49; 1 R<dl.

Abr. 616) 103

Coker V. Crozier (5 Ala. 369) 618, 025

Colbcrg, Goods of (2 Curt. 832) DO

Colbert V. Daniel (32 Ala. 314) 357, 371

Colburn v. Broughton (9 Ala. 351) 055

r. Had lev (46 Vt. 71) 935

Colbv V. Duncan (139 Mass. .398) 942

V. King (07 Iowa, 458) 846. 801

r. Jloodv (19 Me. Ill) 330, 337

Cole's Will (49 Wis. 179) 34, 37

Cole r. Cole (19 Mart., 7 N. S. 414) 20

r. Cole (79 Va. 251) 948

V. Dial (12 Tex. 100) 579. .581

V. Elfe (23 Ga. 2-35) 175, 707

V. Wooden (18 N. J. L. 1.5) Wl, 7-53

Colegrave r. Dias Santos (2 B. & C. 70)
Coleman's Succession (27 La. An. 289)
Coleman r. Brooke (37 Miss. 71)
V. Eberlv (70 Pa. St. 197)
V. Hall (12 Mass. 570)
V. Hall (12 Mass. 588) 792

V. Lane (26 Ga. 515) 992

V. McMurdo (5 Rand. 51) 1182

V. Parker (114 Mass. 30) 123

V. Ravnor (3 Cold. 25) 583

«. Robertson (17 Ala. 84) 44

V. Wood worth (28 Cal. 507) 803

Coles V. Coles (15 .Tohns. 159) 289

V. Coles (15 Johns. 319) 254, 2.^8

V. Yorks (31 Minn. 213) 215

Colev's Estate (14 Abi). Pr. 401) 1184

Colifan V. McKeon (24 X. J. L. 500) 310

Colgate r. Coli^-ate (23 N. J Eq. 372) 207

Colsrove r. Hortou (11 Pai. 201) 543, 544
Coliasan r. Burns (57 Mp. 449) 90

Collamore v. Wilder (19 Kan. 07) 841, 1203
I Colles, Matter of (4 Dem. 387) 1184

1 t\)llier's Will (40 Mo. 287) 941, 942

Collier V. Cairns (0 Mo. App. 188) 286, 298, 300
V. Collier (3 Oh. St. 369) 171, 708

e. Grimsev (-36 Oh. St. 17) 719
V. Jones (80 Ind. 342) 425

f. Munn (41 N.Y. 143) 1108
V. Slaughter (20 Ala. 203) 963

Colliers r. Hollier (13 La. An. 585) 576

Collins. In re (5 Redf. 21) 64

V. Bankhead (1 Strobh. 25) 366, 385

002
188
ISO
8 '3
«.-,■>

lii

TABLE OF CASES.

Collins V. Bergen (42 N. J. F.q. 07)
V. Carman (5 Mil. bO'-i)
V. Collins (140 Mass. 502)
V. Collins (19 011. St. 4G8)
V. Collins (40 Oh. St. ;J&;i)

K.

East Tennessee K
841)

V. Hollier (13 La. An. 585)
V. Hoxie (9 Pai. 81)
V. Pillou (20 Conn. 368)
V. Spear (Walk. 310)
V. Tilton (58 Ind. 374)
V. Townlev (21 N. J. Kq, 353)
V. Warren (29 Wo. 23G)
Collinson v. Owens (0 G. & J. 4)
CoUumb V. Read (24 N. Y. 505)
Coilver V. Collver (4 Dem. 53)
'v. Collver 010 N. Y. 481)
V. Cross (20 Ga. 1)
Colson V. Brainard (1 Redf. 324)
Colt V. Colt (32 Conn. 422)

V. Hubbard (33 Conn. 281)
V. Lasnier (9 Cow. 320)
Coltart V. Allen (40 Ala. 155)
Colton V. Colton (21 Fed. R. .594)

(9 H.isl
ti:

Page

938

270. 351

1128

3.54

871, 884

029

1119

898, 1147

850

404

1176

43

257

1039

289

482

1150, 1198

1259

1030, 1030

798

942

693

582

7

571, 58:

V. Colton (127 U. S. 300) 870, 875, 870,

877
V. Ross (2 Pai. 396) 497

Coltraine v. Cause}' (3 Ired. Eq. 240) 632

Columbus Ins. Co. v. Humphries (04

Miss. 258)
Colvin, Matter of (3 Md. Ch. 278)

V. Warford (20 Md. 357)
Colwell V. Alijer (5 Grav, 07)
Comb's Appeal (105 Pa'. St. 155)
Comber's Case (1 P. Wms. 760)
Combs, In re (3 Dem. 341)

V. Combs (67 Md. 11)

V. Jolly (3 N. J. Eq 625)

V. Young(4 Yerg. 218)
Comegys v. Jones (65 Md. 317)
Comer t'. Chamberlain (0 Allen. 166)

834,

836
209

V. Comer (119 III. 170)
V. Comer (120 III. 420)
V. Hart (79 Ala. 389)
Cometo's Estate (Mvr. 42)
Comins v. Hetfield (80 N. Y. 261)
Commercial Bank v. Corbett (5 Sawv.

543)
Commissioners v. Greenwood (1 Desaus.
450)
V. Way (3 Oh. 103)
Commissioners of Charitable Donations v.

De Clifford (1 Dr. & War. 245)
Commissioners of Emigration (1 Bradf.

2.59)

Commonwealth v. Bryan (8 S. & R. 128) 000,

661, 063
V. Chace (9 Pick. 15) 596

V. Duffield (12 Pa. St. 277) 6,56

V. Forney (3 W. & S. 353) 542, 543, 545,
555 719
■y. Griffith (2 Pick. 11)
V. Hackett (102 Pa. St. 505)
V. Hite (6 Leigh. 588)
V. Hunt (4 Cush. 49)
V. Judges (10 Pa. St. 37)
V. Laub (1 W. & S. 261)
V. Lewis (6 Binn. 266)
V. Manley (12 Pick. 173)

P.age
Commonwealth v. Martin (5 Munf. 117) 22
V. Mateer (10 S. & R. 410) 401, 511, 752
V. Naile (88 Pa. St. 429) 305

V. Nancrede (32 Pa. St. 389) 141, 522

V. No. Am. Land Co. (57 Pa. St. 102) 294.

310

V. Rich (14 Grav, 335) 4(9

V. Richardson (8 1$. IMon. 81) 6;:2

V. Selden (5 Munf. 160) 307

V. Shelbv (13 S. & R. 348) 1094, 1107

V. Stauffer (10 Pa. St. 350) 903

V. Strohecker (9 Watts, 479) 748

V. Sturtivant (117 Mass. 122) 480

Compher v. Compiler (25 Pa. St. 31) 170, 173

Compo V. Jackson (.50 Mich. 578) 1234

Compton V. Barnes (4 Gill, 55) 1149

r. Bloxham (2 Coll. 201) 486

r. Compton (9 East, 208) 879

V. McMahan (19 Mo. A pp. 494) 717, 727,

728

r. Mitton (12 N. J. L. 70) 70, 71

V. Pruitt (88 Ind. 171) 263, 1074

Comstock's Appeal (55 Conn. 214) 817

Comstock v. Crawford (3 Wall. 396) 583

V. Hadlvme (8 Conn. 254) K2, 37, 74, 1103

V. Smith (20 Mich. 300) 339

V. White (10 Abb. Pr. 264, note) 293

Conaiit V. Kent (130 Mass. 178) 147

V. Little (1 Pick. 189) 2 8

r. Stratton (K 7 Mass. 474) 435

511, 707 Conard t\ Atlantic Ins. Co. (1 Pet. 386) 771

401, 402, Condict v. King (13 N. J. Eq. 375) 880, 916,

972 994

99. loO Condit v. Winslow (106 Ind. 142) 1140

435. 1264 Conger r. Atwood (28 Oh. St. 134) 1142, 1143

477 V. Babcock (87 Ind. 497) 1190

409 1' Cook (50 Iowa, 117) 1020,1041

1007 Congregational Church v. Morris (8 Ala.

948 182) 310

01 Coiiigland v. Smith (79 N. C. 303) 047

218 Conklin v. Egerton (21 Wend. 430) 393, 720

879, 885 Conley v. Bovle (6 T. B. Mon. 637) 12(15

276 Connaughtoii r. Sands (32 Wis. 387) 181

Connecticut Co. v. New York Co. (25

Conn. 205) 620

Connell v. Chandler (11 Tex. 249) 188, 191,

21.5, 216

V. Chandler (13 Tex. 5) 032

Conner v. Mcllvaine (4 Pel. Ch. 30) 74'^, 1181

V. Root (17 Pac R. 773) 117, 119, 837

1217, 1223
1241
1059, 1003

204

772
554

920
398

366
890
307
225
1204
554
771
639

v. Shepard (15 Mass. 104)
Connollv v. Branstler (3 Bush, 702)

y. Pardon (1 Paige, 291)
Connor v. Eddv (25 Mo. 72)

V. McMurfav (2 Allen, 202)
Conolv V. Gavle'(01 Ala. 116)
Conover v. Porter (14 Oh. St. 450)

V. Walling (15 N J. Eq. 167)

V. Wright (6 N.J. Eq. 613)
Conowav v. Spicer (5 Harr. 425)
Conrad v. Long (33 Mich. 78)
Consalus, In re (95 N. Y. 340)
Conselvea v. Walker (2 Dem. 117)
Conser t). Snowden (54 Md. 175) 119

Constantinides v. Walsh (146 Mass. 281)
Constitution v. Nelson (2 111. 511)
Contee v. Chew (1 H. & J. 417)

229
275
893

1078
212
884
251

1194
274
736
9!:
654
475
120
702

1208
773

957, 9h8

Continental Co v. Barber (.50 Conn. 567) 844

Converse v. Converse (21 Vt. 168) 43, 44

V. Sorlev (39 Tex. 515) 808, 826

V. Starr (23 Oh. St. 491) 495

TABLE OF CASES.

liii

Page
Conwav v. Kllison (14 Ark- 300) ll;J2

Conwjll V. Coiiwill (01 Miss. 21)2) 1128, 12.J()
Coocli V. Cooch (5 lit.ust. 5-lU> lO'JU, UlU

Cook's Estate (14 Cal. 12!)) 805

Cook V. Burton (5 liuAi, 04) 074

v. Carr (19 Mel. 1) 527

e. Cook ('J2 Ind. 3'J8) HIO
V. Cook (20 N. J. L. ;i75) 727
t). Cook (24 S. G. 204) 385, 757
V. Grant (10 Serg. & U. l'J8) 75
V. Gre<^son (3 Drew. 547) 657
«. Holmes (11 Mass. 528) 878
V. Holmes (2!) Mo. 61) 751
V. Hortoii (129 Mass. 527) 1197
V. Laiuiins (40 X. J. Eq. 309) 893, 989
V. Lewis (30 Me. 340) 294, 300
V. Lowrv (95 N. Y. 1-3) 919
V. McChristian (4 CaL 23) 194
V. Muiin (12 Abb. N. C. 344) 940
V. Roberts (09 Ga. 742) 210

f. Sanders (15 Rich. 6.3) 423
1-. Weaver (12 Ga. 47) 873
I'. Wiiitiufr (10 IU.480) 597

Cooke c. Cooke (29 Md. 538) 078

V. Meeker (36 N. Y. 15) 994, 995, 1000

». Piatt (98 N. Y. 35) 719

Cool V. Higu;ins (23 N. .1. Eq. 308) 705

Coolev V. Brown (30 Iowa, 470) 631

V. Smith (17 Iowa. 99) 800

r. Vansyckle (14 N. J. Eq. 490) 677, llo2

Coolidse V. Melvin (42 N. H. 510) 610

Coombs r. Lane (17 Tex. 280) 1080

Coon V. Bean (69 Ind. 474) 124-4

V. Frv (6 iMich. 506) 330

Coope D. Lowerre (1 Barb. Ch. 45) 526

Cooper V. Armstrona: (3 Kan. 78) 1208, 1209

y. Bockett(10 Jiir. 931) 94

V. Burr (45 Barb. 9) 123

V. Cooper (L. R. 7 H. L. 53) 1016

i;. Cooper (5 N.J. Eq. 9) 570,578

V. Cooper (77 Va. 198) 271, 703

V. Horner (62 Tex. 356) 661

V. Jud^e (19 Me. 260) 1198

V. Merrihew (Rilev Eq. 166) 284

V. Reid (2 Hill Cli. 549) 284

V. Remsen (5 John. Ch. 459) 958

V. Robinson (2 Cush. 184) 1050

V. Simmons (7 H. & N. 707) 033

V. Sunderland (3 L.wa, 114) 329, 1046

V. White (19 Ga. 554) 645

Coot V. Bertv (12 Jlod. 232) 226

Coote V. WliittinKton (L. R. 16 Eq. 534) 421

Coover's Appeal (52 Pa. St 427) 519

Cope ('. McFarland (2 Head, 543) 797

Copeland v. Barron (72 Me. 206) 948, 949, 1000

V. Copeland (7 Bush, 349) 230

Copenhaver v. Copenhaver (78 Mo. 55) 149

V. Copenhaver (9 Mo. A pp. 200) 149

Copp V. Hersey (31 N. H. 317) 208, 1010

Cojipaije I'. Alexander (2 B. Mon. 313) 961

Coppeis' Estate (4 Phila. 378) 702

Copper V. Weils (1 N. J. Eq. 10) 595

Coppin V. Dillon (4 Hai?";. 301) 529

Corbett v. Rice (2 Nev.^330) 803, 1123

Corbin v. Mills (19 Grat. 438) 906

I'. Wilson (2 Ash. 178) 941

Corbitt V. Dawkins (54 Ala. 282) 1077

Corby r. Corby (85 Mo. 371) 870

CordevioUe's "Succession (24 La. An.

319) 1063

Cordrey v. Cordrey (1 Houst. 269) 32

Page
Cordwell's Estate (L. R. 20 Eq. 044) 976

Corlass, In re (L. R. 1 Cu. D. 400) 8j5

Corn V. Corn (4 Dem. 394) 572

Conieby v. (iibbons (1 Rob. 705) 62

Cornelius, Will of (14 Ark. 075) 66

Cornell v. Gallalier (16 (al. 367) 525

V. Loveft(35 Pa. St. 100) 962

Cornett v. Williams (20 Wall. 226) 329, 1089
Corni.sh i\ Willson (0 (iill, 299) 1090, 1107
Cornoy V. Cornog (3 Del Ch. 407) 236

Cornpropst's Appeal (33 Pa St. 537) 524

Cornwall's Estate ( Tuck. 2.50) 1038

Cornwell v. Deck (8 IIuu, 122) 711

V. Riker (2 Dem. 3.54) 43

V. Woolley (47 Barb. .327) 74

Corporation v. Hammond (1 Harr. & J.

580) 252

Corrington v. Corrington (15 III. App.
393) 708

V. Corrington (16 N. East. 252) 719, 726,
727, 1084
Corrv V. Lamb (12 N. East. 660) 268

Corwin's Estate (61 Cal. 100) 1199

Cirwin v. Merritt (3 Barb. 341) 1031

Corwine v. Corwine (24 N. J. Eq. 579) 989
Cory V. Corv (37 N. J. Eq. 198) 271, 949

Corvton v. Hel var (2 Cox, 340 1 882

Cosbv V. Gilchl-i.st (7 Dana, 200) 537

Coste"n's Appeal ( 13 Pa. St. 292) 1071

Costephens v. Dean (09 Ala. 385) 430, 431,

433
Coster V. Clarke (3 Edw. Ch. 428) 290

Costlev V. Tarver (38 Ala. 107) 1075

v.'Towles (40 Ala. 660) 284

Cothran v. McCoy (33 Ala. 65) 1044

Cotter's Estate (54 Cal. 215) 532

Estate (Mvr. 179) 532

Cottercll V. Brock (1 Bradf. 148) 543, 544

Cottle, Appellant (5 Pick. 483) 571

V. Vanderheyden (11 Abb. Pr. N. s.
17) 516

Cotton V. Jones (37 Tex. 34) 838, 845

V. Smithwick (06 Me. 3(50) 894

V. Tavlor (4 B Mon. 3.57) 530, .531

t). Ulmer (45 Ala. 378) 34,-36

Cottrell V. Woodson (11 Heisk. 681) 836

Couch «. Eastham (29 W. Va. 784) 871, 884
Coudert v. Coudert (43 N. J. Eq. 407) 109
Coughanour v. Hoffman (13 Pac. 231) 215
Coulson V. Holmes (5 Sawy. 279) 102

Coulter's Case (5 Co. 30) 422, 420

Council V. Averett (95 N. C. 131) 718

County Court r. Bissell (2 Jones, .387) 571
Courtenay v. Williams (3 Hare, 539) 150, 976,

1237
Courtney v. Hunter (1 Cr. C. C. 265) 373
CousinsV. Jackson (52 Ala. 262) 835

V. Paddons (2 Cr. M. & R. 547) 792

Coutant V. Schuvler (1 Pai. 310) 122

Covell V. Weston (20 John. 414) 1271

Cover V. Stem (67 Md. 449) 61, 62

Coverdale v. Aldrich (19 Pick. 391) 655

Covert V. Sebern (35 N. W. R., Iowa, 030) 351
Covin's Estate (20 S. C. 471) 976

Covington r. Lattimore (88 N. C. 407) 710
Cowan V. JIusgrave (35 N. W. R., Iowa,

496) 829, 831

Cowden v. Dobvns (5 S. & M. 82) 341

Cowdin r. Perr^- (1 1 Pick. .503) 1153

Cowdrev V. Cowdrev (131 Mass. 186) 205

V. Hitchcock (103 111. 202) 175, 269, 270

liv

TABLE OF CASES.

1104
14U
8!2
'JOB
943

Cowell V. Roberts (79 Mo. 218) 824

r. Watts ((J I'.ast, 40;.) 7;J4

Cowgi.l V. Liiiville (20 Mo. App. 138) 744
("owiiis V. Tool (;;(> Iowa, 82) 1122. 1124

Cowles V. Cowles ( 13 All. li. 414) 980

r. Hayes (71 N. C. 230) 539,753

Cowling V. Nauseinond Justices (6 Rand.

349) 552

Cox V. Brown (5 Ired. L. 194) 178, 183

V. Codv (75 Ga. 175) 181

V. Coikendall (13 N.,J.Eq. 138)

V. Cox (44 Iiid. 308)

V. Cox (84 N. C. 138)

V. Ciirwen (118 Mass. 198)

i;. Harris (17 Md. 23)

V. Harvev (1 Tex. Unr. Cas. 268) 200. 212

V. John (32 Oh. St. 532) 1129

V. McBurnev (2 Sandf. 561) 596

V. McKinneV (32 Ala. 401) 941

V. Rogers (77 Pa. St. 160) 1016

V. Roonie (38 N. J. E(|. 259) 711

V. Schermerhorn (18 Hun, 16) 1107

V. Scott (9 Baxt. 305) 639,641

V. Thomas (9 Grat. 323) 328

Cove V. Leach (8 Met. 371) 935

Coyle V. Creevv (34 La. An. 539) 196

Cozart r. Lvon791 N. C. 282) 354

Cozzens's Will (01 Pa. St. 196) 65

Cozzens v. Jamison ( 12 Mo. App. 452) 1('3

Crabb v. At wood (10 Ind 322) 825

r. Young (92 N. Y. 56) 708

Craddock v, Riddlesbarger (2 Dana, 205) 597,

598

Cragg V. Riggs (5 Redf. 82) 1004

Craig V. Beattv (U S- C. 375) 500

V. Craig ('3 Barb. Ch. 76) 121

V. Leslie (3 Wheat. 563) 655, 728, 1233

V. McGehee (16 Ala. 41) 1034

V. Secrist (54 Ind. 419) 921

V. Walthall (14 Grat. 518) 271

r. Wroth (47 Md. 281) 337

Craige v. Morris (25 N. J. Eq. 467) 257

Crain v Grain (21 Tex. 790) 61

Cram v. Gram (33 Vt. 15) 42

V. Green (6 Ohio, 429) 1124

Cramer v. Crumbaugh (3 Md. 491) 50

Cramp's Appeal (81 Pa. St. 90) 1131

Cramp v. Plavfoot (4 K.& J. 479) 910

Crane v. Cava'na (36 Barb. 410) 265

V. Crane (31 [owa, 296) 157

V. Crane (17 Pick. 422) 167, 169, 170

V. Guthrie (47 Iowa, 542) 636

V. Hopkins (6 Ind. 44) 793

*;. Moses (13 S. C. 561) 1242

V. Reeder (21 Mich. 24) 305

Cranmer v. McSwords (24 W. Va. 594) 1094,

1109, 1111

Cranson v. Cranson (4 Mich. 230) 127, 245

Crapo V. Armstrong (61 Iowa, 697) 761, 1144

Craslin v. Baker (8 Mo. 437) 418, 432

Cravath v. Plvmpton 03 Mass. 454) 618, 026

Craven v. Winter (38 Iowa, 471) 261

Cravens v. Faulconer(28 Mo. 19) 68

r. Logan (7 Ark. 103) 751

Crawford' V. Blackburn (19 :\rd. 40) ll'.iS

V. Bradv (35 Ga. 184) 041

V. Graves (15 La. An. 243) 3'i6

V. Redus (54 Miss. 700) 1127, 1180

V. Thompson (91 Ind. 266) 964

V. Tvson (46 Ala. 299) 575, .576

V. Ward (49 Ga. 40) 1208

Pa^'e

Crav i: Willis (2 P. Wms. 529) 991

Creiigh V. Blood (2 Jones .V LaT. 509) 39

Creatli v. IJreiit (3 iJana, 12;)) 395, 572

Crecelius c. il(ir>t (78 Mo. 506) 937

V. Horst (89 Mo 35li) 231, 248

V. Horst (4 Mo. Ajip. 419) 248

V. Hor>t (9 Mo. App. 51) 937

V. Horst (1 1 Mo. Aj.p. 3ii4) 246, 247

Credle v. Credle (Busb. L. 225) 1217

Creed v. Creed (11 CI. & lin. 491) 988

Creelv v. Ostrander (3 Bradf. 107) 43, 47

Cregili V. Brooklvn Co. (75 N. Y. 192) G20

V. Brooklyn Co. (83 N. Y. 595) 615, 621

Crenshaw v. Carpenter (69 Ala. 572) 271

V. Crenshaw (2 H. & M. 22) 602

Cresse, Matter of (28 N. J. Im]. 236) 533

Cresfeon's Appeal (30 Pa. St. 437) 928

Cresswell's Succession (8 La. An. 122) 706

Creswell v. Lawson (7 G. & J. 227) 952

V. Slack (68 Iowa, 110) .300, 361, 1026

Creveling v. Jones (21 N. J. L. 517) 880

Crickard v. Crickard (25 Grat. 410) 710

Crickett v. Dolbv (3 Ves. 10) 1007

Ciilev V. Chamberlain (30 Pa. St. 161) 949

Crippen v. Crippen (1 Head, 128) 1035, 1036

V. Dexter (13 Grav, 330) 493

Crispell V. Dubois (4 Barb. 393) 50

Crispin v. Wiiikleman (57 Iowa, 523) 425

Crissman v. Crissnian (5 Ired. 498) 874

V. Crissman (23 Mich. 217) 612

Crist V. Crist (1 Ind. 570) 990

Crittenden's Estate (Mvr. 50) 71

Croade v. Ingndiam (13 Pick. 33) 254

Crocker v. Chase (57 Vt. 413) 477, 490

V. Smith (10 111. App. 376) 1264

Croft V. Bolton (31 Mo. 355) 640

V. Williams (88 N. Y. 384) 737

Crofton V. Ilslev (4 Me. 134) 493

Crolius V. Stark (64 Barb. 112) 42

Crolly V. Clark (20 Fla. 849) 494

Cromartie v. Kemp (66 N. C 382) 146

Crombie v. Engle (19 N. J. L. 82) 332, 1 130

Cromer v. Pincknev (3 Barb. Ch. 466) 899

Cronan v. Cottina: (99 Mass. 334) 650. 795

Crone's Appeal (103 Pa St. 571) 989

Cronin's Estate (Mvr. 252) 1240

Croninger v. Marthen (83 Kv. 662) 865

Cronise v. Hardt (47 Md. 433) 1070. 1233

Crook V. Whitlev (7 DeG. M. & G. 490) 899

Crooke v. Coimtv (97 N. Y. 431) 656

Crooker v. Jewe'll (31 Me. 306) 387

Crooks's Estate (Myr. 247) 324

Crosbie r. McDoual (4 Ves. 610) 86. 113

Crosbv's Estate (55 Cal. 574) 1028

Crosbv V. Dowd (61 Cal. 557) 713, 844

v: Mason (32 Conn. 482) 354, 8;i2

V. McWillie (11 Tex. 94) 808

Crosland v. Murdock (4 McCord, 217) 501

Cross V. Brown (51 N. H. 481) 631, 632

V. Maltbv, (L. R. 20 Eq. 378) 881

Crossan v. McCrary (37 Iowa, 684) 1129,

1185. 1258
Crossbv V. Geering (cited 2 Ld. Ravm.

972) 797

Crouch V. Circuit Judges (.52 Mich. 596) 854
V. Davis (23 (irat. 62) 975,976

V. Eveleth (12 Mass. 503) 10,28

V. Happer (5 Lea, 171) 675

Crow V. Dav (60 Wis. 037) 861

V. Hubard (62 Md. 560) 164

V. Weidner (36 Mo. 412) 299

TABLE OF CASES.

Iv

r.i (■

Crowdcr V. Shackclfuid (35 -Miss. .■;21 ) Hi),
1142, 1147, I2i>i
Crowe I'. Peters (03 Mo. 429) 41

Crowey, In re (71 Cal. 30U) I'J'.t, '2UU

Crowii'inshield v. Crowiiiiishield (2 Gray,

524) .3(5

Croxall v. Sherurd (5 Wall. 208) 12.i:J

Croxtoii v. HeniR-r (K).'! liul. 22:1) ' S'.)-')

Crozier's Appeal (UO I'a. St. ;j84) 270

Crozierw. Goodwin (1 Lea, 3(18) 401, 1204
Cruce r. Cruce (21 111. 4(5) 170, 187, 7<;8

V. Cruce (81 Md. 070) IIVJ

Cruder r. licvwanl (2 Des. 94) 915

Cruiksluuik v. Luttrell (07 Ala. 318) 1047,
1050, 1059, 1001, 1004, 1005
Cruize v. Billmire (09 Iowa, 397) 233, 275
Cruni I'. Bliss (47 Conn. 592)
Crumley v. Deake (8 Baxt. 3G1) ■
Crump f. Faueett (70 N. C. 345)

V. Mor{j;an i3 Ired. Kq. 91)
Crunkletou v. Wilson (1 Browne, 301)

930
270
149
224
414,
417
494
78
1038
211
9.")2

Crusoe v. Butler (30 Miss. 150)
Crutcher v. Cratcher (11 Hnmpli. 377)
Culbertson v. Coleman (47 Wis. 193)

V. Cox (29 Minn. 209)
Culin's Appeal (20 Ba. St. 243)
Cullen V. O'llara (4 Mich. 132) 418, 427, 072
Cullerton v. Mead (22 Cal. 95) 807, 840

Culver w. Hardenbergh (37 Minn. 225) 1029,

1072
V. Haslam (7 Barb. 314) 41

Culvert t". Yundt (112 Ind. 401) 339

Cumberland v. Codrington (3 John. Ch.

229) 1093

Cummings v. Allen (34 N. H. 194) 104, 109,

189
V. Bradlev (57 Ala. 224) 099, 1151

V. Corev (58 Mich. 494) 870

V. Cum'mings (123 Mass. 270) 320

V. Cummings (143 Mass. 340) 1122, 1230
V. Cummings (51 Mo. 201) 102, 177, 187,

231
V. Plummer (94 Ind. 403) 897

Cummins v. Denton (1 Tex. Unr. Cas.

181) 214, 215

Cunninijham's Estate (54 Cal. 556) 499

Cunninirham, In re (30 N. W. K. 209) 90, 98

V. Cunnin-ham (18 B. Mon. 19) 945

V. Somerville (30 N. \V. 209) 90, 98, 480,

484
V. Souza (1 Redf. 402)
Curd V. Benner (4 Coldw. 032)

V. Curd (9 Humph. 171)
Curie V. Curie (9 B. Mon. 309)

V. Moore (1 Dana. 445)
Curley's Succession (18 La. An.

Curley v. Hand (53 Vt. 524)

c. Tomlinsou (5 Daly, 283)
Curling r. Curling (8 Dana, 38)
Curraii v. Kuby (37 Minn. 330)
Curren v. Taylor (19 Oh. 30)
Currey, Goojs of (5 Not. Cas. 54)

V. Warrington (5 Ilarr. 147)
Currie v. ("urr'ie (90 N. C. 553)
V. McNeill (83 N. C. 170)
V. Steele (2 Sandf. 542)
I'. Stewart (20 Miss. 040)
Currier r. Creen (2 N. H. 225)
V. Lowell (10 Pick. 170)

410, 543

1125

173

774

303, 309

1051,

1054

820

333

922, 931

108.)

154

530

287

423

699

118

1040

10.-18

075

01)

Currv r. liiatnev (29 Ind 195)
V. iJrvant (7 Bush, 301)
V. Currv (10 llun, 300)
(•. CurrV (114 I'a. St. 307)
V. Inilkinson(14 Uii. 100)
V. Peebles (83 Ala. 225)
V. Peoi)le (54 III. 203)

Curser's Administratiim (89 N. \'

Curtis V. Bailev (1 Piek. 199)
V. Burt (34 Ala. 729)
V. Curtis (3 Add. 33)
V. Fowler (33 N. W. P. 804)
V. Fulbrook (8 Hare, 278)
V. llobart 41 .Me. 230)
V. Lukin (5 Beav. 147)
V. National Bank (39 Oh. St. 579)
V. Probate Judge (35 Mich. 220)
V. Stilwell (32 Barb. 354)
V. Sutter (15 Cal. 259)
V. Williams (33 Ala. 570)

Curtiss f. Beardsley (15 Couu. 518)

Page
499
809
204
824, 830
042

1271

1004
52)

1182

530, 582

480

131

710
201
995
757
188
807
712
530
1202,
1204
12(J2
1102
885

Curts V. Brooks (71 111. 125)
Cushing's Will (58 Vt. 393)
Cushiug /•. Avhvin (12 .Met. 109)

V. Blake '(30 N. J. Eq. 089) 236, 276, 277,

1233

V. Burrell (137 Mass. 21) 971

Cushman r. Horton (5;J N. Y. 143) 902

Cushnev r. Henrv (4 I'ai. 345) 903

Cnstis V. Potter (1 Houst. 382) 1006, 1008

Cuteiiin V. Wilkinson (1 Call, 1) 510, 535

Cuthbert i-. Purrier (2 Phi II. C. C. 109) 1015
Cutlibertson's Appeal (97 Pa. St. 103) 43, 49
Cutlar V. Quince (2 Havw. GO) 522, 539

Cutler V. Howard (9 Wis. 309) 505, 577

Cut HIT V. Bovd (72 Ga. 302) J219, 1223, 1242
Cutright; V. Stanford (81 III. 240) 1229, 12JS
Cutting V. Cutting (80 N. V. 522) 653

V. Oilman (4i N. H. 147) 117, 123, 121

V. Tower (14 Gray, 181) 623

Cuttu v. Gilbert (9 Moo. P. C. 131) 97, 98, 484

Daball V. Field (0 R. I. 200) 140, 939, 1123

Dabnev's Appeal (120 Pa. St. 344) 707

Dabv r. Ericson (45 N. Y. 780) 281

DailV V. Daily (06 Ala. 200) 643, 757

Dakin i'. Hudson (6 Cow. 221) 325

Dale V. Dale (38 N. J. Eq. 274) 49

V. Havs (14 B. Mon. 315) 499

V. Lincoln (02 111.22) 611

Dallam v. Dallam (7 Harr. & J. 220) 959

Dalrvmple v. Dalrvmple (2 Hagg. Cons.

R."54) ' 222

V. Gamble (66 Md. 298) 510. 636, 57 1

V. Gamble (08 Md. 150) 1150, 1151

Daly's Appeal (47 Mich. 443) 1049

"Estate (Tuck. 95) 737

Dameron r. Dameron (19 Mo. 317) 681

Damon r. Damon (8 Allen, 192) 54

Damouth v. Klock (29 Mich. 289) 414

Dainrell v. Hartt (137 Mass. 218) 878

Dan V. Brown (4 Cow. 483) 481

Dana's Case (Tuck. 113) 607

Dancv v. Pope (08 N. C. 147) 798

V. Stricklinge (15 Tex. ,557) 3-30

Dandridge v. Minge (4 Rand. 397) 111 5

Danforth r. Smitli (23 Vt. 247) 200

Daniel r. Board of Com'rs (74 N. C. 494) 840

V. Daniel (39 Pa. St. 191) 43

Ivi

TABLE OF CASES.

Page

Daniel v. Jackson (53 Ga. 87) 10o7, 1004

V. Siiiitli (04 Cal. 340) 122

t'. Stough (73 Ala. 370) 1083

Daniels i\ Fond (21 Pick. 307) 004

V. Riciiaidson (22 Pick. UC^o) 51)4

Danzey i'. Smith (4 Tex. 411) 632

V Swiniiev (7 Tex. 017) 8til

Darbv r. Maver (10 Wheat. 465) 490, 501

Darden v. Harrill (10 Lea, 421) 939, 940

Darke, Goods of (1 Sw. & Tr. 510) 509

Darland r. Taylor (52 Iowa, 503) 124

Darne v. Llovd (82 Va. 859) 1214, 1216,

1220

Darrah v. Baird (101 Pa. St. 265) 600

Darrel v. Eden (3 Des. 241) 11.5'J

Darrington v. Borland (3 Port. 9) 1095

Darston v. Orford (Pr. Ch. 188) 780

D'Arusnient r. Jones (4 Lea, 251) 451

Dascomb v. Marston (13 Atl. K. 888) 922, 1103

Dashiell v. Attorney General (5 Harr. & J.

392) 928, 9.32

r. Attorney General (G H. & J. 1) 925

Daudt V. Musick (9 Mo. App. 109) 212, 271

Danghertv r. Daughertv (09 Iowa, 677) 2);7

Dauser i;.'^Jereniiah (3 Redf. 130) 351

Davenport v. Caldwell (10 S. C. 317) 347

V. Irvine (4 J. J. Marsh. 60) 577

V. Lawrence (19 Tex. 317) 1187

V. Kicliards (16 Conn. 310) 654

V. Sargent (63 N. H. 538j 986, 1098,

1099
Da vers v. Dewes (3 P. Wms. 40) 1019

Davev v. Turner (1 Dall. 11) 248

David V. David (56 Ala. 49) 198

Davids, Matter of (5 Deni. 14) 1023

Davidson v. Davidson (28 La. An. 269) 1048,

1083
V. Davis (80 Mo. 440) 201,212

V. Moore (14 S. C. 251) 1104

V. Potts (7 I red. Kq. 272) 432

Davie r. Briggs (97 U. S. 028) 445

V. McDaniel (47 Ga. 195) 325, 1030, 1037
V. Stevens (10 La. An. 496) 500

Davies, Goods of (2 Curt. 028) 520

V. Bush (1 Younge, 341) 980

V. Hodgson (25 Beav. 177) 292

V. Steele (38 N. J Ef|. 108) 910

w. Topp (1 Bro. Ch. 524) 1272

V. Wattier (1 Sim. & Stu. 463) 990

Davis's Appeal (23 Pa. St. 200) 1180

Appeal (.34 Pa. St. 256) 190

Estate (05 Cal .309) 1172

Estate (30 Iowa, 24) 229, 231

Estate (1 Phila. 300) 1170

Davis, In re (69 Cal. 408) 212

In re (02 Mo. 450) 1137, 1138

Succession of (12 La. An. 399) 542

V. Bartholomew (3 Ind. 485) 249, 2.50
V, Ballard (7 T. B. Mon. 603) 330

V. Brandon (1 How. Miss, 154) 1008

V. Callahan (78 Me. 313) 1018

V. Calvert (5 G. & J. 269) 31, 45

V. Christian (15 Grat. 11) 281, 282

V. Connelly (4 B. Mon. 1-30) 371, 416

V. Crandall (101 N. Y, 311) 960, 1012,
1014, 1128
V. Davis (2 Addams, 223) 481

V. Davis (6 Ala. 611) 1128 1231

V. Davis (31 L. J., P. M. & A. 216) 510
V. Davis (123 Mass. 590) 47

t;. Davis (5 Mo. 183) 123, 248

Davis V. Davis (8 Mo. 56)

V. Davis (39 N. J. Lq. 13)
V. Dunn (74 Ga. 36)
V. Kstey (8 Pick. 475)
V. French (20 Me. 21)

Page

892

901, 1008

201

375, 377

7'j5

V. Hoover (112 Ind. 423) 718, 719, 1023
V. Howard (56 Ga. 430) 1030

V. Inscoe (84 N, C. 390) 513

V. King (89 N. C. 441) 95, 112

V. Krug (95 Ind. 1) 141

V. Logan (9 Dana, 185) 233

V. Marcum (4 Jones Eq. 189) 61. 8

V. Mason (1 Pet. 503) 276, 277

V. Newman (2 Hob. Va. 664) 1229

V. Newton (6 Met. Mass. 537) 1015

V. Perry (96 N. C. 200) 1029

V. Phillips (32 Tex. 504) 363

V. Kowe (6 Rand. 355) 131, 146

V. Rogers (1 Houst. 44) 52, 76

V. Rogers (1 Houst. 183) 408

V. Shuler (14 11a. 4.8) 397, 506, 567

V. Sigournev (8 Met. Mass. 487) 89, 482,

484
V. Smith (82 Ala. 198) 290

V. Smith (5 Ga. 274) 673, 677, 775, 777,
779, 791
V. Smith (75 Mo. 219) 340, 816, 817

V. Smith (58 N. H. 10) 531, 564

V. Stewart (4 Tex. 223) lOGl, 1062, 1194
V. Stinson (53 Me. 493) 147

V. Swanson (54 Ala. 277) 631

V. Taul (0 Dana, 51) 883, 936

V. Touchstone (45 Tex. 490) 1037, 1047,

1062
V. Vansands (45 Conn. 600) 1228, 1271
r. Walford (2 Ihd. 88) 558, 738

V. Walker (2 Harr. 125) 1146

V. Whittaker (.38 Ark. 435) 978

V. Williams (85 Tenn. 646) 917, 1102

V. Wright (2 Hill S. C. .[.GO) 1138

V. Yerby (1 Sm. & M. Ch. 508) 697,

1004
Davison's Will (Tuck. 479) 494

Davison v. Whittelsev (1 McArth. 163) 255
Davisson v. Burgess (31 Oh. St. 78) 1033

Davoue v. Fanning (2 John. Oh. 252) 700, 701,

718

Daws V. Boucher (3 Y. & Coll. 397) 978

Dawdy v. Nelson (12 111. App. 74) 823

Dawes v. Bovlston (9 Mass. 337) 375, 387

V. Head "(3 Pick. J28) 375, 376, 377

i;. Shed (15 Mass. 0) 841,866

V. Wmship (5 Pick. 96, note) 692

Dawson v. Dawson (Rice Eq. 243) 61

V. Dawson (2 Strobh. Eq. 34) 61

V. Godfrey (4 Cra. 321) 22

V. Holt (44 Tex. 174) 198

V. Macknet (42 N. J. Eq. 633) 1219

V. Parham (47 Ark. 215) 1067

«. Small (L. R. 18 Eq. 114) 934

V. Smith (3 Houst. 335) 91, 98

Day, Ex parte (1 Br. df. 476) 57

Day's Succession (3 La. An. 624) 1173

Day V. Adams (42 Vt. 510) 197

V. Brown (2 Ohio, 345) 1066

V. Cochran (24 Miss. 261) 277

V. Day (3 N. J. Eq. 549) 52, 484

V. Micou (18 Wall. 150) 337

Davhuff V. Davhuff C27 Ind. 158) 828

Dayton v. Barilptt (:^8 Oh. St. 357) 286

I'. Donart (22 Kan. 256) 195, 2G6

TABLE OF CASES.

Ivii

Davton v. Fisher (34 Iiid. 350) (il2

' V. Aliiilz.r (22 Minn. 3'J3) 326, 1052

V. Wiilvus (17 How. Tr. ulO) '292

Dea.l.'iick r. Cantnli (10 Y.rg. 203) 738

Deake's Appeal (12 Atl. 7itO) 400

Deakiiis I'. Ilollis (7 Gill & .1. 311) 71, 75

Duan's Appeal (87 Pa. St. 24) 1031, 1033

Estate (02 Cal. G13) ll'.)7

Succession (33 La. An. 807) GO'J

Dean v. Hiyjuers (27 Ga. 73) 393, 400

V. Central Tress Co. (04 Ga. 070) 1022

V. Uean (3 Mass. 258) 1038

V. Dean (7 T. li. Mon. 304) 741, 742

V. Dean (27 Vt. 740) 37, 70

V. Dean (43 Vt. 337) 124

V. Dullield (8 Tex. 235) 806, 812

V. Hart (02 Ala. 308) 207, 273

I'. Ne-lev (41 I'a. St. 312) 48

V. I'hinUett (130 Mmss. 195) 288

V. Sui)eriur Court (03 Cal. 473) 1258

V. Wade (8 La. An. 85) 1044

t'. Warnock (US I'a. St. 505) 830

Dearborn v. Preston (7 Allen, 192) 150. 1240

Deardslev v. Fleniinj; (Cas. Temp. Lee, 98) 51

Dearing," Matter of (4 Dem. 81) 58;)

Dearnian v. Dearnian (4 .Via. 521) 095

Deas 0. Spann (Harp. Ch. 170) 1107

Dease V. Cooper (40 Miss. 114) ' 190

De Bar v. Priest (6 Mo. App. 531) 250

De Barante v. Gott (0 Barb. 41)2) 608

Deberry v. Ivev (2 .Jones Kq. 370) 651, 7t)8

Debesse v. Napier (1 McCord, 100) 419

De Boisblanc's Succession (32 La. An. 17) 180

De Bruler v. Keri^uson (54 Ind. 549; 922

De Camp v. Dobbins (29 N. .1. Kq. 36) 934

De Castro v. Barry (18 Cal. 90) 1244

V. Kiehardson (25 Cal. 49) 330

Deck V. Gerke (12 Cal. 433) 357, 1123

V. Gherke (6 Cal. GOO) 1155

Decker v. Decker (121 111. 341) 8SD. 893, 894,

1018, 1096

V. Decker (74 Me. 465) 1084, 1089, 1091

V. Fisher (4 Barb. 592) 590

V. Morton (1 Redf. 477) 345

Decoster v. Wing (70 Me. 450) 146

Decrow i\ Moody (73 Me. 100) 1012

Decuir's Succession (23 La. An. 106) 577, 581

De Dieniar v. Van Wagenen (7 .Jijhn. 404) 083

Deeks v. Strutt (5 Term R. 090)

Deen v. Cozzens (7 Robt. 178)

Deere v. Chapman (25 III. 010)

Deering v. Adams (34 Me. 41)

Deerv r. Hamilton (41 Iowa, 10)

Dees'u. Tiidon (2 La. An. 412)

Paiie
Delatield v. Shipman (34 Hun, 514) 937

De La Guerra v. Packanl (17 Cal. 182) 427
De Lane's Case (2 Brev. 107) 549, 581

130)

993

575

21)0

1194

731, 732

437, 1003,

1078

De Flechier's Succession (1 La. An. 20) 401,

577
Deford V. Deford (.36Md. 108) 943

De France v. Johnson (20 Fed. R. 8^1) 22 i
De Groffiv. Terpenning(14Hun,301) 978,981
Dehart v. Dehart (15 Ind. 107) 340, 815

De Haven's Appeal (100 Pa. St. 112) 1057
Deichman's Appeal (2 Whart. ?95) 775

Deig i: Morehead (110 Ind. 451) 409

Deihl V. King (6 Serg. & R. 2'.)) 950

Delabigarrer. Second Municipalitv (3 La.

An. 230) ■ 684

Delafield v. Barlow (107 N. Y. 535) 727

v. Parish (25 N. Y. 9) 31, 32, 44, SH

V. Parish (1 Redf. 1) 105

V. Schuchardt (2 Dem. 435) 711

198

1062

31

1234

482
1001
1118

Delanev's Estate (37 Cal

Estate (49 Cal. 70)
Delanevv. Salina (34 Kan. 532)
Delany I,'. Noble (3 N. .L Ei|. 441)
Delapiaine, In re (5 Deui. 398)

r. Lawrence (3 N. Y. 391) 1000,

De La Salle v. Moorul (L. i;. 11 En. 8)
De La Saussaye, In re (L. R. 3 P. & D.

42) 101

De Laurencel v. De Boom (67 Cal. 362) 902
Delaware, &c. R. K. v. Gilbert (44 Hun,

201) 689

Delay v. Vinal (1 Met. Mass. 57) 271

De L"eon v. Barrett (22 S. C. 412) 1 140

Delmotter. Tavlor (1 Redf. 417) 110. 120

Deltzer v. Scheuster(37 111.301) 171, 187

Demarest's Estate (1 Civ. Pr. R. .302) 541

Demarest v. Wvnkoop (3 .John. Ch. 129) 595

Dement i: Ilarth (45 Mis>. ;;88) 1125

Deming's Appeal (34 Conn. 201) 857

Dennnert v. Sehnell (4 Redf. 409) 47

Demond v. Boston (7 Grav, 544) 622

Denipsev's Will (Tuck. 5i) 513

Den V. Combs (18 N. J. L. 27) 880

f. Dodd(G N.J.L.307) 2.54

V. English (17 N. J. L. 280) 881

V. Gibbons (22 N. J. L. 117) 34, .37, 47

V. Hance(ll N..J.L.244) 952

v. Hunt (U N.. I.L.I) 1045

V. Jaques (10 N. .1. L. 259) 1208

V. Johnson (5 N. J. L. 4.54) 43

V. Johnson ( 18 N. J. L. 87) 247

V. Mugwav (15 N. J. L. 330) 881

V. MeMurtrie (15 N. J. L. 276) 880

V. Messenger (33 N.J. L. 499) 953

V. Vaneleve (5 N. J. L. 589) 43

Deneale v. Morgan (5 Call, 407) 724

Denegre r. Denegre (33 La. An. 689) 3.50

Denise v. Denise (37 N. J. Eq. 163) 940, 12.6

Denison's Appeal (29 Conn. 399) 490

Denn v. King (1 N.J. L.432) 719

Denne v. Judge (11 East. 288) 72i

Dennett v. Dennett (40 N. U. 498) 88 i

V. Hopkinson (63 Me. 350) 5!)!1

Dennick v. Railroad (103 U. S. 11) 629

Dennis's Estate (07 Iowa, 110) 178

Dennis v. Ward r (3 B. Mon. 173) 890

V. Winter (03 Cal. 10) 1090

Dennison v. Talmage (29 Oh. St. 433) 499,

1192, 1199

Dennisfoun v. Hubbell (10 Bosw. 155) 779

Dennv v. Dennv (113 Ind. 22) 177

V. Faulkner (22 Kan. 89) 3t;0

V. Moore (13 Ind. 418) 828

V. Pinnev (12 Atl. R. 108) 48, 09

r. TurneV (2 Mo. App. ,52) 280, 300

Densler v. Edwards (5 Ala. 31) 419

Denson v. Beazlev (34 Tex. 191) 34, 42

V. Mitchell (20 Ala. 300) 874, 884

Dent V. Ashley (Hemps. 54) 300. ■Ull

Denton, In re (33 Hun, 317) 1012

In re (102 N. Y. 200) 1000. 1012

V. Clark (.30 N. J. Eq. 534) 719, 720, 884

V Franklin (9 B. Mon. 28) ^8

V. Sandford (103 N. Y. 007) 686, 711, 1126

De Peyster v. Clarkson (2 Wend. 77) 1177

).'."Clendining (8 Pai. 295) 512, 885

Depriest v. Patterson (92 N. C. 399) 700

Iviii

TABLE OF CASES.

Dequindre v. Williams (31 Iiid. 414) ."329, 108U
Deraisiiies ?•. Deraissmes (72 N. Y. 154) 1 151
Derby v. Derby (4 H. 1. 4U) DC. lUUj

Deriiiger v. iJcringcr (5 llmist. 410) 3U8, 5U'J
De Rosa v. De Tiiiua (2 Cas. Temp. Lee,

300) 507

D. rrv's Estate (Mvr. 202) 71

De Saussiire r. Lyons ('J S. C. 402) 718

Desesbats v. Berquier (1 Biiin. 33tj) 405

Desiiover v. Jordan (27 Minn. 205) 608, 642
De-paid r. Cluircliill (53 N. Y. 102) 375, 379
Destrehan v. Destreliau (4 Mart. N. S.
557) 1216

V. Destrelian (16 Mart. 557) 150

Desverges v. Desverges (31 (Ja.753) 1242

Detweiler's Appeal (44 Ta. St. 243) 187

Detwiller v. Hartmau (37 N. J. Eq. 347) 017,

034
Deupree v. Deiipree (45 Ga. 414) 107

De Valengin » Duflv (14 I'et. 282) 304, 645
Devaughn v. Devauglm (10 Grat. 650) 200
Devaynes v. Hobinson (24 Beav. 86) 732

De Veaux v. De Veaux (1 Strobh. Eq.

283) 806

Devecmon v. Devpcmon (43 Md. 335) 77

Devereaux v. Devereaux (78 N. C. 380) 1007
Devlin V. Commonwealth (101 Pa. St.

273) 451

Devling r. Little (26 Pa. St. 502) 734

Dew V. Barnes (1 Jones Eq. 149) 880

Dew V. Clark (3 Add. Ecel. R. 79) 33, 34, 35
Devvev r. Dewev (1 INIet. Ky. 349) 68

V. Van Ueusen (4 Pick. 10) 595

De Witt ('. Barley (13 Barb. 314) 41

«. Brands (jO All. 181) 1220

V. Sewing Machine Co. (17 Neb. 533) 201
Dewitt (,-. Yates (10 Johns. 156) 069, 970

De Wolf V. Lawson (61 Wis. 469) 727, 017,

020

V. Murpbv (11 R. I 6-30) 237, 242

Dexheiaier y.'Cautier (5 Rob. N. Y. 216) 120,

121
Dexter v. Arnold (3 Mason, 284) 1255

V. Brown (3 Mass. 32) 1208

V. Gardner (7 Allen, 243) 92.3, 034

V. Phillips (121 Mass. 178) 1011

V. Shepard (117 Mass. 480) 1052

V. Sirobach (56 Ala. 233) 199

Dey V. Codman (39 N. J. Eq. 258) 731, 1145,

1151

V. Williams (2 D. & B. Eq. 66) 975

Dev Erniand, Matter of (24 Hun, 1) 333

Devo, In re (30 Hun, 512) 11 aO

' In re (102 N. Y. 724) 1130

Dial V. Garv (14 S. C. 573) 3.58, 360, 308

Diament v. lore (31 N. J. L. 220) 1102, 1244
Diamo) d v. Shell (15 Ark. 26) 384, 410

Dice ». Lvin (110 Ind. 561) 610

Dickens r. Bush (23 Ala. 840) 336

V. Miller (12 Mo. App. 408) 444

Dickenson v. Stewart (1 Mur. 99) 499

Dickerson's Appeal (55 Conn. 223) 886. 1193
Dickeschied r. Bank (28 W. Va. .340) 117, 120
Dickev v. Malechi (6 Mo. 177) 74, 483, 484

V.' Vann (81 Ala. 425) 3.37, 493, 502

Dickie v. Carter (42 111. 376) 70

V. Dickie (80 Ala.. 57) 789, 1140, 11-53
Dickinson's Appeal (42 Conn. 491) 157

Appeal (54 Conn. 224) 4-34

Dickinson r. Calahan (19 Pa. St. 227) 688

V. Dickinson (23 Conn. 601) 291

Page

Dickinson v. Dickinson (61 Pa. St. 401) 28, 72

r. Dutcher (Bravt. 104) 685

r. Haves (31 Conn. 417) 326, 329, 1254

V. McGraw (4 Rand. 158) 359

V. Purvis (8 S. & R. 71 ) 936

Dickman v. Birkhanser (10 Neb. 686) 204

Dickson, Ex parte (1 Shn. N.s. 37) 958

V. Montgomery (1 8wan, 348) 930

V. United S'afes (125 Mass. 311) 913

V. Wilkinson (3 How. U. S. 57) 792

Diefenderier v. Eshlemau (113 Pa. St.

305) 263

Diehl's Appeal (33 Pa. St. 406) 1043

Diehl V. Miller (56 Iowa, 313) 12.08

Dietrick v. Dietrick (0 Serg. & R. 207) 45

Diez, In res (.50 N. Y.88) 57

Digby V. Howard (8 Bligh, n. s. 224) 613

z'. Howard (4 Sim. 488) 613

Dilbone v. Moorer (14 Ala. 420) 805

D.ldine v. Dildine (32 N. J. Ec]. 78) 935, 038

Dillabaiigirs Es-tate (4 Watts, 177) G.ll

Dillard r. Dillard (77 Va. 820) 1151

r. Dillard (78 Va.2(.8) 499

V. Harris (2 Tenn. Ch. 196) 370

Dille V. Webb (61 Ind. 85) 1223

Dilley v. Love (61 Md. 603) 1218, 1219, 1223,

1224
Dillinger v. Kellev (84 Mo. 561) 1085

Dillingham r. Weston (21 Me. 263) 855

Dillman v. Barber (114 Ind. 40^) 1130

Dillon V. Parker (1 Swanst. 359) 1016

Dilwor h v. MavHeld (.'iO Miss. 40) 290

V. Rice (48'Mo. 124) 724

Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal (3 H. L.

Cas. 759) 1085

Dingman v. Dingman (39 Oh. St. 172) 241

Dirmever v. 0"Hern (39 La. An. 901) 1206

Ditch V. Sennott (117 111. ;:J02) 1016

Ditmar v. Bogle (53 Ala. 100) 704

Dit.'iche's Estate (13 Phi la. 288) 345

Diversev v. Johnson (93 (II. 547) 12.')5

V. S'mith (103 111. 378) 626

Dix V. iMorris (06 Mo. 514) 1142

Dixon's Appeal (55 Pa. St. 424) 93

Dixon r. Buell (21 HI. 203) 815

V. Cassell (5 Oh. 533) 429

V. D'Armond (23 La. An. 200) 402

«. Dixon (4 La. 188) 1239

?;. Dixon (18 Oh. R. 113) 640, (;42

V. Mason (68 Ga. 478) 330

V. McCue (14 Grat. 540) 267

V. Ramsay (3 Cr. 319) 358, 374, 410

V. Storm (5 Redf. 419) 12-36

Doak's Estate (46 Cal. 573) 399

Doane v. Doane (46 Vt. 485) 201

V. Hadlock (42 Me. 72) 92, 93

Dobard v. Bavhi (30 La. An. 134) 1057

Dobbins v. Half acre (52 Mi.ss. 561) ]2.{1

Dobbs V. Cockerham (2 Port. 328) 1158

?;. Prothro (55 Ga. 73) 829,991

Dobson, Goods of (L. R. 1 P. & D. 88) 55

». Butler (17 Mo. 87) 182,184,520

Dobvns V. McGovern (15 Mo. 662) 559

Dockerv v. McDowell (40 Ala. 476) 699, 1170

Dockray v. Milliken (76 Me. 517) 265

Dockuni V. Robinson (26 N. H. 372) 84

Dodd V. Winship (144 Mass. 461) 1154

Dodds r. Dodds (26 Iowa, 311) 2f,3

V. Walker (9 111. App. 37) 12e;8

Dodge's Appeal (106 Pa. St. 216) 9C2

Dodge V. Avcrigg (12 N. J. Eq. 82) 249

TABLE OF CASKS.

lix

208
7:21;

Dodge V. Dod-c (-31 I5arb. 413)

V. Maiiinii!,' (1 N. V. 298)

V. I'oiid (L';i N, Y. (;.))

V. Williiiiiis (4(i Wis. 70)
Dodj^son, Goods of ( 1 Sw & Tr. 25'.))
Dodsoii V. Hall (00 Pa. St. 402)

V. Nevitt (5 .>Ioiit. 518)

V. iSiiniJson (2 lland. 2i4)
Doe r. .AiiiliTsoii (5 I nil. ■>•!)

V. Harford (4 .M. & .Scl. 10)

r. Bernard (7 Sni. & M. 310)

V. Cassidv (0 hid. (i'.i)

V. OlaHve"(2 II. Black. 399)

V. Gallini (5 B. & Ad. 021)

V. GwiUim (5 B. & Ad. 122)

V. Ilardv (52 Ala. 201)

V. HikMnaii (2 III. :32;!)

V. Kohertsoii (11 Wheat. 332)

V. lioe (JO Ga. 001)

V. Sheffield (13 Kast, 520)

V. Sturc:is (7 Taunt. 217)
Doebler's Appeal (04 Pa. St. 9)
Doerge v. Ileimenz (I Mo.App. 238) 8ii5. 841,

842, 1051
Do^an V. Bro^-n (44 Miss 235)
Doi?i,^ett V. Dill (108 111.500)
Dohertv v. Clioate (10 Lea, 192)
Dohs V. Dohs (i;0 Gal. 2.')5)
Dolan, In re (88 X. Y. 300)

4117
008
757
003
1030, 10 ;8
105
257

lOOd
155
877
871
338

1048

22

32,^

943

991

L 955

394

900

1140

1128

287

1042

841, 1257

1047, 1048

Dole V. Irish (2 Barb 639) 443

V. Lincoln (31 Me. 422) 117,118,120, 122

Dollield V. Kroh (quoted GO Md. 495) 1172

Domestic, &c. Soc. v. Reynolds (9 Md.

341) 893

Donald v. M.Whorter (41 Miss. 124) 761

Donaldson, Gooils of (2 Curt. 386) 85

V. Lewis (7 Mo. App. 403) 309, 444, .571,

581, 1198

V. Raboric (26 Md. 312)

Donesan r. Wade (70 Al •. 501)

Donuell V. Braden (70 Imva, 551)

Donnelly's Estate (3 Phila 18)

Wiil ((>8 Iowa, 120) 48, 470, 1208

Donnellv r Di.nnellv (8 B. Mon. 113) 223
Doiinington v. Mitchell (2 N. J.Eq. 243) 510, :

642

Dnnohoo V. Lea (1 Swan, 119) 103 i

Donovan's .Appeal (41 Conn. 551) 340

Doo V. Brabant (4 T. R. 706) 937

Doogan v. Elliott (43 Iowa. 342) 866

Doo'lan v. MeCurley (66 Cal. 476) 714

Doolittle V. HoIton'(28 Vt. 819) 330, 1089

V. Lewis (7 John. Gh. 45) 359, 364, 375

Dorah v. Dorah (4 Oh. St. 292) 177

Doran v. Mullen (78 III. 342) 469, 472

Dorenius. In re (33 N. J. Eq.234) 1138

Dornian. In re (5 Dein. 112) 34

r. Lane 1 6 111. 143) 1025

Dornick v Reichenback (10 S. & R. 84) 42

Dorr V. Commonwealth (1 Mass. 293) 1252

V. Waniwriyht (13 Pick. 328) 383, 391

Dorries's Succession (37 La. An. 833) 489

Dor.sett V. Frith (25 Ga. 537) 424

Dorsey v. Dorsev (5 J. J. Marsh. 280) 358

V. Sheppard (12 Gill & .1. 192) 83, 489

r. Smithson (6 II. & J. 61) 417, 420, 632

V. Warfield (7 Md. 65) 70, 1194

Dorsheimer v. Rorback (23 N. J. Eq. 46) 1231,

1240
Dortch V. Dortch (71 N. C. 224) 652

Dossey v. Pitman (81 Ala. 381) 197, 201, 215

P;i-e

Douce, Goods of (2 Sw. & Tr. 593) 63

DouKlieriy r. Barms (04 .Mo. 150) 208, 270

I-. l)ouj;lierly (4 .Met. Kv. 25) .55

V. Stephenson (20 Pa S"t. 210) 083

r. Van Nostrand (1 lloll. Ch. (i8) 2)2

Doufjhty V. Stillwell (1 Bradf. 300) 883

Doiif,Hass V. Bovlston (09 (Ja. 180) 210

r. Douj;lass (11 Kicli. 417) 2;8

V. Forrest (4 IMwj;. 080) 510

V. Frazer (2 McGord Ch. 105) 796

V. Low (3(i Hun, 497) 3)3

V. McDill (1 SjuMrs, 139) 262

V. Saterlee (11 John. 16) 733, 73;t

Douthitt V. Douthitt (1 Ala. 594) 11-58

Dow )•. Dow (30 Me. 211) 229, 872, 880

Dowdale's Case (0 Co. 47) 049

Dowdv V. Graham (42 Miss. 451) 578, 6'«3

Doweil V. Tucker (40 Ark. 438) 470

Dower v. Seeds (28 W. Va. 113) 90, 92, 95,

470, 498

Dowlcy V. Winfield (14 Sim. 277) 1015

Dowlint,' V. Feeley (72 Ga. 557) 705, 1013

Downer v. Downer (9 Watts, 60) 344

». Smith (24 Cal. 114) 443

Downey v. .Muri)hy (1 Dev. & B. L. 82) 52

Downie v. Knowles (37 N. J Eq. 513) 1136

Downini,' r. Bain (24 Ga. 372) 883

V. Marshall (23 N. Y. 360) 924, 925

Dowuman r. Rust (0 lijind. 587) 1095

Dowtv V. Hall (83 Ala. 165) 507

Dovai )'. Doval (31 Ga. 193) 274

Dovle's Estate (08 Cal. 132) 1199

F:state (Mvr. 68) 575

Doyle V. Blake (2 Sch. & Lef 231) 510

Drake's Appeal (45 Conn. 9) 50

Drake v. Curtis (88 Mo. 644) 494

V. Green (10 Allen, 124) 578

V. Heiken (61 Cal. 340) 119

V. Kinsell (.38 Mich. 232) 206, 1077

V. Merrill (2 .Jones, .368) 492, 494

V. Pell (3 Edw. Ch. 251) 906

Drane c. Bayliss (1 Humph. 174) 411, 545

Draper iJ. Karnes (12 R. I. 150) 715

V. Jackson (16 Mass. 480) 612

Drayton's Will (4 McCord, 46) 512, 513, 743

Drayton v. Dravton (1 Des. 557) 701

'v. Grinike (Rich. Eq. Ciir^. 321) 953, MOO

Drenkle v. Sharman (9 Watts, 485) 748

Dresel V Jordan (104 .Mass. 407) 1055

Dres.ser v. Dresser (46 Me. 48) 116, 118

Drew's Appe il (58 N. H. 319) .529

Drew V. Gordon (13 Allen, 120) 164, 178, 187,

664

t'. McDaniel (60 K. H. 480) S.'.O

V. Wakefield (54 Me 291) 3.5.5,904. 946

Drewry v. Thacker (3 Swanst. 529) 799

Drexef 1-. Berney (1 Dem. 163) 563

Drink water v. D'rinkwater (4 Mass. 354) 631,

1038
Driskell v. Hanks (18 B. Mon. 855) 256

Driver v Riddle (8 Port. 343) 582, 583

Drowry v. Bauer (08 Mo. 155) 180

I)ruck(?r r. Ro.senstein (19 Fla. 191) 199

Druid Park v. Ottinger (53 Md. 46) 717

Dnimgoole v. Smith (78 Va. 065) 700

Drumheeler v. Haff (23 Mo. App. 161) 1100
Drummond v. Drummond (26 N. J. Eq.
234) 950

V. Parish (3 Curt. 522) 85

Drnrv v. Natick (10 Allen. 169) 409

Duane, Goods of (2 Sw. & Tr. 590) 485

Ix

TABLE OF CASES.

Page
Dublin V. Chadbourn (16 Mass. 433) 384, 493,

502
Du Bois V. Brown (1 Dem. 317) 351, 12()-2
Dubois V. McLean (4 McLean, 486) 1025, 1038
Du Bois V. Kay (35 N. Y. ](i2) 880

Dubs V. Dubs (31 Pa. St. 149) 277

Dubuch V. Wildermuth (3 La. An. 407) 1031
Duckwortb v. Duckworth (35 Ala. 70) 1133
V. Vaughan (27 La. An. 599) 329

Duclolange's Succession (1 La. An. 181) 437

Dudley v. Bosworth (1 Hun, 9)
«." Davenport (85 Mo. 462)
V. Foote (G3 N. H. 57)
V. Mallerv (4 Ga. 52)
V. Mavhe"w (3 N. Y. 9)

Duffield v'. Morris (2 Harr. 375)

Duffy V. Ins. Co. (8 W. & S. 413)
Dufour V. Dufour (28 Ind. 421)

V. Pereira (1 Dick. 419)

Dugan's Estate (Tuck. 338)

Dugan r. Gittings (8 Gill, 138)

V. Hollins (4 Md. Cb. 139)

V. Hollins (llMd.41)

V. Massev (6 Bush, 82)

Dugger V. Oglesbv (99 111. 405)

1-. Tayloe (60"Ala. 504)
Duhme v. Young (3 Bush, 3431
Duhring V. Duhring (20 Mo. 174)
Duke V. Brandt (51 Mo. 221)
V. Duke (26 Ala. 673)
V. Duke (81 Kv. .308)
V. Fuller (9 N.'H. 536)
V. Reed (64 Tex. 705)
Dull V. Drake (68 Tex. 2051 '
Dullard V. Hardy (47 Mo. 403)
Dulles V. Reed (6 Yerg. 53)

1217, 1218

265

603

61

634

34, 39, 40,

41, 479

610, 642

1185, 1255

57

1144

1214, 1218

978

692, 1110

246

820

431. 433

577

289

236, 263

1124

607, 608

933

204

407

863, 1155

1123

Dulwitch College r. Johnson (2 Vern. 49) 798
Duniev v. Sasse (24 Mo. 177)

f.~ Schoeffler (24 Mo. 170)
Dummerstou v. Newfane (37 Vt. 9)
Dunbar r. Dunbar (13 Atl. R. 578)

V. Williams (10 John. 249)
Duncan, In re (3 Redf. 153)

V. Armaut (3 La. An. 84)

V. Davison (40 N. J. Eq. 535)

V. Dent (5 Rich. Eq. 7)

V. Duncan (23 111. .364)

V. Eaton (17 N. H. 441) 165. 169

963

963

235, 254

122

823

402

1064

738

1138

469

180

.. Franklm Township (43 N. J Kq.

14:3) 985, 986

V. Gainey (108 Lid. 579) 1069, 1071, 1096

V. Laffertv (6 J. J Marsh. 46)

V. Mizner (4 J. J. Marsh. 443)

V Philips (3 Head, 415)

V. Stewart (25 Ala. 408)

V. Terre Haute (85 Lid. 104)

V. Tobin (Ci.eves Eq. 143)

V. Veal (49 Tex. 603)

V. Wallace (114 Lid. 169)

V. Watson (28 Miss. 187)

V. Watts (16 Beav. 204)
Duncommun's Appeal (17 Pa. St. 268) 1180
Duudas's Appeal (73 Pa. St. 474) 340, 344,

12.35
Dundas v. Hitchcock (12 How. 256) 249, 275
Dunham's Appeal (27 Conn. 192) 41, 477

Dunham v. Averill (45 Conn. 61) 979

V. Dunham (10 Grav. 577) 588, 1202, 1204

V. Elford (13 Rich." Eq. 190) 993

145

1227

962

448

239

1187

1043

1097, 1098

751

986

Page

Dunham v. Hatcber (31 Ala. 483) 1207

V. Osborn (1 Pai. 634) 232

V. Roberts (27 Ala. 701) 571

Dunkel, Li re (5 Dem. 188)

Dunlap's Appeal (116 Pa. St. 500) 905

Dunlap V. Dunlap (4 Des. 305) 935, 1104

r. Hendlev (92N. C. 115) 844

?;. Mitchell (10 Oh. 117) 703

V. Robinson (28 Ala. 100) 36

V. Robinson (12 Oh. St. 530) 1056, 1066

V. Thomas (69 Iowa. 358) 249, 253, 275

Dunn, Ex parte (63 N. C. 137) 178

In re (5 Dem. 124) 795, 844

Dunn's Estate (Mvr. 122) 340, 344

Estate (13 Phila. 395) 720

Dunn V. Amev (1 Leigh, 465) 1093

V. Deerv"'(40 Iowa, 251) 8.;2

Dunne's Estate (65 Cal. .378) 997, 1242

Dunne v. Dunne (66 Cal. 157) 1099

Dunnigan v. Stevens (122 III. 396) 817, 818

Dunning v. Driver (25 Ind. 269) 1038

V. Ocean Bank (6 Lans. 296) 510

V. Ocean Bank (61 N. Y. 497) 393, 596

Dunscombv. Dunscoinb(l John. Ch. 508) 1137

Dunseth v. Bank of United States (6 Oh

76)

Dunson v. Payne (4-* Tex. 5-39)
Dunton v- Robins (2 Munf. 341)
Dupey V. Greflin (1 Mart. N. s 198)
Duplex V. De Roren (2 Vern. 540)
Dupree v. Adkins (43 Gn. 475)
Dupiiv's Succession (4 La. An. 570)
DupuV r. Wurz (53 N. Y. 556)
I Durai'ido v. Durando (23 N. Y. .331)
Duraut v. Ashmore (2 Rich. 184)
1 Durfee, Petitioner (14 R. I. 47)
Durfee ?;. Durfee (8 Met. Mass. 490)
Durham's Estate (49 Cal. 490)
Durham v. Angier (20 Me. 242)

V. Rhodes (23 Md. 233)

V. Williams (32 La. An. 968)
Durie «. Blauvelt (49 N. J. L. 114)
Durnford's Succession (1 La. An. 92)
Duryea v. Durvea (85 111. 41)

V. Grangef (33 N. W. 730)
Dustan v. Carter (3 Dem. 149)
Dutcii's Appeal (57 Pa. St. 461)
Dutch Church v. Ackerman (1 N

40)
Dutcher r. Culver (23 Minn. 415)

V. Wright (94 n. S 553)
Duttou V. Stuart (41 Ark. 101)
Duty's Estate (27 Mo. 43)
Duval V. Bank (10 Ala. 636)
Duvall V. Snowden (7 G. & J. 430)

261

1131

1201

1122
776

1('71
537
495
232
481, 482
2(18
484

1063

229, 274

268, 1109

1129
363
805
107
834

1006

1213
J. Eq.

1007

1206
807
248
469

1061
434, 435
702
828
734
847
.578

Dwight V. Blackmar (2 Mich. -330)

V. Carson (2 La. An. 459)

V. Newell (15 III. 3.33)

V. Overton (35 Tex. 390)

V. Simon (4 La. An. 490)

Dwinel V. Stone (-30 Me. 384) 284, 285

Dwver r. Garlough (31 Oh. St. 158) 242

\\ Kalteyer (68 Tex. 554) 407, 689. 749,

1169

Dve V. Young (55 Iowa, 433) 48, 490

Dver V. Braiinock (66 Mo. 391) 158

■ V Clark (5 Met. Mass. 562) 234,289,290

V. Drew (14 La. An. 6.57) 287

r Stanwood (7 N. H. 201) 856

Dykes v. Woodhouse (3 Rand. 287) 752

TATiT.E OF CASES.

Ixi

PaRO
Eads V. Mason (K, Til. App 545) (i-U

Kafjern Kajrcr (8 111. App. ;!5(i) ll'M

Kagle V. Eiiiinct (4 l{nuU. 117) 444

KaKJeton V. Homer (L. K. 37 Cli. Div.

695) »"8. 900

Ealer r. Lodffo (36 La. An. 115) 12ii(i

Eiinics i\ Bratllel)oro (54 Vt. 471) ti22

Kan r. SnydiT (46 Barb. 2:10) :i7

Eans V Kans (79 Mo. 53) 189, (181

Earl V. Grim (1 John. Ch. 404) llii2

Earle (■, Earlo (93 N Y. 104) 678, 7-21, 7--18
Early c. Early (5 Kedf. 376) 482

Earnest v Earnest (5 Kawk-, 213) 150, 1215,

1216
Earp's Apppal (28 Pa. St. 368) 638, 10ii4

East r. Wood (62 Ala. 313) 1080

Eastcrlv )'. Kenev (30 Conn. 18) 956

East India Co. v" Skinner (Comb. 342) 763
Easton r. Court wright (84 Mo. 27) 298, 300,

301
East Tennessee Co. v. Gaskell (2 Lon,

742) 75r, 795

Eatman r. Eatman (82 Ala. 223) 846

V. Eatman (83 Ala. 478) 153, 195

Eaton v. Benton (2 Hill, 576) 975

f. Colo (10 Me. 137) 685

t'. Robbins (29 Minn. 327) 212

r. Straw (18 X. H. 321)) 951)

V. Walsh (42 Mo. 272) 051, 653

V. Watts (L. R. 4 Eq. Cas. 151) 876

Eaves )i Harbin (12 Bush, 445) 8-!5

Ebelmesser r. Ebelmesser (99 111. 541) 1087,

1088
Ebei-le v. Fisher (13 Pa. St. 526) 240

Eberstein v. Camp (37 Mich. 176) 992, 993,

1113

Eberfs v. Eberts (42 Mich. 404) 895, 939

Ebv's Appeal (.50 Pa. St. 311) 902

" Appeal (84 Pa. St. 241) 902

Echols i: Barrett (6 Oa. 443) 384, 410, 545

Eckert v. Mvers (15 N. East. 862) 558, 5.59

Eddev's Appeal ( 10.) Pa. St. 406) 32

Eddins V. Buck (23 Ark. 507) 611

V. Graddv (28 Ark. .500) 775, 805

Eddv's Case (32 N. J. Eq. 701) 44, 47

"Estate (12 Phila. 17) 187

Estate (13 Phila. 262) 1151

Eddv V. Adams ( 145 Mass. 489) 842, 845

V. Mouiton (13 R. I. 105) 260

Edelen v. Dent (2 G. iSs J. 185) 975

v. Edelen (10 Md. 52) 571

V. Edclcn (11 Md. 415) 1144, 1149, 1154

V. Hardev (7 Harr. & J. 61) 68

Eden v. Smvth (5 Ves. 341) 97(i

V. Railroad (14 B. Men. 204) 620

Edgar v. Cook (4 Ala. 588) 283

Edmonds v. Crenshaw (1 Harp. Ch. 224) 737,

1164

V. Crenshaw (1 ^McCord Ch. 252) 701

V. Crenshaw (14 Put. 166) 737

Edmondson's Estate (L R. 5 Eq. 389) 881

V. Carroll (2 Sneed, 678) 4(i9

V. Phillips (73 Mo. 57) 859

Edmunds v. Rockwell (125 Mass. 363) 102<i

r. Scott (78 Va. 720) 987.1179

Edmundson v. Roberts (1 How. Miss. 322) 581

r Roberts (2 How. Miss. 822) 660

Edney i' Brvson (2 .Tones E. 3t')5) 9'.tl

Edwards's Appeal (47 Pa. St. 144) 112

Estate (12 Phila. 85) 504, 578

Succession (34 La. An. 210) 1170

Pajjfi
Edwards v. W\hh (43 Ala. 666) 903

I'. Bibb (54 Ala. 475) 232

V. Bruce (8 Md. 387) 582

V. Cobb (95 N. C. 4) 324. 575

V. Crenshaw (Harp. Eq. 224) 1148

V. Edwards (2 C. & M. 612) 763

V. Ela (5 Allen, 87) 1150

V. Freeman (2 P. Wms. 435) 130, 1213,

1219
r. Gibbs (11 Ala. 292) 8-55

V. llarben (2 T. R. 587) 415

V. Kearsev (74 N. C. 241) 201

r. Kear7.ev(90 U. S. 595) 1076

r. Love (94 N. C. 365) 758

V. MctJee (27 Miss. 92) 185

V. Mounts (61 Tex. 398) 344

V. Pike (1 Ed. 267) 910

r. Pag.iet (19 T.-x. 164) 1046

V. Smith (35 Miss. 197) 61

1). Sullivan (20 Iowa, .502) 251

r. Thomas (66 Mo. 4(i8) 281

V. Warren (90 N. C. 604) 890

Eells V. Holder (2 McCrarv, 622) 358, 362,

308, 442

V. Lvnch (8 Bosw. 465) 888

EffingerV. Hall (81 Va 94) 877

V. Richards (35 Miss. 540) 1173

Efland V. Eriaiid (96 N. C. 488) 236, 2 !0

Eirberts r. Wood (3 Pai. 517) 286

Ege I'. Kille (84 Pa St. 333) 603

V. Medlar (82 Pa. St. 86)* 276

Egerton v. Egerton (17 N. J. Eq. 419) 121, 81 1

Egjrleston v. Egtrleston (72 111. 24) 203

Ehleii V. Ehlen (64 Md. 360) 523, 532

Eichclberger v. Hawthorne (33 Md. 588) 348

V. Morris (6 W^tts, 42) 652

Eisenbise v. Eisenbise (4 Watts, 134) 674

Eisenlord v. Eisenlord (17 N. Y. State

Rep. 449) 834

Ela V. Edwards (13 Allen, 48) • 361

V. Edwards (16 Grav. 91) 65, 71

V. Edwards (97 Mass. 318) 835

Elbert v O'Neil (102 Pa. 302) 269

Elder v. Lantz (49 Md. 186) 883

V. Littler (15 Iowa, 65) 414, 421, 423

Eldredge v. Bell (64 Iowa, 125) 1063

Eldridge v. Pierce (90 111. 474) 206, 207

Elector of Hesse, Goods of (1 Hagg. 93) 407

Elfe V. Cole (20 Ga. 197) 175, 707

Eliason r. Eliason (3 Del. Ch. 200) 2.59

Eliot V. Carter (12 Pick. 430) 878

V. EliotdO Allen, 357) 1194

Eliott V. Sparrell (114 Mass. 404) 1137

Ellett V. Reid (25 W. Va. 550) 1022, 1057,

1063

Ellicott V. Chamberlain (38 N..T. Eq. 604) 533

Ellinger v. Crowl (17 Md. 361) 609

Elliott's Succession (31 La. An. 31) 770

Will (2.1. J. Marsh. 340) 42

Elliott r. Branch l?ank (20 Ala. 345) 695

V. Carter (9 Grat. 541) 1094, 1104, 1108

V. Dravton (3 Des. 2!t) 1123

V. Elliott (9 M. .S: W. 23) 990, 992

V. (J.'orge (23 Grat. 780) 104O, 1042

V. (Jurr (2 Phill. 16) 516, 518

V. Kemp (7 M. & W. 306) 389

r. Lewis (3 Edw. Ch. 40) 1246

r. Mackorell (19 S. C. 238) 196

V. Topp (63 Miss. 138) 871. 884

I'. Welbv (13 .Mo. App. 19) 31, 37, 476

V. Wilson (27 Mo. App. 218) 1213

Ixii

TABLE OF CASES.

Pajre

Ellis V. Ellis (133 Mass. 469) 479

V. Oosnev (7 J. J. Marsii. 109) 12fJ5

V. Kvfj;ar (90 Mo. 600) 2:i2

V. McBriile (27 Miss. Ibb) 540

V. Mc(iee(G3 Miss. 1G8) 414

V. Secor (31 Mich. 185) 116, 119, 123, 12.5

V. Smith (.38 Me. 114) 827

V. Wittv (63 Miss. 117) 555, 556

Ellison V. Allen (8 Kla. 206) 807

V. Andrews (12 Ived. 188) 752

Ellmaker's Estate (4 Watts, 34) 401, 507,

53.3, 535, 7.")2

Ellsworth ?'. Thayer (4 Pick. 122) 854

Elniendorf r. Lnnsing (4 John. Ch. 502) 740

V. Lockwood (57 N. Y. 322) 275

Elmev V. Kechele (1 Redf. 472) 526

Elmsley r. Younp (2 Mvl. & K. 780) 905

Elrod V. Alexander (4 lleisk. 342) 620

V. Lancaster (2 Head, 571) 1128

Eltzroth V Binford (71 Ind. 455) ' 270

Ehvell t\ Universalist Church (63 Tex.

220) 580

ELves V. Maw (3 East, 38) 605

Ely r. Dix (118 111. 477) 724

■ r. Ely (20 N. J. Eq. 43) 881

V. Horine (5 Dana, .398) 286, 702

Emanuel v. Norcuin (7 How. Miss. 150) 767

Enibrv V. Millar (1 A. K. Marsh. 300) 443

Enieric v. Penniman (26 Cal. 119) 622

Emerson v. Amell (Freem. 22) 617

V. Boville (1 Pliilliin. .324) 107

V. Bowers (14 N. Y. 449) 508, 526. 576

V. Ross (17 Fla. 122) 1078

V. Thompson (16 Mass. 429) 736, 841,

843

Emerv r. Batchelder (78 Me. 233) 984, 988

V. Berrv (28 N. H. 473) 414, 415. 426

V. Clouffh (63 N. H. 552) 118, 121. 122,

12.5. ]26. 127

V Hildreth-(2 Gray, 228) 440, 568

V. Union Society (79 Me. 3.S4) 103

Emmett v. Emmett (14 Lea, 369) 201, 226

Empson v Soden (4 B. & Ad. 6.55) 598

Emson v. Ivins (42 N .J Eq 277) 840

Engelhardt v. Yung (76 Ala. 534) 198, 199,

217
England v. Vestry (53 Md. 466) 968, 969

Engles r Brnington (4 Yeates, 345) 475

English V. English (3 N J. Eq. 504) 269, 271
~ V. McNaif (34 Ala, 40) 507

V. Newell (42 N J. Eq. 76) 738

Enicks V. I'owell (2 Strobh. Eq, 196) 391, 550
Enloe V. Sherrill (6 Ired. 212) 464

Ennis v. Pentz (3 Bradf. 382) 904

Ensign's Estate (10.3 N. Y. 284) 1240

Ensworth r Curd (68 Mo. 282) 300

Epes V. Dudley (5 Rand. 437) 643

Epling I'. Hutton (121 III. 555) 31

Epperson v. Hostetter (95 Ind. .583) 842

Epping V. Robinson (21 Fla. 36) -326, 329,

368, 452
Eppinger v. Canepa (20 Fla. 262) 712, 799,
11.37, 1142, 1146, 1164
Eprcson v- Wheat (53 Cal. 715) 212

Equitable Co. v. Christ (2 Flip. 599) 602

Equitable Life Soc. v. Vogel (76 Ala

441) 360. 364, .367

Erickson r. ^Villard (1 N. H. 217) 876

Erie Sayings Co. v. Vincent (105 Pa. St.

.31.5) 346, 722

Erlacher, Matter of (3 Redf. 8) 764

Pn^e
Erskine v. Henrv (6 Leigh, 378) 1201

V. Wiiitehead (84 Ind. 3.57) 928, 931

Erving v. Peters (3 Durnf. & E. T. R.

685) 792

Erwin v. Carroll (1 Yerg. 145) 795

r. Henry (5 Mo. 469) 355

V. Humner (27 Ala. 296) 80

r;. Loper (43 N. Y. ,521) II 12

« Lowry (1 La. An. 276) 323, 324

V. Turner (6 Ark. 14) 846

Escarraguell's Succession (.36 La. An.

1.56) 1072

Eshleman's Appeal (74 Pa. St. 42) 1163

Eskridge v. Farrar (34 La. An 709) 1099,

1102
Eslava v. Lepretre (21 Ala. 504) 251

Espy r. Comer (76 Ala. 501) 281, 289, 2li0
Essex's Case (cited in 1 Show. 69) 65

Estate of . F'or cases under •' Estate

of," see names of parties.
Estep ?•. Morris (38 Md 418) 76

Esterly's Appeal (109 Pa. St. 222) 444, 1216
Estes V. Howland (15 R. I. 127) 6,j2

Estill V. McClintick (11 W. Va. 399) 699,

1158

V. Rogers (1 Bush, 62) 223

Estv V. Clark (101 Mass. 36) 904. 939

Etchison v. Etchison (53 Md 348) 68. 70

Ethell V. Kichols (I Idaho, n. s. 741) 1047

Etter V. Armstvonu- (46 Ind. 197) 469

V. Finn (12 Ark. 6.32) 842

V. Greenawalt (98 Pa. St. 422) 1008

Eubank's Succession (9 La. An. 147) 470.

488. 489

Eubank v. Clark (78 Ala. 73) 745, 748, fl37

V. Landrani (59 Tex. 247) 198

Eubanks v. Dobbs (4 Ark. 173) 620, 631

Euper I'. Alkire (37 Ark. 283) 200

Eure V Eure (3 Dey. 206) 5-39

V. Pittman (3 Hawks, 364) 481

Eustace v. Jahns (38 Cal. 3) 757, 803

Eustache v. Rodaquest (11 Bush, 42) 201

Eyan's Appeal (51 Conn. 435) 22, 947

Appeal (58 Pa. St. 238) 94

Eyans's Estate (11 Phila. 113) 1134, 1137

Will (29 N. J. Eq. .571) 465

Eyans v. Anderson (15 Oh. St. 324) 109

V. Arnold (52 Ga. 169) 37, 88

V. Beaumont (4 Lea, 599) 977, 978

V. Beaumont (16 Lea, 713) 1099

V. Blackiston (66 Mo 437) 724

V. Buchanan (15 Ind. 438) ."81

V. Chew (71 Pa St. 47) 722, 723

V. Enloe (70 Wis. .345) &96

V. Eyans (13 Bush. 587) 200, 214, 1076

V. Eyans (1 Des. 515) 789

V. Evans (9 Pai. 178) 284, 291

V. Evans (9 Pa. St. 190) 232

V. Evans (29 Pa. St. 277) 350

V Fisher (40 Miss. 643) 9, 1041

V. Godbold (6 Rich. Eq. 26) 872, 902

V. Gordon (8 Port. 346) 643

V. Halleck (83 Mo. 376) 1039

V. Hardeman (15 Tex. 480) 804

V. Harllee (9 Rich. L .501) 902

V. Iglehart (6 (i. & J. 171) 597, 598, 994,

998, 999, 1000, 1167

r. Kin2;sberry (2 Rand. 120) 727

r. Pierson (9 Rich L. 9) 270

r. Pierson (1 Wend. .30) 793

V. Price (118 111. 593) 159

TABLE OF CASES.

Ixiii

Evans v. Reed (78 Pa. St. 415)
V. Holjerts (5 IJ. & ('. 8:2:))
r. Siniiletarv (U3 N. C. 2J5)
r. Smith (28 (ia. U8)
V. Siivd.T (04 Mo. 510)
V. Stcwait (81 Va. 724)

Piige
8:ili

5!(8

1002

57

1087

445

V. Tatem (!) S. & I!. 252) 3G3, 374, 04!)

t'. Tiipf) (0 Madii. 04) 905

Evarts V. Allen (12 .lolin. 352) 82)

V. Nason (11 Vt. 122) 115.)

Eveleth V. Cniiicli (15 .Ma<s. 203) 342

Evelyn, Ex parte (2 .M. ^; l\. 3) 400

Everett v. Averv (19 M<i. 130) 780

V. ("arr (5!)".Me. 325) 888, 894, 988

V. Mount (22 (Ja. 323) 942

Everitt r. Everitt (41 Harh. 385) 480

V. Everitt (71 Iowa, 221)

V. Lane (2 Ired. E(i. 548) 904

EversfieUl v. Eversfield (4 Har. & J. 12) 1107

Everson v. Pitnev (40 N. J. Eq. 539) 1175

Everston r Bnotli (19 John. 480) 859

Everts v. Everts (62 Barb. 577) 1140

Ew.ll V. Tidwell (20 Ark. 136) 497

Ewin V. Perrine (5 Redf. 640) 47

Evviiijr V. Ewiiiij (.-S Ind. 390) 505

V. Ewing (44 Mo. 23) 270

V. Griswold (43 Vt. 400) 82!)

V. Hiirhv (7 Oh., pt. 1, p. 198) 1031, 1008

V. Iloilister (7 Oh., pt. 2, p. 138) 1031,

1034

V. Maurv (3 Lea, 381) 853

V. Moses (50 Ga. 204) 1123

V. Taylor (70 Mo. 394) 775, 826

Ex parte. For cases "Ex parte,'' see

"names of parties.
Exchange Bank v. Stone (80 Kv. 109) 208,

271
V. Tracv (77 Mo. 594) 281

Exendiiie v. Morris (8 ilo. App. 383) 1055
Evies r. Carv (1 Vern. 457) 3095

Evre's Appeal (106 Pa. St. 184) 1099

EVre V. Goldiiii,- (5 Binn. 472) 995

Eyster v. Hathewav (50 HI. 521) 253

Fabens v. Fabens (141 Mass. 395) 902

Eai^an v. Fa-an (15 Ala. 335) 1146, 1147

)'. Jones (2 Dev. & B, Eq. 69) 966

Fairbairn v. Fisher (4 Jones Eq. 390) 544

I'. Fisher (5 Jones Eq. 385) 1146

Fairbanks v. Hill (3 Lea, 732) 518

V. Robinson (04 Cal. 250) 176

Fairchild v. Bascom (35 Vt. 398) 42, 480

Fairfax v. Brown (00 Md. 50) 873

r. Fairfax (7 Grat. 36) 542

r. Hunter (7 Cr. 603) 22, 225, 303, 304

Fairfield v. Lawson i50 Conn. 501) 892

Fairmairs Appeal (30 Conn. 205) 761, 704,

1135

Faloon 1-. Mclntvre (118 III. 292) 823

Fambro v. Gantt (12 Ala. 298) 695, 1055

Famulener v. Anderson (15 Oh. St. 473) 553

Fant I'. Talbot (81 Kv. 23) 199

Faran v. Robinson (17 Oh. St. 242) 1041, 1045

Farish v. Cook (78 Mo. 213) 871, 883

Farlev v. Dunklin (76 Ala 530) 329, 1089

r. McConnell (7 Lans 428) 554

V. .MooiT (79 Ala. 148) 284, 288, 293

V. Rinrden (72 Ala 128) 216

Farmer v. Simpson (6 Tex. 303) 209

Page
Farmers & Merchants' Bank r. Tappan

(5 Sm. & M. 112) 332

Farnam r. Brooks (!) I'ick. 212) 702

Karnan r. Borders ni9 111. 228) 19!)

Farnham v. Thomp.son (34 Minn. 330) 345,

1246
Farnsworth's Will (62 Wis. 474) 31, 44. 45, 46
Farnsworth v. Lemons (II Huni)ib. 140) 1015
Farnum v. Bascom (122 JIass. 282) 908, !)85,

1113

Farqubarson v. Cave (2 Coll. 356) 123

Farr r. Thompson (Cheves, 37) 48

Farrance r. Vilev (21 L.J. Ch. 313) 1232

Farrar v. Dean (24 Mo. 16) 1038

V. McCue (89 N. Y. 139) 719

r. Parker (3 Allen, 550) 1 194

V. St. Catharine's College (L. R. 1

Ch. D. 234) 101

V. Winterton (5 Beav. 1) 103

Farrellv v. Ladd (10 Allen, 127) 605

Farrington v. King (1 Bradf. 182) 1031, 10-36
Farris v. Stoutz (78 Ala. 130) 805, 841

Farrow v. Farrow (1 Del. Ch. 457) 240, 259,

204

V. Farrow (13 Lea, 120) 200, 208

Farwell v. Jacobs (4 Mass. 034) 393

Farys r. Farys (Harp. Cli.2Gl) 053

Fatiieree v. Lawrence (33 Miss 585) 71

Faulds V. Jackson (0 Notes Cas. Sup. 1) 70

Faulkner v. Davis (18 Grat. 051) 155

V. Faulkner ,(73 Mo. 327) 741

Favill V. Roberts (50 N. Y. 222) 1079

Favorite r. Booher (17 Oh. St. 548) 820

Faxon v. Dvson (1 Cr. C. C. 441) 795

Fay V. Cheiiev (14 Pick. 399) 595

" V. Haven" (3 Met. Mass. 109) 374, 375,

649

r. Holloran (35 Barb. 295) 638

• r. Muzzev (13 Gray. 53) 603, 744, 751

V. Keagei- (2 Sneed, 200) 410

V. Taylor (2 Gray, 154) 435. 1070

V. Wenzell (8 Cush. 315) 3.36

Fears v. Brooks (12 Ga. 195) 607

Feit r. Vanatta (21 N. J. Eq. 84) 8 )7

Felch V. Finch (52 fowa, 563) 258. 2'!l

Fell's Estate (13 Phila. 289) 1151

Fellows I'. Allen (60 X. H. 439) 104

V. Lewis (05 Ala. 343) 855

V. Little (40 N H. 27) 1213, 1214

V. Smith (130 Mass. 370) 189

V. Tann (9 Ala. 999) (i07

Felton V. Sowles (57 Vt. 382) 542, 543, 545.

1187

Feltz V. Clark (4 Humph. 79) 545

Female Acad. r. Sullivan (1 10 111. 375) 913

Femings r. Jarrat (1 Es)i. 335) 419

Fenix V. Fenix (80 Mo. 27) 1033, 1001

Fenn r. Bolles (7 Abb. Pr. 202) 2!i3

Fennell r. Henry (70 Ala. 484) 1219, 1223

ppnner r Manchester (6 R. 1. 140) 821

Fennimore i*. Fennimore (3 N.J. Eq. 292) 738

Fenton r. Reed (4 John. 52) 223

F'enwick v. Chapman (9 Pet. 461) 1090

V. Sears (1 Cranch, 259) 358, 373

Ferav's Succession (31 La. An. 727) 555

Ferebee i'. Doxey (0 Ired. L. 448) 052

Ferguson v. Barnes (58 Ind. 109) 421

I'. Broome (1 Bradf. 10) 1271

V. Carson (80 Mo. 673) 1032, 1 .')40. 1 1'lg

V. Carson (9 Mo. App. 497) 1J45, 1 133

V. Carson (13 Mo. App. 29) 1198

Ixlv

TABLE OF CASES.

Pajre
Ferffiison v. Collins (8 Ark. 241) 526

V. Hedges (1 Harr. 524) 943

r. Mason (2Sneed, 018) 808

V. Mason (00 Wis. ;377) 212

V. Miller (1 Cow. 24.3) 5!)7

(.. Scott (4!) Miss. 500) 1020, 1030

Fcrnbacher v. Fernbacher (4 Dem. 227:

s. c. 17 Abb. N. C. 33!)) 570, 1000

Fernie, In re (G Notes Cas. 057) 510

Ferre v. Amer. Board (53 Vt. 102) "20

Ferrers v. Ferrers (Cas. Temp. Talb. 2) 1010
Ferrie v. Atherton (28 E. L. & Kq. 1) 227

V. Pnblic Adm'r (3 Bradf. 249) 400

Ferrin v. IMvriek (41 N. Y. 315) 7G0

Ferris's Will (Tuck. 15) 505

Ferris r. Ferris (89 111. 4.52) 581

V. Hifflev (20 Wall. 375) 347

V. Van Vechten (9 Hun, 12) 1151

Ferrv's Appeal (102 Pa. St. 207) 880, 883
Ferry v. Laible (31 N. J. Eq. ,500) 732

Ferse & Hembling's Case (4 Co. Gl b) 50

Ferson v. Dodge (23 Pick. 287) 9-50

Fessenden, Appellant (77 Me. 98) 1073, 1151
Fetrow's Estate (58 Pa. St. 424) 872

Fetters v. Baird (72 Mo. 389) 332

Feurth v . Anderson (87 Mn. 354) 1199

Fickes v. Wiseman (2 Watts, 314) 1222

Fickle V. Snepp (97 Ind. 289) 813, 863, 1250
Fidelity Trust Co.'s Appeal (108 Pa. St.

492) 888, 889, 964

Field's Appeal (.36 Pa. St. 11) 1097

Field V. Field (77 N. Y. 294) 807

V. Gamble (47 Ala. 443) 1061

V. Gibson (20 Hun, 274) 428

V. Goldsby (28 Ala. 218) -329

r. Hitchcock (14 Pick. 405) 1125, 1129

V. Hitchcock (17 Pick. 182) 9;!8

V. Pelot (1 McMull. 369) 550

r. Schieffelin (7 John. Ch. 150) 387

Fields V. Carlton (75 Ga. 554) 503, 515

V. Wheatlev (1 Sneed, 351) 773, 859

Fiester v. Stiepard (92 N. Y. 251) 1209, 1249

Eight V. Holt (80 111. 84) 203

Fike V. Green (64 N. C 665) 715, 1045, 1142

Filhour v. Gibson (4 Ired. Eq. 455) 420

Fillev V. Register (4 Minn. .391) 609

FiUvan v. Lavertv (3 Fla. 72) 287, 802

Filmore v. Reithtiian (6 Col. 120) 715, 1055,

1079, 1086

Finch V. Edmonson (9 Tex. 504) 1021. 1031

V. Finch (14 Ga. 362) 341. 464

r. Finch (5 S. E. K. .348) 701

V. Ragland (2 Dev. Eq. 1.37) 669, 1137.

1189

V. Rogers (11 Humph. 559) 991, 993

I'. Sink (46 111. 169) 10-32

Findlav V. Triirg (83 Va. 5.39) 1155

EindleV v. Findlev (11 Grat. 4.34) 264

Fine v. King (33 N. J. Eq. 108) 1075

Finger r. Finger (64 N. C. 183) 3.57

Fink's Succession (13 La. An. 103) 1174

Fink V. Fink (12 La. An. 301) 922, 929

Finlav r. Chirnev (L. R. 20 Q. B. D. 494) 617

V. King (3 Pet. 346) 951, 952, 954

Finlev V. Bent (95 N. Y. 364) 952

Finn*. Hempstead (24 Ark. Ill) 537

Finnev's Appeal (37 Pa. St. 323) 1159

Appeal (113 Pa. St. 11) 884

Finnev v. State (9 Mo. 227) 819, 1269

Finncane r. Gavfere (3 Phill. 405) 471

Firestone v. Firestone (2 Oh. St. 415) 244

Page
First Baptist Church r-. Eobberson (71

Mo. 326) 353

First National Bank r. Balcom (35 Conn.

351) 120

r. Eastern R. R. (124 Mass. 518) 8-59

First Parish v. Cole ('^ Pick. 232) 913

First Universalist Society v. Fitch (8

Grav, 421) * 922

Fish r. Coster (28 Hun. 64) 718

r. Fish (1 Conn. .5-59) 2:;G

V. Liditner (44 I\Io. 268) 1129, 1254

V. Morse (8 Mich. 34) 8.54

Fisher, In re (17 Pac. R. 640) 1200

In re (4 Wis. 254) 97

V. Banta (66 N. Y. 468) 726

V. Bassett (9 Leigh, 119) 325, 3.30, 568,

1089

V. Fisher (1 Bradf. -335) 655, 1108, 1170

V. Fisher (5 Pa. L. J. R. 178) 6.';8

V. Grimes (1 Sm. & M. Ch. 107) 2:;2

V. Hill (7 Mass. 86) 939

V. Skillin- n (18 N. J. Eq. 229) 7.37

V. Tavlor (2 Kawie, 33) 9.56

V. Williams (56 Vt. 586) 609

r. Wood (65 Tex. 199) 1083, 1123

risk V. Attorney General (L. R. 4 Eq.

5-21) 9.34

V. Eastman (5 N. H 240) 232

V. Keene (35 Me. .349) 915

V. Norvel (9 Tex. 13) 402

V. Wilson (15 Tex. 4.30) 1034

Fiske V. Cobb (6 Grav, 144) 994

V. Kellogg (3 Oretr. 503) 1031

Fitch V. Peckham (16 Vt. 1.50) 824

V. W^itbeck (2 Barb. Ch. 161) 1038

Fite V. Beaslev (12 Lea. 328) 934, 944

Fithian v. Jones (12 Phila. 201) 284

Fitzgerald's Estate (.57 Wis. .508) 1153, 1164

Fitzgerald v. Fernandez (71 Cal. 504) 201

r. Glancy (49 111. 405) 564

Fitzimmons's Appeal (40 Pa. St 422) 1043

Fitzpatrick r. Fitzpatrick (36 Iowa, 674) 892

Flanders v. Flanders (23 Ga. 249) 702

V. Lane (54 N. H. 390) 1254

Flash V. Gresham (36 Ark. 529) 431

Flatt V. Stadler (16 Lea, .371) 214

Fleece ». Jones (71 Ind. 340) 1230

Fleet V. Hegeman (14 Wend. 42) 596

V. Simmons (3 Dem. 542) 576

Fleetwood r. Fleetwood (2 Dev. Eq. 222) 896

Fleming v. Bale (23 Kan. 88) 1030

V. Boiling (3 Call, 75) 6,52

r. Foran'(]2 Ga. 594) 702

r. McKesson (3 -Tones Eq. 316) 3-57

V. Talliafer (4 Heisk. -352) 8-53

Fletcher v. Ashbarner (1 Bro. C C. 497) 726

v. Fletcher (2:» Vt 719) ,569, 588, 1204

r. Steven'on (3 Hare. 360) 790

r. Wier (7 Dana, -345) 329, 359. 7.52

Flinn r. Barber (64 Ala. 193) 238

V. Chase (4 Den. 85) 568, 582. 1254

r. Davis (18 Ala. 132) 872, 879

V. Flinn (4 Del. Ch. 44) 1007. 1012

V. Owen (.58 111. Ill) 68

V. Shackleford (42 Ala. 202) 339, 803

Flint V. Pattee (33 N. H. 520) 119

V. Valpev (130 Mass. 385) 8.52

Flintham's Appeal (11 S. & R. 16) 761

Flintham v. Bradford (10 Pa. St 82) 100

Flitner r. Hanlv (18 Me. 270) 8.58

V. Hanlv (19 Me. 261) 858

TABLE OF CASES.

Ixv

Flood r. Pilgrim (32 Wis. 376)

r. I'viij^od (7!l Kv. (J07)
Flora I'. Meiiiiice (12 Ala. 8:!0)
Florence v. Sands (4 Kudf. 2iHi)
Florentine v. Harton (2 Wall. 210)

Pa-c

714

;3fi, 04, 71

401

!)S8

1088

Florey v. Floroy (24 Ala. 241) 34, 51, 484

Flournov r. Flonrnov (1 Busli, 515) 8.)0

Fl.'vd r." ( 'alveit (53 Miss. 37) 223

'v. HcrrinK (>>i N. V. 40!J) 715

V. Miller ((il Ind. 224) 802

V. Triester (8 Rich. Kij. 248) 1173

V. Knst (58 Tex. 503) 10i;4

V. Wallace (31 Ga. (i^8) 7!»4

Flvnn V. Mori^an (55 Conn. 130) 8i!3

Fulev V. Hnslivvav (71 111. 380) 702

V. McDonald" (4(5 Miss. 238) 1032, 1040

V. Wallace (2 Ind. 174) 82,")

Foltzv. I'etors (Hi Ind 244) 1072

V. I'ronse (17 111. 487) 576, (>3ii

V. Wert (103 Ind. 404) _ 1217

Fonereau r. Fonereaii (3 .\tk. 645) !' t2

Fontain v. Kavenel (17 How. 36:)) 720, 021,

930
244

238

738

716

276

8.)

55'.)

702

229, 230

71, 8), 464

967, 974,

Fontaine v. Dimlap (82 Ky. 321)

V. Boatman's Savings Insfitntion
(57 Mo. 552)
Fonte V. Ilorton (36 Miss. 3.50)
F'onteheu's Succession (28 La. An. 638) 1057,

11116

Fontenet v. De Raillon (8 La. An. 509) 1055

Foos V. Scarf (55 Md. 301) 949

Foote, Api.ell.int (22 Pick. 299) 638

V. Foote (61 Mich. 181) 4-33, 466, 816,

1241
V. Overman (22 III. App. 181) 599, 1056
V. Sanders (72 Mo. 616) 729

Forbes v. Gordon (3 Phillim. 014) 79

V. Halsey (26 N Y. 53) 330, 1087, 1089
V. Peacock (11 Sim. 152, 12 Sim

528)

V. Sweesv (8 Neb. 520)

Forbing v. Weber (99 Ind. 588)

Ford tC Adams (43 Ga. .340)

V. Blount (3 Ired. 516)

V. F:rskine (.50 Me. 227)

i\ Ford (7 Hnnipb. 92)

V. Ford (23 N. II. 212)

V. Ford (70 Wis. 19)

V. Gresiory (10 B. Mon. 175)

V. Heiinessev (70 Mo. 580)

V. Porter (li Rich. Eq. 238)

V. Smith (60 Wis. 222)

V. Thornton (3 Leigh, 695)

V. Travis (MS., S. C.)

V Walsworth (15 Wend. 449) 561, 1036

Forde v. Exempt Fire Co. (50 Cal. 299) G31

Fore I'. McKenzie (58 Ala. 115) 1078

Forester v. Watford (67 Ga. 508) 271

Forman's Will (.54 Barb. 274) 33, 34, 89

Forman v. Marsh (11 N. Y. 544) 1233

V. Swift (7 Lans. 443) 43

Fornev v. Ferrell (4 W. Va. 729) 46

Forniquet v. F'orstall (34 Miss. 87) 746, 749,

751
Forrester v. Forrester (37 Ala. 398) 530, 531
V. Forrester (40 Ala. 557) 1207

Forsyth's Succession (20 La. An. 33) 1201
Forsyth i-. Burr (37 Barb. 540) G02, 663

V. Ganson (5 Wei 1. 558) 736

Forsvthe v. Forsvthe (108 Pa. St. 129) 72J.

948
VOL. I. — e

Pi;,'e
Fort r. Battle (13 Sm. & M. 1-33) 1228

Fortre v. Fortre (1 Show. 351) 517

Forlron v. Alford (62 Tex. .576) 332

Fortune, Matter of (14 Abb. N. C 415) 1235
V. Buck (23 Conn. 1) 74

P'orward v. Forward (6 Allen, 494) 1146,

1152, 11.59

Forwood V. Forwood (5 S. W. K. 361) 205

Fosdick V. Fosdick (6 Allen, 41) 896

Foskett V. Wolf (19 111. App. 33) 1155

Fosselman r. Elder (98 I'a. St. 159) 60

Foster's Appeal (74 Pa. St. 391) 234

Appeal (87 Pa. St. t!7) 92, 481, 482

Will (13 Phila. .567) 481

Foster c. Birch (14 Ind. 445) 1046

V. Colluer ( 107 Pa. St. 305) 8-12

r. Cook (3 Bro. C. C. 340) 889

V. Craige (2 Dev. & B. Eq. 209) 722

r. Crenshaw (3 Munf. 514) ]26ii

V. Davis (46 Mo. 268) 1158

V. FiHeld (20 Pick. 67) 646. 1239

V. Foster (36 N. H. 437) 161. 108

V. Foster (7 Pai. 48) 1200, 1201

V. Marshall (22 N. II. 491) 276

r. Me.ms (1 Speers Eq. 569) 224

V. Nowlin (4 Mo. 18) 414, 420

V. Thomas (21 Conn. 285) 697, 1048

V. Wise (10 N. F:ast. 687) 548

Fotheree v. Lawrence (-30 .Miss. 416) 502

Foubert v. De Cresseron (Show. P. C. 194) 60

Fouke r. Kemp (6 Harr. & J. 135) 8:)8

FonlUes's Succession (12 La. An. 537) 1167,

1187
Fournier i\ Chisholm (45 Mich. 417) 209

Fourniquet v. Perkins (7 How. U. S. 160) 347
Fourth Eccl. Soc. v. Mather (15 Conn.

587) 6.39

Fowle V. Coe (63 Me. 245) 1046

Fowler r. Kell (14 Sm. & M. 68) 517

V. Lock wood (3 Kedf. 465) 324, 349, 1189

V. Poor (93 N. C. 466) 1078

V Rice (31 Ind. 258) 612

V. Stagner (.55 Tex. 393) 69, 73

V. True (76 Me. 43) 646, 848, 1267

Fowlkes V. Nashville U. R. (9 Heisk. 829) 627

F'ox's Estate (92 N. Y. 93) 774

Will (.52 N. Y. 530) 593, 912, 913

Fox r. Carr (16 Hun. 434) 442

V. Fox (L. R. 11 Eq. 142) 1215

V. Garrett (28 Beav. 16) 788

V. Probate Jiidse (48 Mich. 643) 1199

V. Southack (12 Mass. 143) 22

V. Van Norman (11 Kan. 214) 429

Foxworth V. White (72 Ala. 224) 723

Fraenznick v. Miller (1 Dem. 136) 345, 352

Frampton r. Blume (129 Mass. 152) 1097

France's Estate (75 Pa. St. 220) 759, 872.

883, 1102

Frank's Appeal (59 Pa. St. 190) 608

Frank v. Frank (71 Iowa. 646) 966

Franklin v. Armtield (2 Sneed, .305) 1039

V. Coffee (18 Tex. 413) 194, 200

Franks v. Chapman (64 Tex. 159) ^ _ _69

r. Cooper (4 Yes. 7ti3) 787, 788

Frarv r. Gusha (.59 Vt. 257) 39

Eraser v. Alexander (2 Dev. Eq. 348) 1104

V. Citv Council (23 S. C. 373) 863

Frazer, In re (92 N. Y. 239) 207, 1155

r. Bevill (11 Grat. 9) 992

r. Fulcher(]7 Oh. 260) 403

Frazier v. Barnum (19 N. J. Eq. 316) 163

Ixvi

TABLE OF CASES.

357,

Page
Frazier v. Frazier (2 Leigh, G42) 552, 944

r. Pankov (1 Swan, "75) 8o3, 1022, lO:!")

r. Stueiiroil (7 Iowa, 3;j!)) 1021, l():i7

Frederick v. (irav (10 S & H. 182) IHiO

Fredcri.ks r. Iseiinian (41 N. J. L. 212) 12(15
Freelaml v. Dazev (2') 111. 2,)4) 1122, 1124

V. Freeland ('l28 Mass. 50!)) 205

FreeiiKiii's Appeal (08 Pa. St. 151) 360

Freeman v. Anderson (11 Mass. liJO) 605

V. Burnham (36 Conn. 46U) 609, 631

V. Coit (27 Hun, 447) 702

V. Coit (96 N. Y. 63) 1209

V. Cook (6 Ired. Kq. 373) 651

V. Freeman (130 Mass. 260) 284, 2:»1

V. Freeman (142 Mass. 98) 284

V. Kelloirg (4 Hedf. 218)

V. Kahm (58 Cm). Ill)

V. Reagan (26 Ark. 373)

V. Stewart (41 Miss. 138)

V. Worrill (42 (la. 401)
Freke p. Carberv (L. R. 16 Eq. 461)
French's Petition (17 N. H. 472)
Frencii v. Crosby (23 Me. 276)

V. Currier (47 N. H. 88)

V. French (14 W. Va. 458)

V. Hovt (6 N. H. 370)

V. Lord (09 Me. 537)

V. Lovejov (12 N. H. 458)

V. Merrill" (6 N. H. 405)

V. Peters (33 Me. 396)

V. Raymond (39 Vt. 623)

V. Stfatton (79 Mo. 560)

V. Winsor (24 Vt. 402)
Frere v. Peacocke (1 Rob. Feci. R. 442) 34. 35
Freret v. Freret (31 La. An. 500) 1230

Fret well v. McLemore (52 Ala. 124) 375,

432, 433, 819
Freud, In re (73 Cal. 555) 500

Freund v. INIcCall (73 Mo. 343) 197, 215

Frew I'. Clarke (80 Pa. St. 170) 49, 66, 67. 76
Frey v. Demarest (16 N. J. Eq. 236) 1123,

1231

V. Frey (17 N. J. Eq. 71)

V. Heydt (116 Pa. St. 601)

V. Thompson (66 Ala. 287)
Frick's Appeal (114 Pa. St. 29)

543, 578

1235

1123

287

523

.379

1200

259

694

54

1031

239

286

643

249

124

179, 215

.331, 1186

1163

1223

961

526, 533,

576, 582

684

1035, 1037

228

84

Fridge v. Buhler (6 La. An. 272)
Fridley r. Murphy (25 III. 146)
Friend v. Friend (53 Mich. 543)
Frierson v. Beall (7 Ga. 438)

V. General Assembly (7 Heisk. 683) 908

V. Wesherry (11 Rich. L. 353) 189

Frink v. Frink ■(43 N. H. 508) 336

V. Pond (46 N. H. 125) 72

Fripp V. Talbird (1 Hill Ch. 142) 1118, 1270

Frisbv V. Withers (61 Tex. 134) 505, 719

Fristoe I'. Burke (5 La. An. 657) 1083

Fritz's Estate (14 Phila. 260) 1062

Kritz V. McGill (31 Minn. 536) 10.56

Froneberger ». Lewis (70 N. C. 456) 1087

V. Lewis (79 N. C. 426) 702

Fross's Appeal (105 Pa. St. 258) 124, 730.

1124
Frost V. Peering (21 Me. 156) 251

V. Denman (41 N. J. Eq. 47) 1137

V. Libby (79 Me. 56) 631

Frothingham v. March (1 Mass. 247) 1052
Froust V. Brutnn (15 Mo. 619) 621

Frowner ),'. Johnson (20 Ala. 477) 433

Fry's Will (2 R. I. 88) 71,472

Pafre

Frye v. Crockett (77 Me. 157) 552, 553, 554

Fudges burn (51 Mo. 264) 708,711

V. Fudge (23 Kans. 416) 1034, 1054,1076

Fuhrer r. State (.55 Ind. 150) 306

Fulford V. Hancock (Busb. Eq. 55) 881

FuUeck V. Allinson (3 Hagg. 527) 34

Fulleiiwider v. Watson (113 Ind. 18) 877, 948

Fuller, Ex parte (2 Sto. 327) 409

V. Fuller (83 Ky. 345) 72

V. Little (59 Ga." 338) 702, 1087

r. McEwen (17 Oil. St. 288) 1099

V. Wason (7 N. H. 341) 229, 230

V. Winthrop (3 Allen, 51) 943

V. Young (10 Me. 365) 636

Fulton r. Moore (25 Pa. St. 468) 500

V. Nicholson (7 Md. 104) 1071, 1074

Funk r. Dayis (103 Ind. 281) 891, 892

V. Eggleston (92 111. 515) 1097

Fuqua r. Chaffe (26 La. An. 148) 210

r. Dinwiddle (6 Lea, 645) 833

Furlong r'. Riley (103 111. 628) 1027

Furman r. Coe (1 Cai. Cas. 96) 1158

Furth V. Wyatt (17 Ney. 180) 11.57

Fu.selier v. Babineau (11 La An. 393) 654

Fussev V. White (113 111. 637) 884

Fvffec. Beers (18 Iowa, 4) 201

Gable's Appeal (-36 Pa. St. -395) 1163

Gable V. Daub (40 Pa. St. 217) 887

Gadsden v. .Jones (1 Fla. 3:i2) 1258

Gafford r. Dickenson (37 Kan. 287) .3.57, 1133

Gafney t). Kenison (10 Atl. R., N. H. 706) 3.54

Gage V. Acton (1 Salk. .325) 390

' r. Gage (29 N. H. 533) 1244, 1246

V. Schroder (73 III. 44) 1034

Gainer v Gates (-34 N. W. 798) 273

Gaines's Succession (38 La An. 123) 488

Gaines v. Alexander (7 Grat. 2.57) 794

r. Chew (2 How. U. S 619) 470, 497

V. De La Croix (6 Wall 719) 695

r. Fender (82 Mo 497) 494

V. Gaines (9 B, Mon. 295) 244

V. Hammond (2 JlcCrary, 432) 844

V. Hennen (24 How. U. S. 553) 780, 498

V. Kennedy (53 Miss. 103) 3-30, 1090

Gainev v. Sexton (29 Mo. 449) 777

Gains"i,-. Gains (2 A. K. Marsh 190) 89, 90

Gainus v. Cannon (42 Ark. 503) 612

Gail her v. Gaither (20 Ga. 709) 40

I'.Gaither (23 Ga. .521) 501

V. Welch (3 Gill & J. 259) 1022

Galln-aith v. Fleming (60 Mich. 408) 254, 255

r. McLain (84 111. 379) 1221

V. Zimmerman (100 Pa. St. 374) 836

Gale V. Drake (51 N. H. 78) 873

V. Gale (21 Beay. 249) 103

V. Kinzie (80 111. 132) 2.30

V Nickerson (144 Mass. 415) 1203

t: Ward (14 Mass. 352) 603

Gall. In re (5 Dem. 374) 109

(Gallagher's Appeal (48 Pa. St. 121) 1104

Gallini r. Galiini (5 B. & Ad. 621) 881

Galliyan v. Eyans (1 Ball & Beattv, 191) 401

Gallman v. Gallman (5 Strobh. L. 207) 324

Galloway r. Bradfield (86 N. C. 163) 770

1-. Carter (100 NC. Ill) 870

V. McPherson (35 N. W, R., Mich.

114) 762

V. Trout (2 G. Greene, 595) 803

Gallup V. Gallup (11 Met. Mass. 445) 674

TABLE OF CASES.

Ixvii

(laltnn I). Hancock (2 Atk. 424) 1093, 110(;
(iainaclie v. Ganilis (52 AIo. 2S7) 477

Gaina-c ;-. Hiisliell (1 Mo. Ai.p. 41(;) 1142
Gamble r. Gamble (11 Ala. i»li(i) ."S.'

V. (;il>s(.ii (.-)!> Mo. 58.-)) 1142, 114.3, llii8
V. Wattcr.sou (83 N. C. 573) ]ur(i

Gambiill v. Forest Lodge (06 Md. 17) !)l)l,

yi(i
Gann r. Gvc£rorv (3 DeG. ^r. & G. 777) 48(;
Gaiio r. Kisk (43 Oli. St. 4(12) IKi

Gaiis r. Daheriiott (40 \. .(. Kq. 184) 5.il

Gansevoort v. Nelson (i> Hill, 381J) 8i)5

Gant V. Hcnlv ((i4 Mo. 1(.2; 270

(Jaratv r. l)n' Hose (5 S. C. 4')3) 181, 201

Garbe'r's Estate (10 I'ac. 2Ji) 525

Garberf. Commonwealth (7 I'a. St. 265) 8 JO.

1140

Garhtit r. Bowlinsr (81 Mo. 214) 2i!5

Garden r. Hunt (Clieves, 42. Ft. II.) 3(53

Gardener r. Woodvear (1 Oli. 170) .5."2

Gardenville r. Walker (52 .Md. 4.52) 10i)8

Gardiner i: Gardiner (34 N. Y. 155) 32, 40

r. Guild (100 .Mass. 25) 942

Gardner i\ Baker (25 Iowa. 343) 009

V. Calln-ban (01 Wis. 91) 841

V. ('olhns(2 I'et.58) 154

V. (]antt (19 Ala. 006) 384, 410, 545, 994

V. (Jarduer (42 Ala. 101) 342

V. Gardner (37 N. .T. Eq. 487) 8)0

r. Gardner (7 Pai. 112) 678. llill

V. (iardner (10 R. 1.211) 2'!0

V. Gardner (22 Wend. 526) 39, 40, 118.

124

V. Greene (5 K. L 104) 2 !2

v. Hever (2 Pai. 11) 898

r. Ladue (47 III. 211) 494

V. l.amback (47 Ga. 133) 34. 43

V. Printup (2 Barh 83) 907, 974

Garesche v. Lewis (93 Mo. 197) • 817

Garesche r. Priest (78 Mo. 120) 705. 709

V. Priest (9 Mo. App. 270) 705, 1139

Garibaldi v. Jones (48 Ark. 230) 190, 199,

200. 200

Garland v. Garland (73 Me. 97) 1002

V. Harri.son (8 Leisxh, 308) 150

V. Watt (4 Ired. L. 287) 949

Garlick v. Patter.sou (2 Chev. 27) 590

Garner v. Bond (61 Ala. 84) 211, 212

V. l.vles (.-35 M ss. 170) 417

V. TueUer (01 .Mo. 427) 1160, 12.56

Garnett r. Carson (11 ?iIo. App. 290) 707

Garrard r. (Jarrard (7 Bush, 430) 204

Garraud's Estate (35 Cal. 3-30) 109

Garrett v. Bruner (.59 Ala. 5Io) 1030

V. Garrett (2 Strobh. Eq. 272) 1145

V. Trabue (82 Ala. 227) 833

Garrison r. Co.x (95 N. C. 353) 530, 531, 57"

V. Garrison (2 N. J. Eq. 206) 41

V. (iarrison (29 N. J. L. 153) 890

Garrow r. Carpenter (1 Port. 359) 8;)5

(iarth V. Tavlor (1 Freem. 201) 410

Garthwaite V. Lewis (25 N. J. Eq. 351) 944

(iarvey v. McCue (3 Redf. 313) 702

Garvin v. Williams (44 Mo. 405) 49

V. Williams (50 Mo. 206) 477

Garwood v. Garwood (29 Cal. 514) 1190,1254

Gaskell v. Case (18 Iowa, 147) 183

V. ^larshall (1 Mood. & L'ob. 132) 389

GaskiU V. Gaskill (7 R. I. 478) 385

(iasque V. Moody (12 Sm. \- .M. 153) 574

Gass V. Gass (3 Humph. 278) 34, 65

Pa^e

Gass V. Simpson (4 Oddw. 288) 116, 120, 121

r. Wilhite (2 Dana, 170) 908

(Jassman's Estate (10 W. N. Cas. 275) 980

Gaston r. IV.vd (.52 Tex. 2S2) 713

V. .McKiliijIit (43 Te.x. 019) 80.5, 812

Gates V. Sliiif^rue (35 Miiiii. 392) 1029, l(l;»0

V. Steele (48 Ark. 539) 200

V. Treat (17 Conn. 388) 1244

V. Whetstone (8 S. C. 244) 677, 738

Gatfield v. Hanson (57 How. Pr. 331) 411

(iatton V. Tallev (22 Kans. 078) 204

tiaultnev v. Nolan (33 Miss. 509) 738

(;aunt V. Tucker (18 Ala. 27) 1155

(Jaut r. Reed (24 lex. 40) 287

(iautier's Succession (8 l.a. An 451) 810

Gavin v. Gravdon (41 Ind. 5.59) 1033

Gaw I'. Huffman (12 Giat. 028) 1095

Gav, Ex parte (5 M-iss. 419) .593

' r. (Jav (00 Iowa, 415) 90, 94, 109

V. Gillilan (92 Mo. 250) 48

I'. Hanks (81 Kv. 552) 202

V. Lemle (32 Mi'ss 309) 424

r. Miiiot (3 Cush. 352) 410

Gavle's Succession (27 La. An. 547) 1181

Gavlor's Appeal (43 Conn. 82) 68

Gav lor V. JIcHenrv (15 Ind. 383) 227

Geiirv r. Gearv (07 Wis. 248) 824

Geddis V. Hawk (1 Watts. 280) 1005

Geddv V. Bi.tltr (3 Munf. 345) 534

GeiRe'r v. Worth (17 Oh. St. 504) 1099

(ieisler's Succession (32 [.a. An. 128D) 188

(Jelbach v. Shivelv (07 Md. 498) 905, 966. 988

Gelston V. Shiekls (78 N. Y. 275) 882

Gelstrop V. Moore (20 Miss. 206) 1021, 1047

Geminill v. Richardson (4 Del. Ch. 599) 2i0

(ienet r. Tallmadge (1 John. Ch. 3) 1012

Genobles r. West\23 S. (J. 154) 2.i7

Gent V. Grav (29 Me. 402) 620

Gentili, Goods of (Ir. R. 9 Eq. .541) 379

Gentrv, Goods of (L. R. 3 V. & 1). 80) 96

v'. McRevnolds (12 Mo. .533) 61 1

V. Woodson (10 Mo. 224) 200

George's Appeal (12 Pa. St. 200) 340

George v. Baker (3 Allen, 320, note) 734

V. Bussing (15 B. Mon. 558) 28, 1010

V. Cooper (15 W. Va. 555) 237

V. Dawson (18 Mo. 407) 432

V. Elms (46 Ark. 200) 1239

V. George (47 N. H. 27) 485. 9.52

r. Goldsbv (23 Ala. 320) 9»2, 1120

V. Johnson (45 N. H. 4-50) 433

V. Spencer (9 Md. Ch. 353) 012

V. Van Horn (9 Barb. 523) 024

V. Watson (19 Tex. 3.54) 330, 443, 1031

r. Williamson (20 Mo. 90) 632

Georgia Home Ins. Co. t: Kinnier (28

Graf. 88) 647

Georgia R. R. Co. r. Winn (42 Ga. 331) 028
Ger.ard, :Matter of (1 Dem .244) 1174

(Jerman Bank v. Levscr (.50 Wis. 258) 1022
Gcrould V. Wilson (81 N. Y. 573) 552, 1123
Gerrish v. Nason (22 Me. 438) 37

Gerrv, In re (103 N. Y. 445) 1002

r. Post (13 How. Pr. 118) 445

Gcsell's Appeal (84 Pa. St. 2;8) 1197

Gest V. Wav (2 Whart. 445) 903

V. Wilfiams (4 Del. Ch. 55) 1014

Getchell r. Mc(^iuire (70 Iowa, 71) 2-55

Gel man r. MiMahon (30 Him, 531) 904

Getz's Estate (12 Pbila. 143) 087

Cover V. Wentzel (08 Pa. St. 84) 884

Ixviu

TABLE OF CASES.

Page

Gharky v. Werner (Hfi Cal. 388) 10^7

Glieen v. Osborn (17 S. & R. 171) (>-'jH

Gibbins v. Evdeii (L K. 7 E(i. ;J71) 1111

Gibbon v. Gibbon (40 (Ja. 50-2) 887, 902, !);3(i

Gibbonev v. Kent (82 Va. y8:J) 1 Vi-i

Gibbons V. Dawlev (2 Cii. Gas. li)8) 798, 1117

V. Fairlamb (2(j Fa. St. 217) 906

V. Maltvard (Poph. 6) 927

V. Shepard (2 Uem. 247) 12:54

Gibbs v. Estv (22 Hun, 2(3«) 258

V. Sliaw(17 Wis. 197) S.-JO, lO-Jl

Giberson v. Giberson (43 N. J. Eq. IIU) 720,

722

Gibson v. Bailev (9 N. H. 108) 595

V. Bott (7 Ves. 89) ' 995

V. Cook (62 Md. 256) 347, 681

V. Dowell (42 Ark. 164) 375

V. Farley (16 Mass. 280) 6-36, 1143

V. Foste'r (2 La. An. 503) 1030

V. Gibson (17 Eng. L. & Eq. 349) 2157

V. Gibson (4 .Tones, 425) 878

V. Gibson (15 Mass. 106) 205

V. Gibson (Walk. 364) 82

V. Gibson (9 Yenj;. 329) 42

V. Hale (17 Sim. 129) 1019

V. Hibbard (13 Mich. 214) 119

V. 3 eves (6 Ves. 266) 32

?j. Land (27 Ala. 117) 951

V. Lane (9 Yert^. 475) 469

V. Lvon (115 U. S. 439) 1073

V. McCormick (10 G. & J. 65) 272

V. Pitts (69 N. C. 155) 1032

V. Ponder (40 Ark. 195) 362, 673

V. Roll (27 111. 88) 1034

Giddings v. Butler (47 Tex. 535) 1068

V. Crosby (24 Tex. 295) 175, 767

V. Seward (16 N. Y. .365) 966

V. Turgeon (58 Vt. 106) 73, 75

Gifford V. Choate (100 Mass. 343) 948

V. Thompson (115 Mass. 478) 1003

V. Thorn (9 N. .T. Eq. 702) 942

Gilbert's Appeal (78 Pa. St. 2i;6) 739

Gilbert, Matter of (104 N. Y. 200) 1197

i: Bartlett (9 Bush, 49) 706, 1149

V. Brashear (12 Ala. 191) 8.56

V. Gilbert (22 Ala. 529) 76, 476

V. Hard wick (11 Ga 5:)9) 744

V. Little (2 Oh. St. 156) 802

V. Reynolds (51 111. 513) 274

V. Welsch (75 Ind. .557) 708

Gilbraith v. Gedge (16 B. Mon. 6-31) 290

V. Winter (10 Oh. 64) 966, 973, 980

Gilchrist v. Cannon (1 Coldw. 581) 37-5, 853

r. Fih-an (2 Fla. 94) 1267

V. Rea (9 Pai. 66) 1039, 1040

V. Shackelford (72 Ala. 7) 1037, 1047

V. Steyenson (3 Barb. 9) 979

Giles V. Brown (00 Ga. 058) 1182

V. Little (104 U. S. 231) 729. 949

V. Moore (4 Gray, 600) 250, 1056, 1074

V. Warren (L. R. 2 P. & D. 401) 89

V. Wright (26 Ark. 476) 831

Gilkev V. Hamilton (22 Midi. 283) 385, 411

Gill, Goods of (1 Hagg. 341) 516

V. Giyen (4 Met. Ky. 197) 1056

Gillenwaters v. Scott (62 Tex. 070) 1089

Gillespie V. Hymans (4 Dey. 1 19) 189

Gilliam v. BroVn (43 Miss. 641) 975, 982

V. Chancellor (43 Miss. 437) 981

V. Mc.Tnnken (2 S. C. 442^ 549, 550

V. Willey (1 Jones Eq. 128) 841

P.pe

Gilligan V. Lord (51 Conn. 562) 125, 009, 610

Giililan v. Swift (14 Hun, .574) 248, 251

Gilliiand v. Caldwell (1 S. C. 194) 1270

V. Sellers (2 Oh. St. 223) 340

Gillis V. Brown (5 Cow. 388) 232

Gilman, Matter of (41 Hun, 561) 705

V. Gilman (.52 Me. 165) 442

t'. Gilman (.53 Me. 184) 164, 169

V. (iilman (54 Me 531) 187

V. Gilman (54 Me. 453) 362

V. Gilman (1 Redf. -354) 64

V. (iilman (6 Th. & C. 211) 1146

V. Hamilton (16 III. 225) 931

V. Healy (55 Me. 120) 733

V. Redd'ington (24 N. Y. 9) 918

u. Wilber(l Uem.547) 687

Gilmer r. Baker (24 W. Va. 72) 391, 6o5

V. Gilmer (42 Ala. 9) 965

V. Purgason (50 Ala. 370) 373

V. Stone (120 U. S. 586) 893. 914

Gilmore v. Dunson (35 Tex. 435) SjS

V. Gilmore (7 (treg. 374) 276

Gilruth V. Gilruth (40 Iowa. .346) 470

Gilson «. Hutchinson (120 Mass. 27) 246

Ginders ?;. Ginders (21 III. App 522) 824

Girard v. Wilson (57 Pa. St. 182) 1216

Girod's Succession (4 La. An. 386) 1166

Gist V. Cockey (7 H. & -J. 134) 1039

i\ Gans (30 Ark. 285) 804

Githens V. Goodwin (32 X. .L Eq. 286) 1127

Gittings V. McDermott (2 Mvl. & K. 09) 882,

936
Givens v. Higgins (4 MeCord, 286) 417

Glacius V Fogel (88 N. Y. 434) 637

Gladson v. Whitney (9 Iowa, 267) 715

Glancey v. Glancev (17 Oh. St. 134) 64

Glancy v. Murray' (49 111. 465) 10-38

Glann, Ex parte "(2 Redf. 75) 10.36

Glasgow V. Lipse (117 U. S. 327) 699, 710,

1116
V. Sands (3 G. & -T. 96) 642

Glass Co. V. Ludlum (8 Kan. 40) 295, -301
Glassell V. Wilson (4 Wash. 59) 308

Gleason v. Fayerweather (4 Gray, 348) 954
V. White (34 Cal. 2.58) " 807, 819

Gleaton v. Lewis (24 Ga. 209) 417

Gleespin's Will (26 N. J Eq. .523) 47

Glen V. Fisher (6 John, Ch. 33) 1010, 101.5.

1099

Glenn's Estate (74 Cal. 567) 865

Glenn, In re (20 S. C. 64) 1137, 1157, 1222

V. Belt (7 Gill & J. 362) 940

V. Clark (53 Md. 580) 230, 237

V. Glenn (41 Ala. 571) 699, 788

V. Maguire (3 Tenn. Ch. 695) 792

V. Smith (2 Gill. & J. 493) 422, 423, 424

Glidden r. Bennett (43 N. H. 306) 604

(ilines V. Weeks (137 Mass. 547) 576

Glover, Goods of (5 Notes of Cas. 553) 63

V. Hill (57 Miss. 240) 202

V. Holley (2 Bradf. 291) 1129, 1145

Goate V. Fryer (3 Bro. C. C. 23) 786

Goblet V. Beechey (2 Russ. & Myl. 624) 98

Godard v. AVagner (2 Stn.bh. Eq 1) 969. 974

Godbold V. (Jodbold (13 S. C 601) 12.36

Goddard's Estate (94 N. Y. 544) 400

Goddard v. Bolster (6 Me. 427) 675

V. Brown (12 R. I. 31) 354

V. Goddard (10 Pa. St. 79) 9.50

V. Goddard (3 Phill. 637) 519

V. Johnson (14 Pick. 352) 639

TABLE OF CASES.

Ixix

Goddard v. Public Adin'r (1 Dein. 480)
Goddcn t'. Bmkc (^5 Lii. An. 160)
Godfrey's Estate (4 Mirli. W8)
Godfrey v. Gctthell (4(1 Mc 537)
y. 'reini)letoii ((I 8. W. R. 47)
(Jodley «. Taylor (;J Dev. 178)
(lodwin V. lloofier (45 Ala. (il'"{)
Goebel v. Foster (8 Mo. A pp. 443)
Goeppner v. Leitzelmann (!»8 111. 40!))

Goff V. Cook (73 Ind. 351)

V. Kellogfr (18 I'lek. -i.-jG)
Goforth r. Loiiirwortli (4 Oli. 129)
Gold's Case (Kirby. 100)
Gold V. Ju'lson (21 Conn. f!H!)
Golder v. Littlejohn (30 Wis. 344)
Goldin- V. Gohlin^- (24 Ahi. 122)
Gohtsniitirs K.state (13 riiila. 387)
Gollanfs Suctession (31 La. An. 173)

I'liKO

400

3!)

102(>
(104
831

10(i(i
574

]25(J
102!l,

1032

423

854

3.30, 1047

(i(i7

888, 88i)

1120
022

12:iO

lliiti

Goinbault v. Public Adui'r (4 Bradf. 226) 37,

52

Gonzales v. Barton (45 Tnd. 295) 900

Good I'. Martin (2 Col. 218) 8 i3

r. Norley (28 Iowa, 188) 1030, 10 i4

(ioodale V. Moon-v (GO N. H. 528) 925, 92:)

Goodall r. Boardnian (53 Vt. 92) 199

r. iMcLean (2 Bradf. 306) 937

K. Marshall (11 N. H. 88) 360, 374

/■. Tucker (13 How. U. S. 469) 360, 676

Goodhear c. Gary (1 La. An. 240) 690, H91

Goodbody V. Goodbodv (95 III. 456) 329. 1089

Goodburn v. Stevens (1 Md. Ch. 420) 284,290

Goodhue v. Clark (37 N. H. 525) 8 i2

Goodlett y. Anderson (7 Lea, 286) 441

Goodman's Trust (Law U. 17 Ch. D. 266) 157

4ti6
494
146
2.2
782
809
604
440
1142
518
99

Goodman v. Kuss (14 Conn. 210)

V. Wniter (64 Ala. 410)
Goodrich v. Adams (138 Mass. 552)

V. Brown (63 Iowa, 247)

r. Conrad (24 (owa, 254)

r. Fritz (9 Ark. 440)

V. Jones (2 Hill, 142)

V. Pendleton (4 .John. Ch. 549)

V. Thompson (4 Dav, 215)

V. Treat (3 Col. 408)
Goodright v. Glazier (4 Burr. 2512)

Goods of . For cases under "Goods

of.' see the names of the parties.
Goodsell's Appeal (55 Conn. 171)
Goodwin V. Colby (13 Atl. 866)

V. Goodwm (3.3 Conn. 314)

V. Goodwin (48 Ind. 584)

V. .lones (3 Mass. 514)

V. Mdton (25 X. H. 4.58)

V. Moore (4 Humph. 221)
Goodwyn ?'. Hightower (30 Ga. 249)
G"odvear v. Hulbhen (3 Fish. Pat. Cas.

251)
Gookiii V. Sanborn (3 N. H. 491)
Gordon v. 'Mark (10 Fla. 179)

V. Gibbs (3 Sm. & M. 473)

V. Gilfod (94 U. S. 168)

V. Gordon (55 N. H. 399)

V. Goule (30 La. An. 1-38)

r. Justices (1 Munf. 1)

r. Lord Heav (5 Sim. 274)

V McEachiii (57 Miss. 834)

r. Tweedy (74 Ala. 232)
r. West ("8 N. H. 444)
Gore r. P.razier (3 Mass. 523)
V. Steyeiis (1 Dana, 201)

107
939
231
1125
375, 649, 673
646
639
849

367
866
370
6i)7
1271

330, 1089
344
793
101
835
262
llt!3

4Q5, 1025
935

Goree v. Walthall (44 Ala. 161)
Gorham v. Daniels (23 Vt. 600)

V. Dodge (122 111. 528)
Gorton v. Gregory (3 B. & S. 90)
Gosling i". Carter (1 Colly. 644)
Goss V. Greenaway (70 Ga. 130)

611

254
1016
793
716
188

Gossage v. Crown Point Co. (14 Nev.

153) 712, 713

Gottsberger v. Taylor (19 N. Y. 1.50) 391

Ciotzian.In re (34" Minn 159) 268. 985

(ioudy r. Hall (36 111. 313) 1032

(iough t'. Manning (2(i Md. 347) 268, 963

Goidd r. Crow (57 Mo. 200) 228

V. .Manslield (103 Mass. 408) 57

V. Safford (39 Vt. 498) 85

V. Tingley (16 N. J. Kq. .501) 8.56

r. Whitmore (79 Me. 383) 803

r. Winthrop (5 K. I. 319) 1105

V. Womack (2 Ala. 83) 2ti4

Gourley v. Linst-nbiglcr (51 Pa. St. 345) 120

Govane v. Govane (1 H. & M. 346) 517

Gove V. Gather (23 III. 6-34) 239

Governor o. Hooker (19 Fla. 1()3) 655, 774,

842

Graber v. Haaz (2 Dem. 216) 474

Grabill V. Barr (5 Pa. St. 441) 63

(irady's Estate (14 Phila. 259) 12.58

GradV r. Hughes (31 N. W. K. 4-38) 1130

V. ]McCorkle (57 Mo. 172) 245

V. Porter (53 Cal 680) 1242

Graeme r. Harris (1 Dall. 456) 358

Graff I'. Castleman (5 Rand. 195) 693

V. Transportation Co., 18 Md. 364) 337

Gragg. In re (32 Minn. 142) 331

c. Gragg (65 Mo. 343) 205

Graham, Goods of (3 Sw. & Tr.) 69, 97

V. Abercrombie (8 Ala. 552) 1235

V. Davidson (2 D. & B. Eq. 155) 669

V. Dewitt (3 Bradf. 186) 727

V. Dickinson (3 Barb Ch. 169) 1109

V. Graham (10 Ired. L. 219) 68

V. Graham (23 W. Va. 36) 880

r. Hawkins (38 Tex. 628) 1037, 1047, 10.59

V. King (.50 Mo. 22) 1051, 10.58

r. Law (6 U. C. C. P. 310) 226

V. Londonderry (3 Atk. 393) 614

V. O'Fallon (3"Mo. 507) 480, 482

V. O'Fallon (4 Mo. 601) 74

V. Oviatt (58 Cal. 428) 368

V. State (7 Ind. 470) 748

V. Stewart (68 Cal. 374) 207

1.. Viiiing (1 Tex. 639) 861

r. Vining(2Tex.4.33) 861

V. Whitely (26 N. J. L. 254) 493

Cranberry v. Cranberry (1 Wash. 246) 700

Granberv r. Mhoon (1 Dev. L. 456) 326

Grande \\ Chaves (15 Tex. 550) 395

Grandv v. Sawyer (Pliill. Eq. 8) 878

Granger v. Bassett (98 Mass. 462) 638. 833,

1153, 1186
v. Reid (36 La. An. 84) 749

Grange Warehouse Assoc, v. Owen (7 S.

W. R. 457) 836

Grant v. B.idwell (78 Me. 460)646,1231,1219
V Hrotherton (7 Mo. 458) 554

r. Edwirds (!)2 N. C 442) 1140

r Grant (1 Sandf. Ch.2J5) 481

r Hughes (94 N. C. 231) 1125, 1127

V. Reese (94 N. C 720) 353,360. 3«3, 669,
748, 1164
V. Spann (34 Miss. 294) 503, i-82

Ixx

TABLE OF CASES.

Page
Grant v. Tli(niH)S(.ii (4 C-iin. 21)3) 479

Grantliam v. Williams (1 Ark. 270) 530, 531
liraiitlaud i\ Wite (5 Muiif. 2U5) lOlifi

Granville r. McNeile (7 Hare, 150) 722

Grass V. Howard (52 Me. U)2) 1021

Gratacap r. Phyfe (1 Barb. Ch. 485) (i(i3

Grattaii «. Appjeton (3 Sto. 755) 117. 4!)5

V. Grattaii US 111. 167) 1213, 1214. 1215,

1217
Gratz V. Bavard (11 S. & R. 41) 281

Gravely v. Gravelv (25 S. C. 1) 3R0, 37ti,

442, 1008

Graves r. Barnes (7 La. An. 69) 1 1^8

V. Cochran (08 iMo. 74) 211, 258, 262, 1074

V. Dolphin (1 Sim. 66) 956

V. Edwards (32 Miss. 305) 408

V. Flowers (51 Ala 402) 752

V. Graves (10 B. iMon. 31) 177

V. Graves (58 N. H. 24) 840

V. Howard (3 Jones. Eq. 302) 1109

V. Poage (17 Mo. 91) 418

r. Spedden (46 Md. 527) 1222

Gravillon p. Richard (13 La. 2n3) 375

Gray's Appeal (116 Pa. St. 256) 364, 371

Gray v. Armistead (6 Ired. 74) 387, 6!)3

V. Brignard.'llo (1 Wall. 627) 334

V. Gardner (3 Mass. 399) 1046

»;. Gray (60 N. H. 28) 500

V. GraV (39 N. .1. Eq. 332) 576

V. Hawkins (8 Oh. St. 449) 686

i: Henderson (71 Pa. St. 368) 593

V. INlcCune (23 Pa. St. 447) 248

V. Mvrick (38 N. J. Eq. 210) 1127

V. Palmer (9 Cal. 616) 283

V. I'atton (2 B. Mon. 12) 373

V. Smith (3 Watts, 289) 555

V. Swain (2 Hawks, 15) 646, 651

V. West (93 N. C. 442) 1097, 1102

Gravhill v. Warren (4 Ga. 528) 1006

GraVdon v. Gravdon (23 N. J. Eq. 229) 963

GraVsbrook v. Fox (1 Plowd. 275) 316, 383,

426. 585, 586

Gravson v. Weddle (63 Mo. 523) 394, 1027,

1030, 1060, 1068

Greathead's Appeal (42 Conn. 374) 254, 255,

259
Grebill's Appeal (87 Pa. St. 105) 641

Greelv v. Nashua (62 N. H.) 354

Green's Appeal (42 Pa. St. 25) 899

Green, Ex parte (1 .lac. & W. 253) 1012

In re (2 DeG. F. & J. 121) 790

V. Allen (5 Humph. 170) 932

V. Armstrong (1 Den. 550) 597

V. Bapti-t Church (27 La. An. 563) 329
V. Barbee (84 N. C. 09) 1165, 1100

V. Belcher (1 Atk. .505) 878

V. Blackwell (32 N. .1. Eq. 7C8) 1006

r. Brooks (25 Ark. 318) 774, 808

V. Byrne (40 Ark. 4.53) 745, 1182

V. Clark (24 Vt. 136) 1202

V. Collins (6 Ired. 139) 6-55

V. Creighton (23 How. 90) 374

V. Cutri-rht (Wrisht, 738) 599

r. Davidson (4 Ba.\t. 488) 725

V. Demoss (10 Humph. 371) 238

V. Green (30 N. J. Eq. 451) 1006

V. Green (80 N. C. 546) 941

V. Hardv (24 Me. 453) 1244

V. Hath'awav (36 N. .T. Eq. 471) 1220
V. Hewitt (97 111. 113) 729, 949

V. Hamberry (2 Brock. 403) 558

Pajre
Green v. Howell (6 W. & S. 203) 1216

V Hudson 1{. R. (.32 Barb. 25) 517
V. Mav (75 Ala. 162) 1169
V. Phillips (20 Grat. 752) 602
V. Probate ,ludf;e (40 Mich. 244) 827

V Rugelv (23 Tex.539) 360,429
?;. Russell (132 Mass. 536) 821
V. Sanders (18 Hun, 308) 1163, 1167
V. Sargeant (23 Yt. 406) 702, 1131
V. Sutton (50 Mo. ]8()) 874
V. Thonip.soii (26 Minn. .500) 628
V. ''■ribe(L. R.9 Ch. D. 231) 101
V. Tunstall (5 How. Miss. 638) 1197
V. Virdeii (22 Mo. 506) 299
V. Weever (78 Ind. 494) 172

Greenabaum v. Elliott (60 Mo. 25) 819

Greenbaum v. Austrian (70 111. 591) 2.38

Greene v. Day (1 Dem. 45) 349

V. Dver (32 Me. 400) 819

V. Greene (1 Ohio, .535) 235, 289

V. Holt (70 Mo 077) 1047, 1068

V. Speer (.37 Ala. .532) 1215

V Wilbur (15 R. 1.251) 1102
Greenleaf v. Allen (127 Mass 248) 622
Greenough's Appeal (9 Pa. St. 18) 782
Greenough v Greeiiouyh (11 Pa. St. 489) 63
Greenside r. Benson (3 Atk. 248) 763, 1115
Greentree's Estate (12 Phila. 10) 573
Greenwalt v. McClure (7 III. App. 152) 1064
Greenway v. Greenway (2 DeG. F. & J

881

1072

45

201

859

809

Greer v. McBetli (13 Rich. L. & Eq. 254) 354

128)

Greenwell v. Heritage (71 Mo. 459)
Greenwood v. Cline (7 Or. 17)
V. Maddox (27 Ark. 648)
V. Tavlor (1 Russ. & M. 185)
V. Woodworth (18 Tex. 1)

Gregg V. Boude (9 Dana, 343)
V. Currier (36 N. H. 200)
V. Wilson (24 Ind. 227)

Gregory v. Bailev (4 Harr. 256)
V. Cowgill (i9 Mo. 415)
V. Ellis' (82 N. C. 225)
V. Ellis (86 N. C. 579)
V. Forrester (1 McCord Ch. 318)
V. Harrison (4 Fl:i. 56)
V. Hooker (1 Hawks, 394)
V. McPherson (13 Cal. 562)

785

1142

524, 579

809

729
440

195

421

744

759, 760

735, 1023,

1035

284

1128

1028

1035

271

1045

401, 1193

841

1038

1244

V. Menefee (83 Mo. 413)

V. Orr (61 Miss. 307)

V. Rhoden (24 S. C. 90)

V. Taber (19 Cal. 397)
Greiner's Appeal (103 Pa. St. 89)
Grenawalt's Appeal (37 Pa. St. 95)
Gresharn v. Pyron (17 Ga. 263)
(irey v. Lewis (79 Ky. 453)
Grice's Estate (11 Phila. 107)
Grice V. Randall (23 Vt. 239)
Grider v. Apperson (38 Ark. 388) 1034, 1209

V. Eubanks (12 Bush, 510) 269, 270

V. McClay (11 S. & R. 224) 1233

Gridley v. Andrews (8 Conn. 1) 989

f."Phillips (6 Kan. .349) 1068

V. Watson (53 111. 186) 610

Grier's Appeal (25 Pa. St. 352) 828

Griffie V. Maxie (58 Tex. 210) 211

Gritfin v. Bonliam (9 Rich. Eq. 71) 391, 653,

654, 1168, 1173

V. Graham (1 Hawks. 96) 930

V. Gritiiu (3 Ala. 623) 1037

TABLE OF CASES.

Ixxi

Pajte
Grimn v. Griffin (17 N. East. 782) 832, 8:14
V. I'archc-r (48 Mf. 400) 8.'.7

V. SanuK'l (0 .Mc 50) 287

V. Warner (48 Cal. Wi) 1081

GrilHlli f. IJeeolier (10 Barlj. 4-32) 1142

r. Chew, 8 8. & K. 17) ti.Vi

V. Coleman (01 Md. 2.')0) 522

V. Diffendorffer (50 Md. 4(!G) 47

V. Frazier (8 Cr. U) 405, 448, 449, 572.

58(i

V. Godey (113 U. S. 89) 333, 1129, 1131

V. I'liilips (9 Lea, 417) 1048, lOllO

V. Railroad (23 S. C. 25) 591

V. Tovvnlev (09 Mo. 13) 1072

Griffiths V. Robins (3 Madd. 191) 43

Grig'-s I'. Clark (23 Cal. 427) 284

r. Dodi^'e (2 Dav, 28) 1001

r. Smith (12 N.M. L. 22) 238

Grignoa v. Astor (2 How. 319) 325, 32^), 337,

1030, 1031, 1088, 108J

Grigsbv v. Simpson (28 Grat. 348) 8 i3

r. \ViIkins(.n (9 Hush, 91) 1138

Grim's Apiital (1 (inint Cas. 209) 1034

Ai)p.'al (8J i'a. St. 3-33) 987

Appeal (105 Pa. St, 375) 284, 2D1, 703,

1083

Appeal (109 Pa. St. 391) 918, 1242

Grimes v. Booth (19 Ark. 224) 805

r. Harmon (35 Ind. 198) 873, 921, 931

V. Tall)crt (14 Md. 109) 440

V. Wilson (4 Biackf. 331) 25:

Grinnell v. Baxter (17 Pick. 383) 1208

r. Lawrence (1 Blatch. 340) 070

Grinstead v. Fonte (32 Miss. 120) 733

Griscom v. Evens (40 N. J. L. 402) 812

(irissoni i-. Hill (17 Ark. 483) 92J

Grist r. Hod-fs (3 Dcv. L. 198) 021

Griswold V. Chandler (5 N. H . 492) 004. 079,

6J2, 702, 761,1137, 1145

V. Frink (22 Oh. St. 579) 1070

V. Matiix (21 Mo. App. 282) 18J

Groce v. Field (13 Ga. 24) 12.59

V. Rittenberrv (14 Ga 232) 81)5

Grogan i'. Garrison (27 Oh. St. 50) 204

Groot V. Hitz (3 Mackey, 247) 11 U

Groover v. Brown (09 Ga. 60) 202

Gross V. Howard (52 Me. 192) 1038

Grotenkeniper r. Brvson (79 K}'. 353) 1096

Groton r. Kiiguks (17 Me. 137) 383

Grout, In re (15 Him, 301) 1140

Grout V. Chamberlin (4 Mass. 013) 751

Grover v. Hawlev (5 Cal. 485) 1044

Grow V. D .bhins" (128 Mass. 271) 12!!7

Grubbs r. McDonald (91 Pa. St. 236) 37

Grymes v. Boweren (0 Bing. 437) 005

V. Hone (49 N. Y. 17) 116, 117, 120

Guenther v. BirUicht (22 Mo. 4-39) 824

Guerin v. Moore (25 Mmn. 402) 222, 243

Guernsey v. Guernsev (30 N. Y. 267) 949

Guien's Estate (1 .Vsiim. 317) 1174

Guier V. Kellv (2 Binn. 294) 340

(iuiid r. Guild (15 Pick. 129) 824

Guilford r. Love (49 Tex. 715) 330, 1089

r. Maddon (45 Ala. 2il0) 1246

Guion V. Anderson (8 Humph. 298) 277

Guitar r. Gordon (17 Mo. 408) 111

Guldin's Estate (81 * Pa. St. 302) 533

Gulick V. Gulick (27 N. J. Eq. 498) 1103

Guliedge t'. Berrv (31 Miss. 346) 733

Gnll^v V. P-Mtlu'V (7 Bush. 167) 724

Gullv V. Hull (31 Miss. 20) 607

Pane

Gullv V. Rav (18 B. Mon. 107) 244

Gum's f. Capehart (5 .It)nes Eq. 242) 9!)4

Gunbv e. Brown (80 Mo. 2.53) 1028

Gunn'r. Barrv (44 (ia. 351) 201

V. Harrv'(15 Wall. 010) 201

V. Howell (35 Ala. 144) 675

(iunniug r. Luckman (3 Kedf. 273) 1128

Gunnison v. Twitchel (38 N. H. 02) 212

Gunter v. Fox (51 Tex. 383) 022, 712, 713

V. Janes (9 Cal. 043) 848

Gurley v. Butler (83 Lid. .501) 573

(iurnJe c. Malonev (38 Cal. 85) 7-57

(Juthinan r. Guthman (18 Neb. 98) 205, 215

Guthrie's Appeal (37 Pa. St. 9) 901

Guthrie v. Guthrie (17 Te.x. 541) 828

V. Jones (108 Mass. 191) 604

V. Owen (2 Humph. 202) 77

V. Price (23 Ark. 396) 52

V. Wheeler (51 Conn. 207) 707, 1159

Gutzweiler v. Laeknuum (39 Mo. 91) 593

Guv V. Pierson (21 Ind. 18) 1035, 1037

" V. Siiarp (1 Mvl. & K. 589) 972

Gwin's Will (1 I uck. 44) 85

Gwin V. Hick^ (1 Bav, .503) 598

r. Latimer (4 Yerg. 22) 797

Gwinu V. Williams (30 Lid. 374) 1080

(iwvnn V. Horsey (4 G. & .1. 453) 698, 1137

Gw vnne v. Cincinnati (3 Ohio, 24) 239

'v. Estes (14 Lea, 002) 281, 288

Gvger's Estate (65 Pa. St. 311) 519, 525

Haag v. Sparks (27 Ark. .594) 1123

Haas r. Childs (4 Dein. 137) 402

Habergham v. Vincent (2 Yes. Jr. 204) 60
Haberiiiann's Appeal (101 I'a. St. 329) 705,

1135
Habershon v. Varden (7 F.. L & Eq. 228) 907
Hacknev i\ Vrooman (02 Barb. 050) 119

Haddock r. Boston & M. R. K. Co. (146

Mass. 155) 406

Haden v. Haden (7 J. J. Marsh. 168) 1213. 1242
Hadlev )•. Kendrick (10 Lea, .525) 387, 692, 693
Hadlock r. Grav (104 Ind .5!>0) 900

Hafer v. Hafer (33 Kaiis. 44!)) 213

V. Hafer (30 Kans. 524) 213

Haffev, In re (10 Mo. App. 232) 1158

Hairah v. Patterson (10 Bush. 441) 1205

Hageninever r. Hanselman (2 Deni. 87) 908
Hager r. Xixon ((>9 N. C. 108) 2'«

Haggatt r. Wade (10 Sm. & M. 143) 1005
Hagler v. Rlercer (0 Fla. 271 ) 337

Hagthorp I'. Hook (1 G. & J. 270) 432. 704.

1182

Hahn v. Kellv (34 Cal. 391) 325, 329, 331

Hahnlin's Appeal (45 Pa. St. 343) 800

Haigii V. Haigh (9 R. I. 20) 311

Haight r. Brisbin (!I0 N. Y. 1-32) 580

v. Brisbin (100 N. Y. 219) 708

r. (ireen (19 Cal. 113) 621

V. Havt (19 N. Y. 404) 625

Haigood V. Wells (1 Hill Ch. 59) 512. 582, 1254

Haile's Succession (3 So. R. 630) 1221

Haile V. Hill (13 Mo. 612) 494

Haine's Accounting (8 X. J. Eq. 506) 1174

Haines r. Haines (2 Vern. 441) 92

V. People (97 III. 101) 124!t

V. Price (20 N. J. L. 480) 715, 1142, 1143

Hair V. Averv (28 Ala. 207) 03il

Hairston r. Hairston (2 Jones Eq. 123) 041

V. Hairston (30 Miss. 270) 90, 91, 95

IXXll

TABLE OF CASES.

Page

Hairston v. Randolphs (12 Leigh, 445) 252

halt V. llc.iile (lU\Vi.s. i'rl) 212

Hake V. Stott (5 L'ol. 1-tO) 575, 57(i

llaldaiie V. Eclvford (L. K. 8 Eq. 631) U'-i

Haldumaii v. Haldeinan (40 I'a. St. 29) 808

llaldeiibv V. Spoftorth (1 Beav. 390) 732

Hale V. ilale (137 Mass. 1G8) • 718

V. Hale (1 (iiav, 518) 186, 191, 1200

V. Hale (125 III. 399) 917

V. Marquette (09 Iowa. 376) 1066, 1077

V. Meegaii (39 Mo. 272) 834

V. Muiiii (4 Grav, 132) 235

V. Pluninier (6 Ind. 121) 290

V. Stone (14 Ala. 803) 607

Hales V. Holland (92 111. 494) 340, 825

Halev V. Boston (108 Mass. 576) 901

Halfnian v. Ellison 51 Ala. 543 803

Hall, Goods of (L. K. 2 P. & D. 256) 62

In re (2 Uem. 112) 906

Succession of (28 La. An. 57) 72

V. Allen (31 Wis. 691) 480

V. Armor (68 Ga. 449) 1044

V. Bovd (6 Pa. St. 267) 736, 826

V. Bramble (2 Dak. 189) 067

V. Browder (4 How. Miss. 224) 600

V. Bumstead (20 Pick. 2) 1207

r. Burgess (5 Grav, 12) 4.32

V. Carter (8 Ga. 388) 737, 739

V. Chaffee (14 N. H. 215) 915. 949

r. Chapman (35 Ala. 1353) 691, 694

V. Gushing (9 Pick. 395) 391, 553

V. Darrington (9 Ala. 502) 736

V. Uavis (3 Pick. 4,50) 1215

17. Uenckla (28 Ark. 506) 800

V. Dougherty (5 Houst. 435) 32

V. Elliot (Peake N. P. C. 8lJ) 420

V. Finch (29 Wis. 278) 823, 824

t). Gitiings (2H. & .). 112) 309

V. Grovier (25 Mich. 428) 1121, 1129, 1134

V. Hall (38 Ala. 131) 34

V. Hall (47 Ala. 290) 469

V. Hall (13 Hun, 336) 159

V. Hall (18 Ga. 40) 71

V. Hall (37 L. J. P. 40) 45

V. Hall (L. K. 1 Prob. & D. 481) 46

V. Hall (2 McCord Ch. 269) 269, 653, 1094

V. Hall (1 Mass. 101) 1187

V. Hall (123 Mass. 120) 880

V. Hall (27 Miss. 458) 389, 992

V. Hall (78 N. Y. .535) 1175

V. Hall (11 Tex. .526) 828

V. Hallett (1 Cox Ch. 134) 1085

V. Hancock (15 Pick. 255) 155

V. Harrell (92 Ind. 408) 254

r. Harris (113 111.410) 20.5, 212

V. Harrison (21 Mo. 227) 366, 673

V. Irwin (7 111. 176) 719

*. Martin (46 N. H. 337) 820, 1261, 1204

V. Monroe (27 Tex. 700) 576

V. Pearman (20 Tex. 168) 588

V. Pratt (5 Oh. 72) 789, 821

V. Priest (6 Grav, 18) 878

V. Richardson (22 Hun, 444) 836

V. Savage (4 Ma*. 273) 249

V. Savre (10 B. Mon. 46) 1040

V. Sims (2 J. J. Marsh. 509) 473

V. Superior Court (69 Cal. 79) 808

V. Thaver (105 Mas=. 219) 527

V. Trvon (1 Dem. 2!»6) 1168

r. Tufts (18 Pick. 4.55) 055

V. Wilson (6 Wis. 433) 856

Page

Hall V. Woodman (49 N. H. 295) 1026

Halleck's Estate (49 Cal. HI) 1190

Halleck V. Guy (9 Cal. 181) 1067

f. Mixer (16 Cal. 574) 620,621

V. Moss (17 Cal. 339) 697

Hallett V. Allen (13 Ala. 554) 994

V. Bassett (100 Mass. 167) 443

V. Thompson (5 Pal. 583) . 956

Hallev V. Ilanev (3 T. B. Mon. 141) 532

v. Webster "(21 Me. 461) 479

Hallibtirton v. Carson (100 N. C. 99) 1155

V. Sumner (27 Ark. 460) 1059

Halliday v. Du Bose (.59 Ga. 268) 533

Hallock V. Rumsev (22 Hun, 89) 536

V. Teller (2 Dem. 206) 823

Halsev's Estate (93 N. Y. 48) 1198

Halsey v. Patterson (37 N. J. Eq. 445) 906

V. Van Amringe (4 Pai. 279) 1202

V. Van Amringe (6 Pai. 12) 1164

Halstead v. Westervell (41 N.J. Eq. 100) 10i;8

Halvburton v. Di.bsou (65 N. C. 88) 830

Ham V. Henderson (.50 < al. 367) 643

V. Kornegav (85 N. C. 118) 749, 1230

Haniaker's Estate (5 Watts, 204) 1183

Hamberlin v. Terry (1 Sni. & M. Ch. 589) 331,

572
Hamblett v. Hamblett (6 N. H. 332) 41, 501
Haniblin v. Hook (6 La. 73) 803

Hambrooke v. Simmons (4 Russ. C. C.

25) 118

Hamden v. Rice (24 Conn. 350) 928

Hamer v. Hamer (4 .Strobh. Eq. 124) 1214

Hamerslev v. Lambert (2 John. Ch. 508) 287

V. Lockman (2 Dem. 524) 92, 490

V. Smith (4 Whart. 120) 608

Hamilton's Estate (34 Cal. 464) 395, 397. 428

p:state (66 Cal. 576) 183

Succession (35 La. An 640) 958

Hamilton v. Clarke (3 Mackev, 428) 718, 719

V. Flinn (21 Tex. 713) " 885, 886

V. Hamikon (10 R. I. 538) 38

V. Eockhart (41 Miss. 460) 1046

V. Porter (63 Pa. St. 332) 1098

r. Wilson (4 John. 721 621

Hamlin ». Mebane (1 Jones Eq 18) 1247

r. Osgood (1 Redf. 409) 903

v. Stevenson (4 Dana, 597) 25

v. U S. Express Co. (107 111 443) 949

Hainniett v. Starkweather (47 Conn 439) 803

Haiumon v. Huntlev (4 Cow 493) 736

Hammond v. Hammond (2 Bl. Ch 306) 994,

1123

V. Hammond (55 Md. 575) 891, 952

V. Inloes (4 Md. 138) 307

r. Putnam (110 Mass. 232) 726

V. Wood (15 R. I. 566) 505, 507

Hammonds, Goods of (3 Sw. & Tr 90) 69

Hammons v. Renfrew (84 Mo. 332) 611, 815

Hamner r. Hamner (3 Head, 398) 822

Hampden v. Harder (88 N. C. 5!)2) 477

Hampstead v. Plaistow (49 N IE 84) 224

Hampton v. Phvsick (24 Ark. 501) 189

Hanbesl's .\ppeal (92 Pa. St. 482) 710

Hance v. McKnight (11 N. J. L. 385) 703

Hancock's Appeal (112 Pa. St. 532) 871

Hancock v. American L. I. Co. (62 Mo.

26) 445

V. Hubbard (19 Pick. 167) 150, 1238

V. Minot (8 Pick 2;)) 1103

V. Podmore (1 B. & Ad. 260) 763

Hancocke v. Prowd (1 Saund. 328) 787, 793

TABLE OF CASES.

Ixxiii

Pase
Hand r. Marcv (28 N. J. Eq. 59) UM

V. M..lttr"(7-i ^I"- •!•'') 10-13. 1"+''

Ilaiulbcrrv v. UooliitU; (:i8 111. 2{)'2) 8;)(i

llaiidlev I'. Fitzluit,di (;i A. K. Marsh. 5G1) 71)7
V. VVrightsou (tlO Md. 11)8) t)04

Handy v. Collins (60 iMd. 229) 1164, 1105,

1108,1174

Hanger v. Abbott (6 AVall. 532) 847

Hanifan v. Needk's (1(18 111. 403) 574, .578

Hankins v. Kimball (57 hid. 42) 640, 1 142

1'. Lavne (48 -Vrk. 544) 1122, 112:!

Hanks 0. Crosbv (04 Tex. 48.'!) 214

Hanna's Appeal (31 I'a. St. .53) 1103

Hanna v. I'almer (0 Ci.l. 150) 221, 272

V. Wrav (77 I'a. St. 27) 283

llaniiali v. I'eak (2 .\. K. Marsh. 133) 488

V. llailroad Co. (87 N. C. 351) 62 i

Hanner v. Moulton (23 Fed. Kep. 5) 892, 8U4

HanninKton v. True (L. R. 33 Ch. D.

11)5) 1111

Uannum i'. Curtis (13 Ind. 206) 808

V. Day (105 Mass. 33} 546, 735, 1023,

1024, 1040

V. Spear (2 Dall. 291) 1045

Hansbrough v. Hooe (12 Leigh, 316) 978

Hansen v. Forbes (33 Miss. 42) 850

r. Greirg (7 Tex. 223) 800

lIansfo;d r.Elliott (9 Leigh, 79) 414, 421

Hanson V. Hanson (70 Me. 5U8) 1 103

Hapgood V. Houghton (10 Pick. 154) 759,700,

793

V. Houghton (22 Pick. 480) 639, 960

r. Jennison (2 Vt. 294) 1144

Happy's Will (4 Bibb, 553) 480

Haraden v. Larraboe (113 Mass. 430) 156,905

Harbison i,-. James (90 Mo. 411) 948

Harcum c. Hudnall (14 Grat. 309) 727, 728

Hard V. Tunuire (30 N. J. Ya\. 121) 941

Hardawav v. Parham (27 Miss. 103) 574,581

Harden v. Haves (9 Pa. St. 151) 38, 39

Hardenburg v. Blair (30 N. J. Eq. 645) ToO

Hardin v. Pulley (79 Ala. 381) 177

Hardin v. Smitli (7 B. Mon. 390) 042

Harding v. Alden (9 Me. 140) 228

V. Le Moyne (114 111.65) 715, 10-30, 1033,

1035

V. Presbyterian Church (20 lud. 71) 274

V Smith (11 Pick. 478) 8.50

Hardinge, Goods of (2 Curt. 640) 531

Hardwick's Estate (.59 Cal. 292) 214

Hardv i'. Ames (47 Barb. 413) 841

V. Harbin (4 Sawy. hm) 443

V. Hardv (26 Ala. 524) 498

V. Merrill (.56 N. H. 227) 41

V. Miles (91 N. C. 131) 748

V. Overman (30 Ind. 549) 287

V. Thomas (23 Miss. 544) 525

Hareeourt v. Bishop (Cro. I'.liz. 497) 336

Hargrove v. Lillv (09 Ga. 326) 773

Harker v. Clark (57 Cal. 245) 623

V. Irick (10 N. J. Eq. 209) 1140

V. Kielly (4 Del. Ch. 72) 944, 988

Harkins's Succession (2 La. An. 829) 810

Harkness v. Bailev (Prec. Ch. 5i4) 103

V. Sears (20 Ala. 493) 601

Harlan's Estate (24 Cal. 182) 439

Harleston v. Corbett (12 Kich. 604) 70

Harlev v. Harlev (57 Md. 340) 1214

Harlin v. Stevenson (30 Inwa, .371) 1 124

Harlow V. Harlow (65 Me. 448) 12-54

H.rman v. Harman (2 Show. 492) 769

Page

Harman v. Ferrall (04 N. C. 474) 159

Harmon v. Bviiuui (40 Tex. 324) 185,204, 2i)8

V. Harmon (03 111 512) 631

Harness v. Green (20 Mo. 310) 777

V. Harness (49 Ind. 384) 1223

Ilariiev i-. Dutclier (15 Mo. 89) 745, 1183

f.'Seott (28 Mo. 333) 1205

Ilarpending v. Wvlie (13 Bush, 158) 210

Harper's Appeal ('l 1 1 Pa. St. 243) 980

Harper v. Archer (28 Miss. 212) 048

V. Butler (2 Pet. 231)) 367, 387

r. Harper (92 N. C. -300) 1218, 1223

V. Harper (1 Th. & C.351) 476

V. Lamping (.33 Cal. 041) 2.) I

V. McVeigh (82 Va. 751) 834

V. Phelps (21 Conn. 257) 905

r. Smith (!) Ga. 401) 31)3

V. Strutz (53 Cal. 055) 713

Harrell v. Daveni)ort (5 .lones Eq. 4) 1006

V. Hamilton (0 (ia. 37) 405

Harriet r. Swan (18 Ark. 495) 1247

Ilarriman v. Grav (49 Me. 537) 253

Harriiig v. Allou"(25 Mich. .505) 490, 491

Harrington (-.Brown (5 Pick. 519) 703

V. Keteltas (92 N. Y. 40) 077, 679, 1158

V. La Kocque (13 Or. 344) 345

I'. i;icli(0 Vt. VM\) 811

V. Samples (.30 Minn. 200) 831, 834

(• Steer (82 111 .50) 82

Harris's Estate (74 Pa. St. 452) 005

Petition (14 II. I. 037) 1052

Harris, Matter of (4 Dem. 403) 1171

V. .Anderson (9 Humph. 779) 41)4

V. Bank of Jacksonville (22 Fla.

.501) 830, 834

V. Burton (4 Harr. CO) 249

V. Clark (3 N. Y. 93) 121

V. Davis (1 Coll. 416) 881

«. Dillard(31 Ala. 191) 576

V. Douglas (64 III. 466) 816, 1095

V. Ely (25 N. Y. 1.38) 1120

1-. FIv- (7 Paige,421) 1097

V. Fo'ster (6 Ark. 388) 11.53

V. Harris (.30 Barb 88) 481

1-. Harris (01 Ind. -117) 493

I'. Haves (53 Mo. 90) 37, 477

V. Hutcheson (3 South. R. 34) 818

V. Knapp (21 Pick. 412) 1000

V. Lester (80 111. 307) 1047

V. Martin (9 Ala. 895) 1169

V. Milburn (2 Ilagg. 02) 407

V. Parker (41 Ala. 004) 051, 691, 695, 1146
V. Potts (3 Yeates, 141) 950

V. Rice (60 Ind. 207) 842

V. Seals (29 Ga. 585) 578

V. Tisereau (52 Ga. 153) 470

Harrison's Appeal (48 Conn. 202) 51, 484
Will (1 B. :Mon, 351) 47

Harrison v. Burgess (1 Hawks. 384) 79

V. Eldridge (7 N. J. L. 392) 246

V. Harrison (9 Ala. 470) 351, 1229. 1231
V. Henderson (7 Heisk.315) 72.5,787,780
V. McJIahon (1 Bradf. 283) 508

V. Moselev (31 Tex. 608) 023

V. Rowan"(3 Wash. C. C. 580) 32, 42. 43,

52, 479

r. Rowlev (4 Ves. 212) 418

V. Turbeville (2 Humph. 242) 549

r. White (38 :Miss. 178) 11-55

Harshman r. Slonaker (53 Iowa, 467) 104

Hart V. Anger (38 La. An. 341) 282

Ixxiv

TABLE OF CASES.

Page
Hart V. Bostwick (U Fla. 162) 508

r. Dunbar (4 Sm. & M. 273) 263, 1074
r. Hurt (70 Ga. 704) 111

r. Hart (;J9 Miss. 221) 704

V. Hart (41 JNio. 441) 824

V. Hoss (22 [.». All. 517) •i5o

V. Jewett (11 Iowa, 270) 803, 800

V. Lopan (40 Mo. 47) 2:)0

V. McColluni (28 Ga. 478) 220, 241

V. IMarks(4 Brad. 101) 803

V. Smith (20 Fla. 58) 513, 741, 743

V. Soward (12 B. Moii. 391) 517

V. Ten Evck (2 John. Cli. 02) GOl

V. Thompson (3 B. Moii. 482) 049

V. Tulk (2 DeG. M. & G. 300) 881

V. Williams (77 N. C. 426) 1007

Barter v. Tapgart (14 Oil. St. 122) 812

Hartford K. K. Co. v. Andrews (36 Conn.

213) 630

Hartley v. Croze (37 N. W. R. 449) 1052

Haitman v. Dowdel (1 Rawle, 279) 640

V. JIunch (21 Minn. 107) 201

V. Schultz (101 III. 437) 215, 1077

HartTiett v. Fegan (3 Mo. App. 1) 715, 1142

V. Wandell (60 N. Y. 346) 383, 503

Hartsiield v. Harvoley (71 Ala. 231) 196, 199

Hartzell v. Commonwealth (42 Pa. St.

453) 553

Harvard v. Amorv (9 Pick. 446) 710

Harvard College 'v. Quinn (3 Kedf. 514) 987

Harvev, Matter of (3 Redf. 214) 525

f. "Chouteau (14 Mo. 587) 86

V. Harvev (25 S. C. 283) 308

V. Harve'v (2 Stra. 1141) 601

V. McUoiniell (48 Hun, 409) 631

V. Richards (1 Mas. 381) 360, 375, 377

V. SkiUman (22 Wend. 571) 802

V. Sullens (46 Mo. 147) 44, 49

t;. Wait (lOOreg. 117) 1190

Harviil v. Logan (9 Dana, 185) 233

Harward v. Robinson (14 III. App 560) 704

Harwood v. Andrews (71 Ga. 784) 421, 828

V. Goodright (1 Cowp. 87) 99

V. Marve'(8 Cal. 580) 431, 712

Hasbrouck\'. Hasbrouck (27 N. Y. 182) 697

Hascall v. Cox (49 Mich. 435) 872, 902

Haselden v. Whitesides (2 Strohh. 353) 411

Haselwood v. Webster (82 Ky. 409) 983

Hascnritter ?•. Hasenritter (77 Mo. 162) 172

Haskell r. Bowen (44 Vt. 579) 643

V. Farrar (56 Mo. 497) 548

HaskiU V. Sevier (25 Ark. 152) 860

Haskin v. Teller (3 Redf. 316) 1236

Haskins v. Hawkes (108 Mass. 379) 416, 595

V. Spiller (1 Dana, 170) 1240

V. Tate (25 Pa. St. 249) 896

Haslage v. Krugh (25 Pa. St. 97) 636, 1142

Haslei- v. Hasler (1 Bradf. 248) 761

Haslett V. Glenn (7 H. & J. 17) 600

Hasluck V. Pedlev (L. R. 19 Eq. 271) 886

Hassev v. Keller"(l Dem. -577) 579

Hastings, In re (20 L. T. R. n. s. 715) 101

V. Clifford (32 Me. 132) 268

V. Crunkleton (3 Yeates, 261 ) 230

V. Dickinson (7 Mass. 153) 265

V. Meyer (21 Mo. 519) 162, 177, 178

231. 432

V. Rider (99 Mass. 622) 478. 479

Hastv V. Johnson (3 Me. 282) 1046, 1048

Hatch V. Atkinson (.56 Me. 324) 116, 123

V. Bassett (52 N. Y. 359) 1102

Pape

Hatch V. Hatch (21 Vt. 450) 1-17

V. Kelly (63 N. H. 29) 1028

V. Proctor (102 Mass. 351) 385, 420

V. Sigman (1 Dem. 519) 481

V. Straight (3 Conn. 31) 1218

Hatcher v. Clifton (33 Ala. 301) 694

V. Millard (2 Coldw. 30) 82

r. Robertson (4 Strobh. Kq. 179) 935

HatHeld r. Sneden (54 N. Y. 280) 232

r. Thorpe (5 B. & Aid. 589) 75

Hathawav's Appeal (46 Mich. 326) 472

Wiir(4 Oh. St. 383) 469

Hathaway v. Hathaway (44 Vt. 658) 208

V. Hathaway (46 Vt. 234) 208

V. Weeks (34 Mich. 237) 435

Hathewav's Appeal (52 Mich. 112) 854

Hathorn 'v. Eaton (70 Me. 219) 384, 409,

410, 411, 599

V. King (8 Mass. 371) 480

HathornthWaite v. Russell (2 Atk. 126) 509

Ilatorff i: Wellford (27 Giat. 350) 199

Hattatt V. Hattatt (4 Hagg. 211) 62

Hauensteins v. Lynhani (28 Grat. 62) 308

Haus V. Palmer (21 Pa. St. 296) 75, 83

Hause v. Haiise (57 Ala. 262) 259

Hauser v. Lehman (2 Ired. Kq. 594) 738

Hauteau's Succession (32 La. An. 54) 1051

Havaid v. Dayis (2 Binn 400) 80, 98, 112, 481

Havelick v. Havelick (18 Iowa. 414) 499

Haven v. Foster (14 Pick. 534) 86, 114

V. Hilliard (23 Pick. 10) 72

Havens v. Havens (1 Sandf. Ch. 321) 974

V. Sherman (42 Barb. 630) 1031

V. Thompson (26 N. J, Eq. 383) 1220

V. Van den Burgh (1 Denio, 27) 106

V. Sackett (15 N. Y. .365) 1016

V. Sherman (42 Barb. 636) 1034

Haverhill v. Cronin (4 Allen. 141) 856, 859

Haverstick's Appeal (103 Pa. St. 394) 901

Haverstick v. Trudel (51 Cal. 431) 346

Hawarden v. Dunlop (2 Sw. & Tr. 614) 407

Hawes v. Humphrey (9 Pick. 3.50) 103, 485

Hawk V. Geddis (10 Serg. & R. 23) 1065

Hawkins v. Blewitt (2 Esp 603) 123

V. Cunningham (67 Mo. 415) 1164, 1106,

1173

V Day (1 Amb. 160) 790
V. Hawkins (54 Iowa, 443) 75
r. Hewitt (56 Vt. 430) 7.30

V .Johnson (4 Blackf. 21) 415, 1044
V. Robinson (3 T B. Mon. 143) 532
V. Skeggs (10 Humph 31 ) 963

Hawlev Matter of (.36 Hun, 258) 332

In" re (100 N Y 206) 1130,11.32

Matter of (104 N. Y. 250) 332. 346, 504

V. Botsford (27 Conn. 80) 858, 1271

V. Brown (1 Root, 494) 70

V. .James (5 Pai. 318) 2-35. 236, 271, 728

V. Northampton (8 Mass. 3) 878

V. Singer (3 Dem. 589) 1145, 1140

Hawman v. Thomas (44 Md. 30) 891

Haworth's Appeal (105 Pa. St. 362) 1098

Hawpe V. Smith (*25 Tex. 448) 1077

Haxall V. Lee (2 Leigh, 207) 522

Havdel v. Hurck (72 Mo. 253) 878, 1101

HaVden v. Burch (9 Gill, 79) 1213

Ha"\'dock V. Haydock (33 N. J. Kq. 494) 47

HaVdon v. Roi^e (L. R. 10 Eq. 224) 881

Ha"yes, Kx parte (88 Ind. 1) 326

' Goods of (2 Curt. 3.^8) 85

V. Collier (47 Ala. 726) 527

TABLE OF CASES.

Ixxv

Hayes i- Haves (7o Ind 305) 522, ]2i);J

V Havfi (48 N. 11. 21!)) 3-12
,:. Lifiiiokkeii (48 Wis. 50!t) 41i4

Havinore v. i ^immissioiiers (85 N. C. 2G8) 84f;

Uayues c Bourn (42 Vt. G8G) 270

V. Colviii (lU Oil. 3'.)2) 1207

V Harris (33 Iowa, 510) 431
V. Matthews (1 Sw & Tr. 4G0) 522
V. Meeks(10(,'al. 110) 583

V Meeks (20 Cal 288) 330, 10!)0
V. Semmes (3!) Ark. 3',)!)) 505
V. Swaiiii (0 Heisk. .500) 1002

Haviiie V. Dukeiis (08 III 207) 271

Havs V. Bumnf;toii (2 liid 30;)) 173

'v. Cecil (10 Lea. 100) 376. 377

V. Cockrell (41 Ala. 75) 350, 1128

V. Harden (0 I'a. St. 409) 04

V. Ilelihanl (3 Hedf, 28) 978

V. Jaekson (6 Mass 149) 393

V. Miles (9 Gill & J. 193) 1071

V. Worshani (9 Lea, 591) 1082

Havt r. Barks (39 Conn. 357) 612

Havward e. llavward (20 Biek. 517) 639

'v. Blace (4"l)ein. 487) 394

ILivwood r, Mavwood (80 N. C. 42) 1021

Hazard v. Duraiit { 14 U. L 25) 1139

j;. EiiKs (14 U. L5) 1149

Hazen v. DuiTin- (2 N. J Eq. 133) 1133

Hazlett P. Bui-'^i^ (22 Iowa. 532) 1132, 11-33

Head's Siiecession (28 La. An. 800) 578

Head i'. Bridi^es (07 Ga. 227) .584

r. Snttoii (31 Kan. 010) 1142

Headlee v Cloud (51 INIo. 301) 301, 397, 3'.!8

Headley v. Kirbv (18 Ba. St. 326) 116, 118,

129
1077
968, 998,
999, 1000
196, 2ii8
1155
1009
856
9!tl

Headrick v Youiit (22 Kan. 344)
Healey u. Toppaii (45 N. H. 243)

Heard r. Downer (47 Ga. 629)

V. Drake (4 Grav, 514)

Hearle v. Greenbank (3 Atk. 695)

Hearn v Roberts (9 Lea, 305)

Hearne v. Kev'an (2 Ired. Eq. 34)

Heater v. Van Auken (14 N. J. Eq. 159) 898

Heath's Estate (58 Iowa, 36) 1125, 11'>1

Heath v. Alliii (1 A. K. Marsh. 442) 738

V. Beik (12 S. C. 582) 779

V. Bishop (4 Rich. Eq. 46) 957

V. Garrett (40 Tex. 23) ^^09

V Lavne (02 Tex. 686) 1031, 1055

V. Waters (40 Mich. 457) 284

V. Wells (5 Bick. 140) 1026, 10.39

V. White (5 Conn. 228) 157

Heaheringtou v. Lewenberg (61 Miss.

372) 989

Hea\ enridtce r. Nelson (.50 Ind. 90) 270

Hebb V. Hebb (5 Gill, 506) 1197

Hebden's Will (20 N. J. Eq. 473) 84

H-bcrt's Succession (33 La. An. 1099) 564
Hebert v. .lackson (28 La. An. 377) 577

Heck V. Clippenger (5 Ba. St. 385) 906

V, Heck (34 Oh. St. 309) 189

Heckert's Appeal (13 S. & R. 48) 1199

Hector v. Knox (63 Tex. 013) 204

Hedderich v Smith (103 Ind. 203) 600

Heddins; Church, Matter of (35 Hun. 313) 346
Hedenbers? r. Hedenbersj (46 Conn. 30) 303
Hedo-epetii r. Rose (95 N. C. 41 ) 1220

Hedi-es ;•. Hedijes (Brec. Ch. 209) 117

V. Norris (.32 N..I. Eq. 193) 991, 1247

Heed v. Ford (16 B. M n. 114) 236

Hecrmans v. Robertson (04 N. Y. 332) 1090
lletilelinger v. Georf;e (14 Tex. 56J) 1131

Heuanys Appeal (75 Ba. St. 503) 485, -502.

J 038
HcKcrich V. Keddie (99 N. Y. 258) 628

Ileidlebaugh v. Wagner (72 Iowa. GOl) 873
Heiliiiaii V. .Jones (5 Redf. 398) 499

Ilci>e V. Heise (31 I'a. St. 246) 9G

lleisler i\ Knife (1 Browne, ;U9) 826

Ileiss V. Miirphv (40 Wis. 276) 932

lleister's Appeal (7 I'a. St. 455) 1148

lleitkanip v. Biedensteiii (3 Mo. App.

4.0) 1051, 1127, 1133

Ikizer V. Heizer (71 Ind. 526) 638

Heller's Appeal (116 Ba. St. 534) 275

Heller v. Leisse (13 Mo. App. 1^0) 189

Hellerman's App< al (115 Ba. St. 120) 880

Hellmanii v. Welleukamp (71 Mo. 407) 651,

674

Helm V. Helm (30 Grat. 404) 200

V. Rookesby (1 Met. Ky. 49) 492

Helme v. Sanders (3 Hawks, 563) 363, 494,

673
Helms V. Love (41 Ind. 210) 1030, 1075

Helphenstein v. Meredith (84 Ind. 1) 242

Hel\-ar v. Helvar (1 Cas. Temp. Lee, 472) 98.

107, 484

Hemenwav v. Gates (5 Bick. 321) 845

Hemiup, in re (2 Bai. 316) 1002

Hemmeiiway v. Lynde (79 Me. 2^9) 5;t5

Ilemniiiig r. Gurrej' (2 Sim. iS: Stu. 311) 971

Hemphill r. Lewis (7 Bush, 214) 774

V. Moodv (64 Ala. 408) 992

Hemlershot 'v. Shields (42 N. J. Eq. 317) 873

Henderson v. Avers (23 Tex. 90) 787

V. Blackburn (104 111. 227) 729, 730

V. Buston (3 Ired. Eq. 359) 1009

r. Clarke (4 Litt. 277) 360, 536

V. Clarke (27 JIiss. 436) 1241

V. Henderson (1 .Jones L. 221) 902

t'. Henderson (04 Md 185) 901

V. Henderson (21 Mo. 379) 1254

V. lisle V (11 Sm. & M 9) 807, 844

V. Renfro (31 Ala. 101) 1207

V. Sherman (47 Mich. 207) 154

V. Simmons (33 Ala. 291) 1141. 1145,

1149, 1151

V. Whitinger (56 Ind. 131) 1074

r. Winchester (31 Miss. 290) 12-^5

Hendren v. Colgin (4 Munf. 231) 518, 525,

535, 642

Hendrick v. Cleaveland (2 Vt 329) 324

V. Mayfield (74 N. C. 626) 1248

Hendricks" v. Huddlestou (5 Sm. & M.

422) 332

r. Keesee (32 Ark. 714) 1268,1271

V. Biigh (.57 Miss. 157) 1032

V. Snodgrass (Walk. 86) 3!t4

V. Thornton (45 Ala. 2119) 740

Hendrickson v. Hendrickson (41 N. J. Eq.

375) 1043

Hendrix». Hendrix (46Tex. 6) 199

r. Seaborn (25 S. C. 481) 212

Henfrev r. Henfrev (4 Moo. B. C. 29) 504

Hengst's Appeal (24 Ba. St. 413) 738

Appeal (6 Watts. 86) 1222

Henry's Estate (65 Wis 551) 191

Succession (31 La. An. 5.55) 400

Henry v. Estev (13 Grnv, .336) 1195

V. Henrv (81 Kv. 342) 893

V. Keays (12 La. 214) 346

Ixxvi

TABLE OF CASES.

Henry v. McKerlie (78 Mo. 416) 1059, 1060,

1067, 1089, 1198

r. State (9 Mo. 778) 559, r2;il

Heiirv Co. v. Winnebago (52 111. 454) 9;51

Henschel v. Maurer (34 N. W. 926) 117

Henshaw v. Blood (1 Ma-ss. 35) 665

V. Miller (17 How. 212) 618, 625

Henslev v. Dodge (7 Mo. 479) 566

Hensloe's Case (9 Co. 37) 314, 316, 409

Hepburn's Appeal (65 Pa. St. 468) 608

Hepburn v. Hepburn (2 Bradf. 74) 679, 1002

Herald v. Harper (8 Bhickf. 170) 733

Herbert v. Berrier (81 Ind. 1) 65

V. Wren (7 Cranch, 370) 239, 258, 267,

500

Herlakenden's Case (4 Co. 62 a) 5!t7

Heron's Estate (G Phiia. 87) 516, 525

Heron v. Heron (2 Atk. 171) 986

Herr's Appeal (5 W. & S. 494) 612

Herrick v. Belknap (27 Vt. 673) 857

V. Grow (5 Wend. 579) 1047, 1055

V. Minneapolis R. R. (31 Minn. 11) 629

Herriman v. Janney (31 La. An 276) 556

Herring v. Wellons (5 Sm. & M 354) 855

Herrmann v. Fonteiieu (29 La. An. 502) 1054

Herrold v. Reen (58 Cal. 443) 198

Herron's Snccession (32 La. An. 835) 699

Hershey v. Clark (35 Ark. 17) 5fi

Herstei- v. Herster (116 Pa. St. 612) 32, 48

Hertell v. Bogert (9 Pai. 52) 387, 7-34

Hesketh v. Murphv (35 N. J. Eq. 23) 922

V. Murphv (36 N. J. Eq. 304) 922

Hester v. Hester (4 Dev. 228) 491

V. Hester (2 Ired. Eq. 330) 392, 938

V. Wesson (6 Ala. 415) 795

Hetfield v. Fowler (60 111 45) 999

Hethrington v. Graham (6 Bing. 135,

s. c. 19 Eng. C. L. 31) 226

Hettriek v Hettrick (55 Pa. St. 290) ]84

Heuser v. Harris (42 111. 425) 921, 931

Heustis V. Johnson (84 111. 61) 1122

Heward v. Slagle (52 111. 3-36) 356, 525

Hewes V. Dehon (3 Grav. 205) 1093, 1105

Hewett ». Bronson (5 Daly, 1) 760, 823

Hewitt's Apppal (53 Conn. 24) 340, 345

Will (91 N. Y. 261) 69

Hewitt V. Hewitt (3 Bradf. 265) 1033

r. Hewitt (5 Redf. 271) 69

Hewlett V. Wood (55 N. Y. 634) 42. 479

Hevdock v. Duncan (43 N H. 95) 435

HeVer's Appeal (34 Pa. St. 183) 1 180

Hibbard v. Kent (15 N. H. 516) 433

Hibbits V. .lack (97 Ind. 570) 963, 964

Hibbs V. Insurance Co. (40 Oh. St. 543) 268
Hihernia Savings Society v. Conlin (67

Cal. 178) 819

Hickev V. Hickev (26 Conn. 261) 2'!6

Hickman v. Hickman (74 Ga. 401) 1201

V. Irvine (3 Dunn, 121) 230

V. Kamp (3 Bush. 205) 669

Hickox V. Frank (102 111. 660) 358

Hicks ». Burnett (40 Ala. 291) 628

V. Chouteau (12 Mo. 341) 5.56

V. Forrest (6 Ired. Eq. 528) 1223

V. Gildersleeve (4 Abb. Pr. 1) 1214

V. Hicks (12 Barb. 322) 1203

V. .lamison (10 Mo. App 35) 782, 861

«. Pepper (1 Baxt. 42) 195,199

V. Willis (41 N. .1. Eq 515) 10.58

Hickv ?'. Dallmever (44 Mo 237) 674

Hidden, In re (23 Cal. 362) 810, 863

Tape

Hieschler, In re (13 Iowa. 597) 173

Higbie v. Westlake (14 N. Y. 281) 1194

Higgins's Trust (2 Giff. 5ii2j 792

Higgins V. Breen (9 Mo. 497) 223, 618, 625

V. Butler (78 Me. 520) 837

V. Carlton (28 Md. 115) 35, 46, 70, 72

V. Deven (100 111. 554) 883

V. Higgins (4 llagg. 242) 790

V. Scott (2 B. & Ad. 413) 1237

High's Appeal (21 Pa. St. 283) 1219

Highland r. Highland (109 111. 306) 66

Hight V. Taylor (97 Ind. 392) 859

Hignutt V. Cranor (62 Md. 216) 666, 680

Hildebrand s Appeal (39 Pa. St. 133) 176

Hildebrant e. Crawford (65 N. Y. 107) 832,

836

Hill's Estate (67 Cal. 218) 1156

Hill, Goods of (1 Robert. 276) 85

V. Alford (46 Ga. 247) 892

V. Barti-e (12 Ala. 687) 68

i\ Bell (Phillips L. 122) 79

V BiUingslv (53 Miss. Ill) 330, 1090
V. Bloom (41 N. ,1. Eq. 276) 1236
?•. Bowman (7 Leigh. 650) 905
V. Buckminster (5 Pick. 391) 794
i\ Buford (9 Mo. 869) 796, 1155
V. Burger (10 How. Pr. 264) 485
V. Franklin (51 Miss. 632) 195
V. Gomme (1 Beav. 540) 790
V. Hardv (34 Miss. 289) 345
V. Helton (80 Ala. .528) 833
V. Henderson (13 Sm. & M. 688) 423
V. Hill (32 Pa. St. 511) 173
V. Hill (42 Pa. St. 198) 175
t). Hill (74 Pa. St. 173) 949
V. Kessler (63 N. C. 437) 1076
V. Mitchell (5 Ark. 608) 218, 2.59
«j. Moore (1 Murph. 2.33) 1.-5
V. Nelson (1 Dem. 3,57) 1166
V. Rockingham Bark (45 N. H. 270) 896
V. Sewald (53 Pa. St. 271) 602
V. Stevenson (63 Me. -364) 119, 122
». Toms (87 N. C. 4'.'2) 1099
V. Townsend (24 Tex. 575) 640

V Treat (67 Me. 501) 294
V. Tucker (13 How. 458) 360, 676
V. Walker (4 Kav & J. 166) 788
V. Wentworth (28 Vt. 428) 603

Hillearv v. Hillearv (26 Md. 274) 254, 950

Hillebrant v. Burton (17 Tex. 138) 810

Hillgartner v. Gebhart (25 Oh. St. 557) 262

Hilliard, Ex parte (6 S. W. R. 326) 259

V. Binf.^rd (10 Ala. 977) 602

Hillis V. Hillis (16 Hun, 76) 946

Ilillman v.. Stephens (16 N. Y. 278) 715

Hills u. Mills (1 Salk.36) 406

Hillvard v. Miller (10 Pa. St. 326) 917

Hilton r. Briggs (54 Mich. 265) 1125

Ililvard's Estate (5 Watts & S. 30) 1006

Himes's Appeal (94 Pa. St. 381) 186

Hinchcliffe v. Hinchcliffe (3 Ves. 516) 975

V. Shea (103 N. Y. 153) 2-37. 247

Hinckley's Estate (58 Cal. 457) 911, 919,

928, 929, 9.30, 931

Estate (Mvr. 189) 324, 350

Hincklev v. Harriman (45 Mich. 353) 1232

V. Hincklev (79 Me. .320) 837

V. Probate 'Judge (45 Mich. 343) 1012

V. Thatcher (139 Mass. 477) 895

Hinde v. Whitebnuse (7 East, 558) 1082

Hinds V. Hinds (85 Ind. 312) 560

TABLE OP CASES.

IX)

Page

nine V. Iline (39 Barb. 507) 974

V. Hussv (45 Ala. 4im) 527

Hiiier v. Koiiii dii l.ac (71 Wis. 74) (323

Hiiu's V. Spruill (2 1). .V H. Kq. 9;j) 1104

lliiikle V. Shadduii ("2 Swan, 40) 308

Hinkley (). House of Refuge (40 Md. 401) 1)00

Hinsdale v. Williams (75 N. (,'. 4;j0) 216, 1077

Hinson u. Rush (4 Soulli. K. 410) 22!)

V. Ilinson («1 Kv. :]6;i) 1)88

V. Williamson (74 Ala. 180) 723, 738

Hinton v. HIand (81 Va. 588) 744

v: Hinton (0 Ired. !.. 274) 270

v. Milbiini (23 W. Va. 100) 873, 001

Hiscock V. Javcox (12 N. liankr. R. 507) 234

Hiscoeks V. Hiscocks (5 M. & W. 3G3) 8!)3

Rise V. FincluT (10 Ired. L. 139) 8i)

Hilcli y. Davis (3 Md. Ch. 200) 1005

Hitchcock V. Hitchcock (-35 I'a. St. .393) 878,

883

V. Marshall (2 Redf 174) 807

Hitchin v. Ilitehin (I'r. Ch. 133) 200

Hite's Estate (Mvr. 232) 1235

Hite y. Ilite (1 II. Mon. 177) 284

V. Snns (114 Ind. 333) 34

Hix V. Hix (25 W. Va. 481) 1157

Hoagland v. Sclienck (10 N. J. L. -370) 994

V. See (40 N. J. Eq. 409) 1 132

Hoak V. Hoak (b Watts, 80) 1216, 1223

Hoard v. Chnn (31 Minn. 18fi) 281

Hoare v. Osborne (L. R. 1 Eq. SS'.) 934

H.>back V. Hoback (33 Ark. 309) 199, 204

Hoban r. Piquette (.52 Mich. 340) 44, 47

Hobart r. Herrick (28 Vt. 027) 854

r. Hobart (02 X. Y. 89) 833

V. Turnpike Co. (15 Conn. 125) 358, 309,

074

Hobbs V. Grains (1 Ired. L. 3-32) 11.58, 1229

V. Middleton (1 J. J. Marsh. 170) 8(i0

». Russell (79 Kv. 01) 835

Hobsont'. Blaekburii (1 Add. 274) 50

V. Hale (95 N. Y. 588) 720

r. Pavne (45 III. 1.58) lO.JO

Hochstedier y. Hochstedler (108 Ind. 500) 878,

900, 902

Hockensmith v. Slasher (26 Mo. 237) 111, 893

Hocker's Estate (14 Phila. 659) 776

Hooker v. Gentry (3 Met. Kv. 463) 896, 983

Hodgdon V. White (11 N. H. 208) 841. 813

Hodge V. Hawkins (1 Dev. & B. Eq. 564) 1170

V. Hodge (72 N. C. 616) 1000

Hodges v. Powell (96 N. C. 64) 275

V. Thacher (23 Vt. 4.55) 854, 855, 1197

Hodgin V. Toler (70 Iowa, 21) 719, 721, 724

Hodnett v. Smith (2 Sweeney, 401) 475

Hodo V. Johnson (40 <ia. 439) 195

Hodsden r. Llovd (2 Br. C. C. 534) 26, 104

Hoe i\ Wilson (9 Wall. 501) 1002

Hoell i\ Blanchard (4 Des. 21) 559

Hoes r. Halsev (2 Dem. 577) 327, 348

Hoft's Ai)pcar(24 Pa. St. 200) 1105

Hoffman r. Gold (8 G. & .1. 79) 522

V. Hoffman (20 Ala. 535) 08

V. Wheelock (62 Wis. 434) 1029, 1083

I'. Wilding (85 III. 453) 1205

Hoffmann r. Neubaus (.30 Tex. 6.33) 196

Hogan r. Calvert (21 Ala. 194) 8-56

r. Curtin (88 N. Y. 102) 91)3

I'. Thompson (2 La. An. 538) 691

V. Wvman (2 Oreg. 302) 76. 411, 545

Hoge V. Hollister (2 Tenn. Ch. 606) 212

I' Junkiii (79 Va. 220) 1071

Pa-e

Hogeboom r. Hall (24 Wend. 146) 952

Hoghton V. Hoghton (15 Beav. 278) 49

llohman. In re (37 Hun, 250) 957

iloit .;. Hoit (40 N. J. E(j. 478) 9.59

v. lloit (42 N. .). E(|. 388) 9.59, 9(i0

Hoitt V. lloitt (03 N. H. 475) 89, 103, 109, 491

V. Webb (30 N. 11. 158) 1087

Hoke 17. Fleming (10 Ired. 203) 7;i3

V. Herman (21 Pa. St. 301) 973, 1)80

V. Hoke (12 W. Va. 427) 699, 939, 1158

Ilolbert's Succession (3 La. An. 436) 701,

1140

Holbrook V. Bentlev (32 Conn. 502) 553

v. Campan (22 Mich. 288) 570

r. McCleary (79 Ind. 107) 944

V. White (13 Wend. .591) 620, 043

r. Wightman (31 Minn. 108) 207

Ilolcomb r. Ilolcomb (11 N. .). Eq. 281) 1191

r. Lake (24 N. .L L. 08(i) 881

V. Lake (25 N. J. L. 005) 881

v. Phelps (16 Conn. 127) 650

V. Sherwood (29 Conn. 418) 345, 1245

Holcombe r. liokombe (13 N. ,J. Eq. 413) 738

V. Holcombe (29 N. .J. Eq. .597) 10()2

Holdefer v. Terfel (51 Ind. 343) 873

Holden v. Fletcher (0 Cush. 235) 1258

V. Meadows (31 Wis. 284) 42

I'. Pinnev (6 Cal. 234) 216

Holdfast V. Dowsing (2 Stra. 1253) 72

Hole V. Robbins (53^^ Wis. 514) 141

Holitield V. Robinson (79 Ala. 419) 913

Holland v. Alcock (108 N. Y. 312) 903. 909,

920, 928, 932

V. Cruft (3 Gray, 162) 1070

V. Crupt (20 Pick. 321) 127. 631, 1258

V. Ferris (2 Bradf. 334) 91

V. Fuller (13 Ind. 195) 283

V. Peck (2 Ired. E(i. 255) 930

V. Smvth (40 Hun, 372) 909

HoUenbeck v. Pixlev (3 Gray, 521) 165,

179, 768

Holley i: Adams (16 Vt. 206) 121

Hollidav V. HoUiday (38 La. An. 175) 1232

V. McKinne (22 Fla. 153) 631, 8-52

17. Wingtield (59 Ga. 206) 1217, 1218,

1219

Hollinger v. Hollv (8 Ala. 454) 857

V. Svms (37 X. J. F:q. 221) 34

HollingslK-ad v. Sturges (10 La. An. 334) 470

V. Sturgis (21 La. An. 4.50) 90

Hollings worth's Appeal (51 Pa. St 518) 112

Hollis V. Ilollis (4 Baxt. 524) 238

Hollister r. District Court (8 Oh. St. 201) 3-36

V. Shaw (46 Conn. 248) 879

Hollman r. Bennett (44 Miss. .322) 1038, 1040

r. Tigges (42 N. J. Eq. 127) 718

Hollowav V. St;;art (19 Oh. St. 472) 1073

HolmanV Hopkins (27 Tex. 38) 494

r. Nance (84 Mo. 474) 231

V. Sims (39 Ala. 709) 1147

Holmes, Petitioner (-33 Me. 577) -394

V. Beal (9 Cusli. 223) 1034

r. Bridgman (37 Vt. 28) 078

r. Cock (2 Barb. Ch. 426) 543, 545

V. Field (12 111. 424) 902

V. Holmes (28 Vt. 765) 642, 1147

V. Hcdmes (.36 Vt. 525) 8;)2

)•. .Tohns (.50 Tex. 41) 407

r. Kring{93 Mo. 452) 2-56

V. Mead (.52 N. Y. 332) 920, 928

V. Mitchell ;2 Murphv, 228) 868

Ixxviii

TABLE OF CASES.

Holmes v. Oregon R. R. (7 Sawv. 380)
V. Keinseii (20 Jdliii 2211)
V. Winchester (138 Mass. 542)
Holseii V. Kockhou-e (83 Ky. 233)
Holt V. Hoguii (5 Jones Kqr82)

V UUby (80 Me. 32U) 1238,
Helton r. Dalv (100 III. 131)

V. White (23 N. J. L. 330)
Holtzclaw r. Ware (34 Ala. 307)
Holvoke V. Haskins (5 Fick. 20) 330, 439

'v. Haskins (9 Pick. 2.59)
Holvoker v. jMutiiai L. Ins. Co. (22 Hun,

75)
Holziiian V. Hibben (100 Ind. 338)
Home V. Pringle (8 Clark & Fin. 264)
Homer's Appeal (35 Conn. 113)

Appeal (55 Pa. St. 337)
Homer v. Shelton (2 Met. 194) 999,

Homestead Assoc. i\ Ensloe (7 S. C. 1)
Honifrav, Goods of (L. R. 12 Prob. D.

138, note)
Hone V. Lockman (4 Redf. 61)

V. Van Schaick (3 N. Y. 538) 878.
Honevwood, Goods of (L. R. 2 P. & D.

251)
Hood, In re (104 N. Y. 103) 589, 1209,
Hood's Succession (33 La. An. 4G6)
Hood V. Haden (82 Va. 588) 900, 965,

V. Hood (85 N. Y. 561) 719,

Hook V. Bixbv (13 Kan. 104)

V. Dver (47 Mo. 214)

V. Hook (13 B. Mon. 528) 1218,

r. Pavne (14 Wall 252)
Hooker r'. Bancroft (4 Pick. 50)

V. Hooker (10 Sm. & M. 599)

V. Olmstead (6 Pick. 481)
Hooper v. Brvant (3 Yerg. 1)

V. (iorhain (45 Me. 209) 618,

V. Hardie (80 Ala. 114)

V. Hooper (29 W. Va. 276) 551,

688,

V. ^IcCiuarv (5 Coldw. 129)

V. Moore (5 Jones, 130)

V Rossiter (McCiel. 527)
V. Smith (57 Ala. 557)
V. Summersett (Wit,^htw. 16) 415

Hoopes V. Dundas (10 Pa. St. 75)
Hooton r. Head (3 Pliillim. 26)

V. Ramsom (6 !Mo. App. 19)
Hoover r. Maien (83 Ind. 195)

V. Miller (6 Jones, 79) 669,

Hope V. Jones (24 Cal. 89)

V. Wilkinson (14 Lea, 21) 1094, 1108,
Hopkins, In re (.32 Hun, 618)

r. Clavbrook (5 J. J. Marh. 234)

V. De'Graffenreid (2 Bay, 187)

V. Faeber (5 S. W. 749)

V. Ladd (12 R. I. 279)

V. Lontr (9 Ga. 261)

V. McCann (19 III. 113)

r. Stout (6 Bush, 375)

V. Towns (4 B. Mon. 124)

V. Van Valkenburtjh (16 Hun, 3)
Hopkinson r. Dumas (42 N. H. 296)
Hopper V. Fisher (2 Head, 253) 330,

V. McWhorter(18 Ala. 229)

V. Steele (18 Ala. 828)
Hoppin V. Hoppin (96 111. 265)
Hoppiss V. F:skridire (2 Ired. Eq. 54)
Hopple's Estate (13 Phila. 259)

Pase 1

503

377

201

94;)

1008

124it

622

883

1200

,569

330

441

433
1160

344
1033
1000

211

26

1187

899

486

12.52

1054

967,

973

1009

831

681

1221

1138

603

332

374

842

, 622

1037

5.58,

1184

78

506

10113

1123

, 423

963

99

817

1085

1116

1170

1109

1172

1234

474

834

1272

173

10.30

1029

417

10.30

235

1090

607

6;)5

263

518

44

Page
938
788
87
736
710
913

Hoppock V. Tucker (.59 N. Y. 202)
Hopton V. Dryden (Pr. Ch. 179) 787,

Hopwood V. flopwood (7 H. L. Cas 728)
Hord V. Lee (4 T. B. Mon. 36)
Horn V. Lockhart (17 Wall. ,57:))
Hornbeck v. Westbrook (9 John. 73)
Hornberger V. Hornberi,^er (12 Ileisk. 635) 934
Hornby, Ex parte (2 Bradf. 420) 880

Horne\-. Home (9 Ired. Eq. 99) 478

Horner v. Hasbrouck (41 Pa St. 169) 1045
V. Nicholson (50 Mo. 220) 676

Horrv v. Glover (2 Hill Ch. 515) 1001

Horsev v. Heath (5 Oh. 353) 287

Horskins v. Morel (T. U. P. Charlt. 69) 528
Horton v. Cantwell (108 N. Y. 255) 353

V. Carlisle (2 Disn. 184) 686

V Horton (2 Bradf. 200) 1061

Hosack r Rogers (0 Pai. 415) 787

V. Rogers (9 Pai. 401) 1176

V. Rogers (11 Pai. 003) 570

Hosford V. Wvnn (22 S. C. 309) 201

Hoskins v. Miller (2 Dev. 300) 516, .506

Hosmer v. Baer (5 La. An. 35) 740

Hosser's Succession (37 La. An. 839)
Hostetter's Appeal (6 Watts, 244)
Hostetterw. Schalk (85 Pa. St. 220)
Hostler «. Scull {2 Havw. 179)
Hotchkiss V. Beach (10 Conn. 232)
Hottell V. Browder (13 Lea, 676)
Hottenstein's Appeal (2 Grant Cas. 301)

Houck's Estate (17 Pac. 461)
Houck V. Houck (5 Pa. St. 273)
Hough V. Bailev (32 Conn. 288)

V. Harvev (71 III. 72)
Houghton V. Houghton (34 Hun, 212)

V. Kendall (7 Allen, 72)

i\ Watson (1 Dem. 299)
House V. House (10 Pai. 158)

V. Woodard (5 Coldw. 196)
Houston r. Deloach (43 Ala. 364)

V. Lane (62 Iowa, 291)
Hover v. Penn. R. R. Co. (25 Oh. St. 667)
Hovev V. Chase (52 Me. 304)

V. Hovey (61 N. H. 599)

V. Page (55 INIe. 142)
Howard v. American Society (49 Me. 288)

V. Carusi (109 U. S. 725)

V. Francis (30 N. J. Eq 444)

272,

14ti
574
836
424
855
951

811,

1156

10.33
722
693

1137
125
897

1014
603

1219
710
271
630
43
271
624

882,
929
948
731,

985, 1007, 1151

t'. Leavell (10 Bush, 481) 809

I'. Menifee (5 Ark. 668) 118

V. Moffatt (2 John. Ch. 206) 1015

V. Moore (2 Mich. 226) 1050

V. Moot (64 N. Y. 262) 22

V. Patrick (38 Mich. 795) 713, 8.34

V. Priest (5 Met. Miss. 582) 234, 289

V. Wofford (16 S. C. 148) 1098

V. Worrill (72 Ga. 397) 546

Howcott V. Coffield (7 Ired. L. 24) 621

V. Warren (7 Ired. L. 20) 621

Howe V. Dartmouth (7 Ves. 137) 998

V. ^NIcGivern (25 Wis. 525) 330

V. Merrick (11 Grav, 129) 835

V. Peabodv (2 Grav. 556) 554

V. Pratt (11 Vt. 255) 499

V. Searing (10 Abb. Pr. 264) 202. 293

r. Wilson (91 Mo. 45) 922, 928

Howell's Will (5 T. B. Mon. 199) 475

Howell V. Ashmore (22 N. J. L. 261) 252

TABLE OF CASES.

Ixxix

HowL-11 r. Harden (3 Dev. 442) 41K)

V. Ulo.l-ett (1 Kedf. :j-2;j) (iS4

V. Frv (I'J Oil. 81.550) 082

r. Ilo.iks (4 Irwl. K<|. 188) 9(17

V. Unwell C-il Mo 124) 081

V. Kiii-ht (100 X. ('. 2.-.4) 900, 'JOl

r. Metcalfe (2 Add. :i48) 40(i

V. Morelan (78 111. 102) 3.J4

V. I'otts (20 N. J. L. 1) 852

V. 'rmutman (8 .loiies L. 304) 45

V. I'vler ('.)1 N. C. 207) 108:!

V. Whiteliureh (4 Ilavw. 49) 497, hOO

Howland v. Dews (K. M.'Chailt. 383) 420

r. Green (108 Mass. 277) 355

V. Heekscher (3 Sandf. Ch. 519) 12-i(J

V. Howland (11 Grav, 4G9) 878, H'M',

Howze i: Howze (2 S. C. 229) 215

Hoxie V. CaiT (1 Sumn. 173) 290

Hovsrodt V. Kintjman (22 N. Y. 372) 08

Hoyt (' I5onnett'(.50 N. Y. 5-i8) 812

V. Davis (21 Mo. App. 235) 231

V. Dav (.32 Oh. St. l(tl) 718

V. IloVt (85 N. Y. 142) 988, 989, 1098

V. .laques (129 Mass. 280) 7.32

r. Newbold (45 N. .1. L. 219) 445, 402

V. Sprai?ue (103 U. S. 013) 285

Hulihard V. Alexander (L. H. 3 Cli. D.

738) 970

r. Rarciis (.38Md. 175) 518

V. liiigbee (o8 Vt. 172) 607

r. (Joodwin (3 Leisrli, 492) 302. .305

f. Hubbard (16 Ind. 25) 787

r. Iliibbanl (8 N. Y. 190) 85

V. Hubbard (7 Oreg. 42) 35, 47, 499

r. Hubbard (15 Q. B. 227) 8.i4

v. Llovd (0 Cush. 522) 8 lO

f. Smith (45 Ala. 516) 570

V. Wood (15 N. H. 74) 161, 189

Hubbell V. Fosrartie (1 Hill, S. C.,L.107) 422

Hubble V. Foii:artie (3 Rich. 413) 414, 415

Huber v. Molin (.37 N. .1. Eq. 432) 937

Hiickabee r. Swoope (20 Ala. 491) 952

Huckstep's Estate (5 Mo. App. 581) 571

Hudgens r. Cameron (50 Ala. .379) 1003

Huds,.n r. Breeding (7 Ark. 445) 803

V. Hudson (20 Ala. .364) .330

V. Stewart (48 Ala. 204) 208, 210

Huff V. Watkins i20 S. C. 477) 617, 624

Hufman-s Appeal (81 Pa. St. 320) 190

Huggins r. Hu-gins (71 Ga. 66) 1215

v. Toler (1 Bush. 192) 623

Hughes's Appeal (57 Pa. St, 179) 1213, 1216,

1220

Succession (14 La. An. 863) 1148

Hughes, In re (95 N. Y. 55) 362, 375, 370

V. Bovd (2 Snecd, 512) 902

V. Burriss (85 Mo. 060) 501

V. Dalv (49 Conn, .34) 928

V. Fmi)son (22 Beav. 181) 6)2

r. Knowlton (-37 Conn. 42 ^ 8)8

r. Martha (32 N. J. Eq. 288) 46

r. Watson (10 Oh. 127) 251

Hughev n. Eichelberger (11 S. C. 36) 1222

V. Sidwell (18 B. Mon. 259) 469, 499

Hugo, Go-ds of (L. R. 2 P. D. 73) 58

Hule i". McConnell (2 Jones L. 455) 76

H-.iling V. Fenner (9 R. I. 410) 904, 906

Hull r. Hull (24 N. Y. 647) 918

r. .Tones (10 Lea, 100) 847

r. Rnwls (27 i\Iiss. 471) 224

Hulse's Estate (12 Phila. 130) 12-30

P.i-e
Hulsc's Will (.52 Iowa, 662) 70

Humbert v. Wurster (22 Hun. 405) 410

Humes v. Scruggs (04 Ala. 40) 246, 259

V. Wood (8 Pick. 478) 980

Ilumphrev's Will (20 N. .J. Eq. 513) 4-3, 47
Humiilirev v. Bullen (1 Alk. 458) 516

r. .MJrritt (51 Ind, 197) 599

Ilumphrevs v. Humphrevs (2 Cox, 184) 980

r. Keith (11 Kan. 1(")8) 1248

f. Tavlor (5 Or. 200) 714

Humphrie's i-. Davis (100 Ind. 274) 141

Hunt's Appeal (105 Pa. St. 128) 727

Fstate (15 Phila. 511)
Hunt r. Bass (2 Dev. i:(|. 292)

V. Butterworth (21 Tex. 1.33)

r. Danforth (2 Curt. 592)

v. Drane (32 Miss. 243)

V. Fowler (121 111. 209)

702

6-32

856

414, 419

919, 921,92.3,

929, 931

337

V. Grant (19 Wend. 90)

r. Hamilton (9 Dana, 90) 406

r. Hapgood (4 Mass. 117) 1245

r. Hunt (119 Mass. 474) 124

r. Hunt (11 Met. (Mass.) 88) 881

V. Hunt (3 B. Mon. 575) 41

V. Hunt (4 N. H. 434) 61

V. .Tohnson (10 B. Mon. 342) 889

V. .Johnson (44 N. Y. 27) 609

V. Sneed (64 N. C. 176) 1123

Hunter's Succession (13 La. An 2.57) 212
Hunter v. Brvson (5 G. & .]. 483) 359, 370,

406

r. French (86 Tnd. 320) 1033

r. (iardonbire (13 Lea, 6.58) 483

r. Hailett (1 Edw, Cb, 388) 642

r. Hunter (19 Barb. 631) 740

r. Hustcd (Busb, Eq. 97) 1217

V. Law (08 Ala, 365) 103

V. Lawrence (11 Grat. Ill) 387

v. Wallace (13 Up. Can Q. B. -385) 427

Hunters v. Waite (3 Grat. 20) 609

Huntington v. Finch (3 Oh. St. 445) 331

Hurd r. Slaten (43 III. 348) 340

Hurford V. Haines (67 Md. 240) 1009

Hurlburti;. Wheeler (40 X. H.73) 1123, 1136

Hurleman v. Hazlett (55 Iowa, 256) 276

Hurlev's Estate (12 Pbila. 47) 190

HurleV V. Barnard (48 Tex. 83) 330

i\ Hamilton (.37 Minn. 160) 1244

V. O'Sullivan (1.37 Mass. 86) 110

Hum V. Keller (79 Va. 415) 1022

Hurst r. Beach (5 Madd. 351) 971, 972, 981

Hurste v. Hotaling (20 Neb. 178) 258

Husbands v. Bullock (1 Duv. 21) 185

Huson r. Wallace (1 Rich. Eq. 1) 691

Hussev V. Coffin (1 Allen, .3.54) 578

r.' White ( 10 Ser<r. & R. 346) 792

Husson r. Neil (41 Ind. 504) 28.1

HusteiPs Appeal (34 Conn. 488) 1198

Huston's Appeal (9 Watts, 472) 1"07

Hutchcraft v. Tilford (5 Dana. 353) 677, 791

Hutcherson v. Pigg (8 Grat. 220) 1142

Hutcboson v. Priddv (12 Grat. 85) .396

Hutchins r. Adams"(3 INIe. 174) 620

V. Brooks (31 Miss. 430) 1077

V. Smith (31 Jliss. 430) 095

Hutchinson's Appeal (34 Conn. SCO) 11 ''5

Hutchinson v. Lenicke (107 Tnd. 121) 2';3. 1074

V. Reed (1 HnfTm. Ch. N. Y. 316) 64.5. 055

V. Roberts (67 N. C 223) 1123

V. Stiles (3 N. H. 404) 1207

]xxx

TABLE OF CASES.

Ilulton V. Tluttnn (40 N. J. Eq. 4G1) 12:;8

r. llutton (;5 Vn. St. l()(t) 2G5, (ill

r. Williams (60 Ala. 107) ll-'«

Huxford V. MilliKUii (50 Iiid. 542) HI 5

Huxtun, In re (102 N. Y. 157) 838, lO-'O,

1033, 1035, 1038

Hyatt V. Lunnin (1 Dem. 14) 43

V. McBuriiev (18 S. C. 190) 700, 733

Hvde's Estate ((J4 Cai. 228) 400

Hvde V. Haldwin (17 I'itk. 303) 500, OOO

' V. Easter (4 Md. Ch. 80) 285

V. Hvde (1 Eq. Cas. Abr. 409) 90

V. llVde (Free. Ch. 310) 24

Hver V. Morehouse (20 N. .1. L. 125) 1130

HVland V. Baxter (98 N. Y. 6J0) 324, 340,

1153
Hvlton V. Hvlton (1 Grat. 161) 98

Hvinan v. Gaskins (5 Ired. L. 267) 440, 494.

495

V. Jarnisan (65 N. C. 96) 1034, 10G2

Hvneman's Estate (11 Phila. 135) 1144

HVnes V. McCreerv (2 Dem. 1-58) 1199

H'yzer v. Stoker (3 B. Mon. 117) 257

laege v. Bossieux (15 Grat. 83) 239

leclv V. Grew (6 Nev. & Man. 467) 424

Idlev V. Uowen (11 Wend. 227) 90, 480, 481
lirlehart v. Kirwan (10 Md. 559) 873

I'hmsen's Appeal (43 Pa. St. 431) 707

Ikelheimer v. Chapman (.32 Ala. 676) 694

Ilchester, Ex parte (7 Ves. .348) 10(i

Ilsrenfritz's Appeal (5 W^atts, 25) 149

Hiinois C. R. R. v. Cragin (71 111. 177) 3(i9,
.398, 441, 565
Indianapolis v. Grand Master (25 Ind.

518) 9:«

Insre V. Murphy (U Ala. 289) 256

Inirham v. White (4 Allen, 412) 609

lu'de V. Jones (9 Wall. 486) 393

Inglis V. Sailors' SnugHarbor (3Pet. 93) 920,

923
Ingraham v. Rogers (2 Tex. 464) 1125

Ingrnm v. Ingram (5 Heisk. 541) 10.39

' r. Morris (4 Harr. Ill) 239, 245

V. Strong (2 Phillim. 2;)4) 55

Ingrem v Mackey (5 Redf. 357) 727

Iiiman v. Foster (69 Ga. 385) 1084

Jii re . For cases under ''In re,"

see the names of the parties.
Insurance Co. v. Lewis (97 U. S. 682) 397
International R. R. Co. v. Timmermann

(61 Tex. 660) 217

Ipswich Co. V. Story (5 Met. Mass. 310) 652

Irbv I'. Graham (46 Miss. 425) 287

" r. Kitchell (42 Ala. 438) 705

Iredale v. Ford (1 Sw. & T. 305) 529

Ireland v. Fonst (3 Jones l':q. 498) 1019

V. Ireland (12 Atl. 184) 2.53

Irish V. Nutting (47 Barb. 370) 120

V. Smith (8 Serg. & R. 573) 42, 479

Ironmongers' Co. r. Attorney General (10

CI. & Fin. 908) ' 927,931

Irons V. Irons (5 R. T. 264) 828

V. Sinallpiece (2 B. & Aid. 551) 124

Irvin V. Bond (41 Ga. 630) 3.56

V. Newlin (63 Miss. 192) 902

Irwin's Appeal (33 Conn. 128) 494

Appeal (35 Pa. St. 294) 738

Succession (33 La. An. 63) 974, 983

Irwin V. Backus (25 Cal. 214) 866

Irwin r. Brooks (19 S. C. 96) 260

I'. Zane (15 W. Va. 046) 882

Isaacs's Estate (-30 Cal. 105) 1167

Isenhart v. Brown (1 Edw. Ch. 411) 272

V. Brown (2 Edw. Ch. 341) 1006

Isham V. Gibbons (1 Bradf. 69) 374

Isler r. Isler (88 N. C. 581) 1016

Ison V. Ison (5 Rich. Eq. 15) 1218, 1219

Israeli v. Rodon ("2 Moore P. C. 51) 106

Ivers V. Ivers (61 Iowa, 921) 835

Iverson t\ Loberg (26 III. 179) 329

Ives V. Allyn (12 Vt. 589) 41 2

v. Pierson (1 Freem. Ch. 220) 1078

V. Salisburv (.56 Vt. 565) 493

Ivev r. Coleman (42 Ala. 409) 699, 704

Iviiis's Appeal (106 Pa. St. 176) 903, 905

Izard V. Izard (Bailev lv\. 228) 610

V. Izard (2 Desaus. 308) 897

V. Middleton (1 Desaus. 116) 57

Izon V. Butler (2 Price, 34) 936

.Tack's Appeal (94 Pa. St. 367) 708
Jack t'. Sehoenberger (22 Pa. St. 416) 112

Jackman's Will (26 Wis. 104) 46. 48

Jacks V. Bridewell (51 Miss. 881) 829, 834

V. Dyer (31 Ark. 334) ' 254

V. Henderson (1 Desaus. 543) 54, 55

Jackson r. Bctts (6 Cow. 377) 481

V. Billinger (18 John. 368) 949

V Bmieham (15 John. 226) 446

r. Burtis (14 John. -391) 716

V. Chase (98 Mass. 286) 700

r. Chew (12 Wheat. 1.53) 949

V. CAaw (18 John. .346) 223

r. Coggin (29 Ga. 403) 897

V. Dewitt(6 Cow. 316) 244

V. Durland (2 John. Cas. 314) 75

V. Edwards (7 Pai. 386) 242

V. Etz (5 Cow 314) 446

V. Ferris (15 John. 346) 393

r. Gilchrist (15 John. 89) 248

V. Given (16 John. 107) 516

V. Haliidav (3 Redf. 379) 1040

V. Hardin "(83 Mo. 175) 31, 37, 46

V. Hartwell (8 John. 422) 913

V. Hollowav (7 John. 394) 93

V. Hurlock"(l Amh. 487) 112
V. Jackson (28 Miss. 674) 1214, 1217,
1221, 1222

V, .Tackson (4 Mo. 210) 484

V. Jeffries (1 A. K. iMarsh. 88) 392

V. Johnson (5 Cow. 74) 276

V. Kip (8 N. J. L. 241) 951

V. Kniffen (2 John. 31) 90.491

V. Le Grange (19 John. 386) 473, 501

V. j\Li£rruder (51 Mo. 55) 1043

v. Maiin (15 John. 2.03) 92

V. Paulet (2 Rob. Ecc. 344) .503
V. Phillips (14 Allen, 539) 919, 926. 927,
9.30, 931

V. Potter (9 .Tohn. 312) 102, 113

V. Reid (32 Oh.S^ 44-3) 211

V. Reynolds (39 N. J. Eq. 313) 1125, 1130

V. Roberts (14 Grav. 546) 9.37, 938

V. Robins (16 .John. 537) 874

V. Robinson (4 Wend. 436) 735, 1024

V. Schauber (7 Cow. 187) 882

v. Sellick (8 John. 262) 277

V. State (8 Tex. App. 60) 260

V. Vanderheyden (17 John. 167) 254

TABLE OF CASES.

Ixxxi

Pa Re

Jackson r. Vickorv (1 Wond. 400) 473

V. Walsh (14 .■(ohii. 407) 7i).-J

V. Weavi-r ('J8 Iriil. .•i()7) lO-':i

r. WestiTliuKl (01 How. I'r. .39!)) UM

V. Woods (1 John. Ciis. ](i:j) 7.^

Jacksonville Co. v. Chappcll {±2 Fla. GIO) (l-'-i

Jacob'.s Appeal (23 I*a. St. 477) iiUl

Jacobs r. 15radlcv (.-{fl Com). W:,) UUi

V. Morrow (21 Neb, 2;3:j) C.53, l-_'i).S

V. Pou (18 Ga. ;J4fi) 1247

V. Woodsidc (G S. C. 490) .391, 653, (!r,4

Jacobson V. Le Gvanfje (3 John. 199) 824

Jacobus V. Jacobus (20 N. J. Kq. 49) 35.j

r. Jacobus (37 N.J. Va\. 17) 711

Jacot I'. Emmet (11 I'ai. 142) 1137

Jacquin v. Huisson (11 How. I'r. 385) 282, 283

V. Davidson (49 111. 82) 83G

Jaggers v. Estes (2 Strobh. Eq. 343) Gl

Jahier v. Kascoe ^G2 Miss. G99) 379

Jahns V. Nolthifj (29 Cal. 507) G20

Jakolete v. Danielson (13 Atl. 8.50) 1218

Jalliffe r. Fannint; (10 Rich. 180) .502

James's Estate (23 Cal. 415) 214, 1075

Estate (65 Cal. 2.5) 1008,1010

James v. A.lams (22 How. Pr. 409) 564, .563

V. Christy (18 Mo. 162) 620

r. Dixon" (21 Mo. .538) 231, 5.59

r. Dunstan (38 Kan. 289) 269

V. Kaulk (54 Ala. 184) 10.55

V. Hacklev (16 John. 273) 7.36

v. James (55 Ala. ,52-0 1083

r. James (76 N. C. 331) 1217

r. Marcus (18 .\rk. 421) 231

V. Marvin (3 Conn. 576) 100

r. Matthews (5 Ircd. Eq. 28) 1132

V. Wingo (7 Lea, 148) 677

V. Withinton (7 Mo. App. 575) 1132

Jameson r. Hall (37 Md. 221) 468

I. Martin (3 J. J. Marsh. 3-30) 792

Jamison c. Jamison (-J Houst. 108) 36

V. Mil ird (12 Lea, 690) 1180

V. Mav (13 Ark. 600) 607

Janes v. IJrnwn (48 Iowa, 568) 1267

V. Throckmorton (57 Cal. 368) 727

V. Williams ;31 Ark. 175) .501

Janin v. Browne (59 Cal. .37) 680, 687

Jansen e. Biirv (Bunb. 157) 148

Janssen v. Wemple (3 Redf. 229) 3;i2

Jaques r. Horton (76 Ala. 2-38) 89, 92, 480,

483, 495

Jarman v. Jarman (4 Lea, 671) 205, 212, 268

V. Vve (L. R. 2 Eq. 784) 881

Jarnigan r. Janiigan (12 Lea, 292) 128

Jarvis v. Quiglev (10 B. Men. 104) 901

V. Russick ("12 Mo. 63) 10.57

Jauncev v. Thorne (2 Barb. Ch. 40) 473

Jayiie v. Boisgerard (39 Miss. 796) 1080

Jell'ersonville R. R. Co. v. Hendricks (41

Ind. 48) 6.30

V. Swavne (26 Ind. 477) 440, 581

Jeffs I'. Wood (2 P. Wms. 128) 1237

Jelks V. Barrett (52 Miss. 315) 724. 1037, 1082

Jelly r. Elliott (1 Ind. 119) 186

Jeuiison v. Gaston (31 Ark. 74) 1047

Jenckes i'. Smithticid (2 R. I. 255) 34

Jenison v. Hapuood (7 Pick. 1) 1122

Jenkins's Wiir(43 Wis. 610) 475

Jenkins r. Drane (121 III. 217) ^r,l^

V. French (58 N. H. 532) 617, f;25

V. FVever (4 Pai. 47) 8)6

V. Gaisford (3 Sw. & Tr. 93) G3

VOL. I.—/

Jenkins r. Hall (4 Jones Eq. .334)
r. Ilanahan (2 Cheves, 12i))
c. Holt (109 Mass. 261)
r. .Icnkins (2 Dana, 102)
V. Jenkins (63 Ind. 120)
V. Jenkins (96 N. C. 254)
V. Long (23 Ind. 460)
V. Stetson (9 Allen, 128)
V. Tucker (1 H. Bl. 90)
V. Wood (134 Mass. 115)
Young (35 Hun, 569

Pafffi

8!J8

966

264

224

821, 805

900

336

69

762

435

1029, 1031, 1037

Jenks V. Houland (3 Gray, .536) 1245

r. Terrell (73 Ala. 2.!8) 1152, 11.55

V. Trowbridge (48 Mich. 94) 145

Jenness v. Carleton (40 Mieh. 343) 281

V. Robinson (10 N. H. 215) 1033

Jennings r. Copeland (90 N. C. 572) 1143

V. Davis (31 Conn. 1.34) G12

V. Jenkins (9 Ala. 285) 1043

V. Jennings (21 Oh. St. ,56) 273

r. Monks (4 Met. Kv. 103) 622

1'. Teatrue (14 S.C. 229) 719

JemiisoiLf. Hapgood (10 Pick. 77) 7G1, 1151

1152, 11.59. 1163,1164

Jermain r. Lake S. R. R. (91 N. Y. 483) 1004

Jesse V. Parker (0 Grat. 57) 71

Jessup I'. Smuch (16 Pa. St. 327) 9.50

Jeter v. Barnard (42 Ga. 4.3) 356

1'. Tucker (1 S. (\ 245) 42

Jett V. Bernard (3 Call, 11) 988

Jewett )•. .lewett (10 (Jrav, 31) lOoO

r. Weaver (10 Mo. 234) 620. 815

Jiggitts V. Bennett (31 Miss. 610) 347

' V. Jiggitts (40 Miss. 718) 247, 259

Jinkins v. Sapp (3 Jones, 510) 579

Jocelyn v. Nott (44 Conn. 55) 920

Jochiimsen-y. Suffolk Sav. Bank (3 Allen,

87 448, 450, 453

Johannes r". Y'oungs (45 Wis. 445) 1120

John V. Bradbury (97 Ind. 203) 948, 949

V. Tate (7 Humph. 388) 1149

Johns r. Caldwell (00 Md. 259) 1195

r. Fenton (88 Mo. 64) 258, 274

V. Hod-es (00 Md. 215) 3.50

V. Hodges (02 Md. .525) 468

V. Norris (22 N. J. Eq. 102) 1085

r. Norris (27 N. J. Eq. 485) 1085

Johnson's Appeal (88 Pa. St. 346) 140

Estate (57 Cal. 529) 38, 40

Estate (:Myr. 5) 79

Est.ite (ll'Phila.83) 1189

Will (40 Conn. .587) 90, 481, 491

Johnson v. Ames (0 Pick. 3.30) 286

r. Ames (11 Pick. 173) 646

r. P.aker (2Car. & P. 207) 701

r. Baker (3 Murphv.olS) 941

V. Beardslee (15 John. 3) 730

V. Beazlev (65 Mo. 250) 325, 330, 439,

1054, 1080

V. Belden (20 Conn. 322) 1216, 1218,1223

V. Brady (24 (Ja. 131) 041, 774

V. Brailsford (2 Nott & IMcC. 272) 90

V. Bridgewater Manuf. Co. (14 Gray,

r4)

633
811
556, 10.30
1044
173, 18-3, 180.
738, 1156, 1158
V. Corpenning (4 Ired. Eq. 216) 571

V. Gushing (is N. H. 298) 656

V. Brown (2.5* Tex. 120)
r. Clark (18 Kan. 1.57)
V. Collins (12 Ala. 322)
r. Corbett (11 Pai. 265)

Ixxxii

TABLE OF CASES.

Ji.hn'^on i\ Dunn (fi Grat. C25)
V. Farrell (G-4 N . C. 260)
V. Frv (1 Cdldw. 101)
V. Inuiuav (I Dana, 514)
,?. GaithJr (Harp. U)
■». Gavloid (-il I""':'' '^*'2)
V. Giriett(5-2 HI. 358)
«. Goss (128 Mass. 433)
V. Hamilton 2 La. An. 206)
V. Harrison (41 Wis. 381)
V. Henagan (11 S. C. 93)
V. Henrv (12 Heisk. 6%)
V. Hogan (37 Tex. 77)
V. HoliHeld (79 Ala. 423)
V. Hoi i field (82 Ala. 123)
V. HoHidav (68 Ga. 81)
r. Hovle (3 Head, 56)
V. Hubbell (10 N. J. Kq. 332)
V. Jackson (-56 Ga. 326)
V. .Tolmson (40 Ala. 247)
V. Johnson (4 Beav. 318)
V. Johnson (2 Harr. 273)
■P.Johnson (106 Ind. 475)
V. Johnson (1 McM. Eq. 34-0 )
V. Johnson (23 Mo. 561)
V. Johnson (:iOxMo.72)

728

Vn'if

472

1104

472

549, 554

419

200, 1077

789, 821

96(

1054

203, 211

1145, 1148

187

7 15, 749

921, 934

944, 946

lo;i4

12 i 8

58

371

331, 10.34

883

1190

68

897

264

224

Jon

Page

,es r. Chase (55 N.. H. 234) 054

,-. Ches.&O. K.R. (14W.Va.514) 953

,■. Clifton (101 U. S. 225) « 0

r. (■ole(2lJai. 330) 81«

V. Commercial Hank (78 Ky. 413) 1267
V. Coon (5 Sm. & M. 751 '^26, -i-K)

v. Creveling (19 N. J. L. 127) 969, 970,

V. Johnson (26 Oh. St. 3.57) 331, 332, 11-0

V. Johnson (15 K. I. 109) 5 6

r. Johnson (5 S. K K. 620) <13

V. Johnson (41 Vt4(J7) 17-. 1.8

V. Johnstone (12 Kich. Eq. 2y9)

V. Lawrence (95 N. \ ■ 154)

V. Longmire (39 .\la. 143)

V. Mavne (4 Iowa, 180)

V. Mei-ithew (13 Atl. 132)

V. Miller (33 Miss. 553)

V. Patterson (13 Lea, 626)

V. Perkins (1 Baxt. 367)

V. Robertson (7 Blackf. 425)

V. Sharp (4 Coldw. 45)

V. Smith (1 Ves. Sen. 314)

V. Valentine (4 Sandf. .36)

V. Van Velsor (43 Mich. 208)
V. Von Kettler (66 111. 63)

t>. Waters (111 U. S. 640)

V. Wells (2 Hagg. 561)
Johnston's Estate (9 W cV S. 107)
Johnston v. Davenport (42 Ala. -ii-l)

V. Duncan (07 Ga. 61)

V. Fort (30 Ala. 78)

V. Glasscock (2 Ala. 218)

V. Johnston (1 Phillim. 447)

V. Lewis (Hice Eq. 40)

r. Morrow (28 X.J. Eq. 327)

V. Smith (25 Hun, 171)

V. Spicer (107 N. Y. 185)

r. Tatum (20 Ga. 775)

V. Thompson (5 Call. 248)

V. Turner (29 Ark. 280)

V. Vandyke (6 McLean, 422)

905

1175

351

929

445, 447, 832

1139

1214, 1218

1079

190

28

125, 126

949

2.53, 275 I

866, 1249

845

Jnllv V. Lofton (61 Ga. 1-54)
Jones's Accounting (103 Is. \ . 621)
Appeal (3 Grant Cas. 169)
Appeal (8 W. & S. 143)
Jones, In re (1 Redf. 263)
V. Bacon (68 Me. 34)
V. Barrett (-30 Tex. 6-37)
V. Bittinger (110 Ind. 476)
„. Brown (34 N. H. 4-39)

V. Caperton (15 La. An. 475)

106

698

180'

269

1197

499

105

7.50

68

441. 461

608, 642

3;»6

7241

208

241, 242,

261

215

68:)

8

7.38

867, 11''

948

140

531

118, 121, 123

971

390

1239

122, 685

12)8

96

833

242. 2.53

1062, 1080

720

::G;ah;^^^^6i;k.w^;o^,ii2MiS

V. Habersham (107 U. S. 1 - 4) 911, 920

V. Hart (62 Miss. 13) 200

V. Hartlcv (2 Whart. 103) 86

V. Head (1 La. An. 200) 10' 7

V. Hooper (2 Dem. 14) 34 J

V. Hughes (27 Grat. 550) ^'^

r..Jonls(.i7Ala.646) 940

V Jones (42 Ala. 218) 1049, 1197
Jones 28 Ark. 19) 22.3, 2,59, 260, 124<

V. Davies (5 H. & N. 766)

r. Dexter (8 E la. 276)

V. Oever (16 Ala. 221)

t. Dver (20 Ala. 373)

r. Earle (1 Gill, 395)

t. East Soc. (21 Barb. 161)

v. Fleming (104 N. Y. 418)

V. French (92 Ind. 138)

r. Fulghum (3 Tenn Ch. 193)

v. (iofdon (2 Jones Eq. 352)

87

1120

64, 78

873

1213

829

898

840

526, 556

245

729

V. Jones (2 Dev. Eq. 387)
r. Jones (41 Md. 354)
V. Jnnes (3 Met. Ky. 266)
V. Jones (25 Mich. 401)
V. Jones (2 Murphy, 1.^0)
r. Jones (21 N.H. 219)
,;. Jones (13 N.J. Eq. 236)

V. Jones (41 Oh. St. 417)

V. Jones (12 Rich. 623)

r. Jones (64 Wis. 301)

V. Jones (66 Wis. 310)

V. Jukes (2 Ves. 518)

V. Keep (23 Wis. 45)

V. Lackland (2 Grat. 81)

V. Le Baron (3 Dem. 37)

V. Lightfoot(10 Ala. 17)

r. Lock (L. R. 1 Ch. App. 25)

V. IVIcLellan (76 Me. 49)

V. McNeill (1 Hill S. C. 84)

V. Manlv (58 Mo. 559) 25

V. Mason (5 Rand. 577) 9

V. Mitchell (1 Sim. & Stu. 290)

11 IMoroan (6 La. An. 630)

::Murphv (8 Watts&S.275) 98,481,483

V. Oliver -(3 Ired. Eq. 369) 904

842

647

1151

805

122

490

694

1060

1, 980

944

609

287

Perrv (10 Yerg. 59)
v. Price (3 Des. 165)
r. Reid(12 W. Va.350)
V. Richardson (5 Met. 247)
V. Ritter (-56 Ala. 270)
V. Robinscm (78 N. C 396)
V. Selbv (Prec. Ch. 300)
V. Shevvmaker (35 Ga. 151)
,,. StitesdON. J. Eq. 324)
V. Swift (12 Ala. 144)
V. Tavlor (7 Tex. 240)
V. Tibbetts (75 Me. 572)
V. Walker (103 U. S. 444)
V. Ward (10 Yerg. 160)
v. Warnock (67 Ga. 484)
V. Wilkinson (3 Stew. 44)
V. Williams (Amb. 651)
V. Williams (2 Call, 102)

1038

942

Gil

435, 664

549

878, 884

123, 126

86

999

1241

1067

76

689

1139, 1153

1077

791

919

1159

TABLE OF CASES.

Ixxxiii

Jordan v. Ball (44 Miss. 194) 51G, 530, 5:il
r. Hniwn (72 (la. 4;).-)) »44

r. Clark (Ui X. .1. Va\. 243) lOOi)

V. Imtluini (.Jl Tc.\. 270) J'-tH

r. Jordan (G-J Ala. 301) (il»

V. I'olk (1 SncLil. 430) 400

V. I'ollnck (14 (la. 145) G72

V. Strickland (42 Ala. 315) 2](!

Joseph, (J Is of (1 Curt. 'J07) 41)(;

e. Mott (I'riT. Cii. 79) 785

Joslin r. Couiclilin (20 IMiss. 134) 694, 690

Jourdan v. Jourdan (1( S. .& K. 208) 252

Jovce V. Hamilton (111 Ind. 1G3) 1214, 1219,

1224

Jovner v. Cooper (2 Bai. 199) 5.50, 553

Ju"lnv of I'robate v. Claggctt (36 N. H.
381)

Judsun r. Connollv (4 La. An. 169)

v. (Jil)bons (5 Wend. 224) 512, 513
r. Lake (3 bav, 318)

Judv V. (iilbert (77 Ind. 96)
"r. IvelK'v(ll III. 211)

Julian r. Ab'hott (73 Mo. 580)
V. Itevnolds (8 Ala. 68.))
V. VViightsman (73 Mo. 569)

Julke I'. Adam (1 Redf. 454)
Junk V. Canon (34 Pa. St. 280)
Justice r. Lee (1 T. B. Mon. 247)
Justices V. Sloan (7 Ga. 31)

553

631

720

32!)

8;)2

361, 849

llo8

371

177, 187,

293, 1139

40

230

1071

793

Kaes V Gross (92 Mo. 647) 199, 212, 2G8

Kaiui's Kstate (18 .Mo. App. 426) 297

Kalm V. Tinder (77 Ind. 147) 423

Kaiine v. llartv (73 .Mu. 310) 730

Kain v. l'ishcr'(6 N. Y. 597) 597, 598, 599

r. Gibboncv ( 101 U. S. 362) 920, 928, 932

V. Masterson (16 N. Y. 174) lOGl

Kaminer v. Hope (9 S. C. 2.53) 401

Kane, Matter of (2 Barb. Ch. 375) 1013

V. BloodfTood (7 John. Ch. 89) 1247

V De.smoiid (03 Cal. 404) 009

V. Gott (24 Wend. 041) 884

Kansas City v. Clark (08 Mo. 588) 1199

Kansas Pacific K. R. c. Cutter (16 Kan.

568) 308, 630

Kapp V. Public Administrator (2 Bradf.

2.58) 167, 184, 768

Karl r. Black (2 Pittsb. 19) 826

Karr r. Karr (0 Dana, 3) 1137

Karrick v. Pratt (4 Greene, Iowa, 144) 369,

492
Kaster v. Raster C 2 Ind. 531) 481

Kauffelt V. Leber (9 Watt.s & S. 93) 1006

Kauffman v. Peaco k (115 111. 212) 237

Kaufman's Appeal (112 Pa. St. 045) 176, 177
Kaufman v. Breckenridse (117 111. 305) 729
Kauz V. Order of Red Men (13 Mo. App.

341) 445

Kavanaejh v. Wilson (5 Redf. 43) 1038

Kavanaugh v. Thompson (IG Ala. 817) 577,

695, 702
Kavenangh v. Thacker (2 Dana, 137) 1235
Kean v. Welch (1 Grat. 403) 1221

Keane's Estate (50 Cal. 407) 531, 1197

Kearnev r. Sascer (37 M<1. 2G4) 797

V. Turner (28 Md. 408) 5.!8

Kearns v. Cunniff (1.58 Mass. 434) 2.V.)

V. Kearns (4 Harr. 83) 98, 480, 48:!

Keatoa v. Campbell (2 Hmnph. 224) 3G9

Page
Kee V. Kep. '2 Grat. 116) 684, 1120

t'. Vas.ser (2 Ircil. V.i\. 5.53) Oil

Keef, Matter of (43 Hun, 98) 1230

Keefcr v. Schwartz (47 Pa. St. .503) 722

Keegan v. Gevafrbtv (101 III. 20) 140

Kcehin v. Fries (5 Jones Eii- 273) 10;.8

Keenan r. .Saxton (13 Oh. 41) 804

Keene's Ai)peal (00 Pa. St. 504) 1190

Keene v. Munn (10 N. J. Va\. 398) 1 105

Keese v. Coleman (72 Ga. 658) 288, 293

Kecsue I.-. Beckwith (32 lex. 731) 812

Kcigwin V. Keigwin (3 Curt. 607) 70

Kcim V. Muhlenberg (7 Watts, 79) 1236

Keith I'. JolJv (26 Miss. 131) 1228

V. Parks' (31 Ark. 064) 775, 781

Kell r. Charmer (23 Beav. 195) 62

Kcllar V. Beelor (5 T. B. .Mon. 573) 639, 648

Kcllbcrg's Appeal (80 Pa. St. 129) 573

Kflleher v. Kernan (00 Md. 440) 54

Keller v. Harper (04 Md. 94) 726, 727
Kellctt V. Katlibun (4 Pai. 102) 1126, 1128
Kcllev's Estate (1 Abb. New Cas. 102) 1021,

1059

Kellej' V. :Mann (56 Iowa, 625) 647

V. Meins (135 Mass. 231) 951

V. Kilev (106 Mass. 339) 675

r. Vigas (112 III. 242) 902

Kellogg, In re (104 N. Y. 648) 1155, 1209

Matter of (7 Pai. 2G5) 1176

r. Graves (5 Ind. 609) 177

V. Malin (02 Mo. 429) 621

V. Mix (37 Conn. 243) 880

I'. Wiicocks (2 John. 1) 621

f. Wilson (89 111.3.57) 1058

Kellow V. Central Hailwav (68 Iowa, 470) 622

Kellum's Will (.50 N. Y."2:i8) 499

Kellum, In re (52 N. Y. 517) 475

Kellv's Estate (57 Cal. 81) 399

"Estare (11 Phila. 100) 1041

Kelly V. Karsner (72 Ala. lO')) 1218

V. .^IcGrath (70 Ala. 75) 245

V. Miller (39 Miss. 17) 76

V. Itevnolds (39 Mich. 464) 871

V. Settegast (68 Tex. 13) 50, 12i)8

V. Stinson (8 Blackf. 387) 883

V. West (80 N. Y. 139) 531, 564, 1182

Kelsev v. Devo (3 Cow. 133) 1098

t'". Hardv (20 N. II. 479) 151

r. Jewett (34 Hun, 11) 676

V. Kelsev (57 Iowa, 383) 499

V. Smith (1 How. Miss. 68) 744

Kelso's Appeal (102 Pa. St. 7) 240

Kclton V. Hill (58 Me. 114) 830, 832

Kenipi-. Cook (18 Md. 130) 336

V. Kemp (42 Ga. 523) 2 )3

r. Kennedy (Pet. C. C. 30) 324

Kemper c. Kemper (1 Duv. 401) 125

Kcmpsev r. McGinni-s (21 Mich. 1-23) 480

Kempton, Appellant (23 Pick. 163) 273

r. Swiff (2 Met. 70) 394

Kendal! r. BUes (35 Mc 357) 685, 811

V Kenilail (5 Munf. 272) 87,113

V. .Mondrll (67 Md. 444) 149, 1210

V. New England Co. (13 Conn. 383) 1103

V. Powers (4 Met. Mass. 553) 336

r. Russell (3 Sim. 424) 996

Kendrick, In re (107 N. Y. 104) 844

Kenebel r. Scrafton (2 East. 530) 106

Kenlev r. Brvan (110 111. 6.52) 1043, 1072

Kennedv's Appeal (4 Pa. Sr. 149) 843

KennedV, In re (2 S. C. 216) 195

Ixxziv

TABLE OF CASES.

Pagn
Keuned^' v. Johnston (65 Pa. St. 451) 270,

271, .T;!

V. Kennedy (8 Ala. 391) 374

f. Wachsnuith (12 S. & K. 171) 3;J1

KenniM-lv v. Mo. Ims. Cd. (11 Mo. 204) 242

V. W'ilson (1 Md. 102) U2l

Kenney v. I'uMic Adm'r (2 Bradf. 319) 124

Kenny r. Udall (5 .John. Cli. 404) 1015

Kenrick v. Bni'j^us (Moore, 12(1) 410

V. Cole (40 Mo. 8.3) 469, 502

V. Cole (01 Mo. 572) 485

Kent V. Dunham (100 Mass. 580) 1005, 1008,

1010. 1012, 1014, 1247

V. Dunliam (142 Mass. 210) 920, 921, 922

V. Waters (1 .Md. 5J) 1030

Kenyon v. Stewart (44 I'a. St. 179) 502

Kepiinger v. Maccubbin (58 Md. 203) 718

Ker V. Kuxton (10 Jur. 491) 1232

Kernochan, In re (104 N. Y. G18) 1004, 1138,

1174

Kerns v. Soxman (16 Sercf. & R. 315) 75

V. Wallace (64 N. C.187) 699

Kerr v. Hosier (02 Pa. St. 183) 1008

V. Donf;liertv (79 N. Y. 327) 273, 944

V. Hill (3 D'esans. 279) 1154

V. Kerr (41 N. Y. 272) 571

«'. Kirkpatrick (Sired. Eq 137) 738

V. Moore (9 Wheat. 505) 358, 378, 502

V. Waters (19 Ga. 13(i) 738

V. Wniier (40 Mo. 544) 775, 776

Kernck v. Bransbv (2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 421,

Pl- 4) " 587

Kersey v. Bailev (52 Me. 108) 105

Kershaw v. Kershaw (102 111. 307) 150, 1220,

1223
Kessinger v. Kessinger (37 Ind. 341) 48

Ketchuni v. Stearns (8 Mo. App. 00) 04

Kevil V. Kevil (2 Bush, 014) 48

Key V. Hollowav (7 Baxt 575) 39

' V. Jones (52 Ala. 238) 1166, 1213, 1215,

1246

Keves v. Bump (59 Vt. 391) 199

V. Hill (30 Vt. 7.59) 202

«, Scanlan (63 Wis. 345) 204, 213

Kevser v. Fendall (5 Mackev, 47) 070

" V. Kelly (11,1. & S. 22) 803

Keyte v. Perry (25 Mo. App. 394) 203

Kidd's Estate (Mvr. 239) 555

Kidd V. Guibar (63 Mo. 342) 1120

Kiddall v. Trimble (I Md. Ch. 143) 274

Kidder's Estate (57 Cal. 282) 489

Estate (66 Cal. 487) 482

Kidney v. Coussmaker (12 Ves. 136) 1017

Kidwe'll V. Brummasrim (32 Cal. 436) 393

V. Kidwell (84 Ind. 224) 599

Kiff V. Weaver (94 N. C. 274) 117

Kilby V. Godwin (2 Del. Cli. 61) 122

Kilcfease v. Shelby (23 Miss. 161) 43.3, 1231

Kile's Estate (72 Cal. 131) ]207

Kilfoy r. Powers (3 Dem. 198) 22

Killam r. Costlev (52 Ala. 85) 580

Killcrease v. Killcrease (7 How. Jliss.

311) 54(1, 639

Killebre-w v Murphy (3 IJeisk. 540) 410

Killigrewv. KiUitrrew (1 Vern. 184) 509

Kiilinger v. Reidenhauer (6 Serg. & R.

531) ^ 247

Killmer r. Wuchner (37 N. W. R., Iowa.
^ ""8) 874 9.55

Killpatrick v. Helston (25 111. App. 12r) 824
Kilpatrick v. Bush (23 Miss. 199) 366

PaRB

Kilpatrick v. Johnson (15 N. Y. 322) 918

Kiuiball's Appeal (45 Wis. 391) 573

Kimball v. Adams (5i Wis. 554) 604

V. Doming (5 Ired. L. 418) 170, 178. 186

V. Fi>k (39 N. H. llOi 330, 342, 1089

V. Kimball (19 Vt. .579) (i82

V. Lincoln (99 III. 578) 2:tl

V. I'enhallow (60 N. II. 448) 916

r. Story (108 Mass. 382) 9.3(]

V. Sumner (62 Me. 305) 636, 1143, 1151,

1152
Knnbrough v. Mitchell (1 Head, 539) 023
Kinun v. Osgood (19 Mo. 60) 807

Kinunell v. Burns (84 Ind. 370) 801

Kinard v. Riddlehoover (3 Rich. 258) 408, 500

Young (2 Hich. Eq. 247)
Kincade v. Conley (04 N. C. 387)
Kincaid, In re ( 1 'Drew. 320)
Kincheloe v. Gorman (29 Mo. 421)
Kmg's Appeal (84 Pa. St. 345)

Will (13 Phila. .379)
King V. Anderson (20 Ind. 385)
V. Beck (15 Ohio, 599)
V. Bennett (4 M. & W. 36)
V. Boyd(4 Oreg. .326)
V. Busluiell (121 111. 656)
V. Cabiness (12 Ala. 598)
V. Clarke (2 Hill Ch. 611)
V. Collins (21 Ala. 363)
V. Cooper (Walk. Miss. 359)
V. Davis (91 N. C. 142)
V. Foscue (91 N. 0. 116)

422.

423

738

1015
809
164

1194
637
901
889
712, 714
235

1186
360, 361, 632

1127
990
112
599

Gridley (37 N. W. R. 50) 1193, 1201
V. Kent (29 Ala. 542) 329, 694, 1030,

1041, 1045
r. King (3 John. Ch. 5:2) 10G4

V. King (13 R. I. 501) 720, 727, 728

r. Lacey (8 Conn. 499) 1208

V. Lastrapes (13 La. An. 582) 564

V. Lvman (1 Root, 104) 416

V. Merritt (34 N. W. R.G89) 259

V. Mittalberger (50 Mo. 182) 817

V. Morris (40 Ga. 63) 776

V. Morrison (1 Pa. 188) 079

V. Parker (9 Cush. 71) 933

V. Rockhill (41 N. J. F:q. 273) 1197, 1193
V. St. Dunstan (4 B. & C. 450) 602

V. Shackleford (13 Ala. 435) 1180

V. Talbert (30 Miss. 367) 392, 393

V. Talbot (40 N Y. 70) 1007

V. Thorn (1 T. R. 487) 734

r. Wear (53 Iowa, 97) 159

V. Whiton (15 Wis. 384) 1153

Kingman v. Higgins (100 III. 319) 199

V. Kingman (31 N. H. 182) 169, 189

V. Soulo (1-32 Mass. 285) 757

Kingsbury v. Scoville (20 Conn. 349) 1239
V. Whittaker (32 La. An. 1055) 34

V. Wild (3 N. H. .30) 1047,1067

V. Wilmarth (2 Allen, 310) 176, 177, 768
Kingsland v. Hapelve (3 lulw. Ch. 1) 903
V. Scudiler (36 N. J. Eq. 224) 1148

Kinleside v. Harrison (2 Phillim. 449) 40, 46,

476
Kinmonth v. Brigham (5 Allen, 270) 706

Kiunan v. Wight (39 N. J. Eq. 501) 808, 810,

11.55
Kinne v. Kinne (9 Conn. 102) 32, 43

Kinnemon r. Miller (2 Md. Ch. 407) 6-32

Kinney r. Ensign (18 Pick. 232) 1141

Kinsey v. Rhem (2 Ired. 192) 893

TABLE OF CASES.

Ixxxv

Pafje

Kinsoy v. Woodw.ard (3 Ilarr. 459) 207

Kiii>ler V. Holmes (2 S. C. 483) 1142

Kiiisolviiis V. I'ierce (18 B. Mon. 782) 274

KiutcT'.s ApiK'al ((i2 Ta. Si. 318) 1130

Kiiitz r. Kridav (4 Dtni. 540) 1218

Kip r. Van Cortiaii.l (7 Hill, 346) 113

Kipp r. Hauiia (2 Hlaiul Cli. 'M) fiOit

Kirby's A])pc'al (101) I'a. St 41) 1220

Kirbv, Goods of (1 Kob. 709) 02

V. I.ake S. K. K. (120 U. S. 130) 844

V. State (51 Md. 383) 391,1179

V. Tiinier (Hopkins Cli. 309) 558

V. Vantree (20 Ark. 308) 2:i0

Kirciidhri-lit r. Kircudbnj;lit (8 Ves. 51) 1217

Ki

Ki

4u8
475
8j7
635
981
923
12o0
8.J5

198
953

704

io;).i

1228 I
8:i8 1

1103 j
0(,8 I

]2o8 I
4!l

48, 4,)0

181

I0(i3

480

Bowliny; (20 Neb. 200)

V. Can- (54 Ta. St. 285)

V. Cashman (3 Deni. 242)

V. I)u 15ois (28 Fed. \l 400)

r. Kddowes (3 Ilaie, 509;

v. KiMn (3 Pa. St. 430)

uMidairs Kstate (43 Wis. 167)
Kirkland v. Conwav (110 LI. 438)

V. Cox (94 111. 400)

r. Little (41 Tex. 450)

?•. Nari'aniore (105 Mass. 31)
Kirkiuau r. lienham (28 Ala. 501)
Kirkpatrick's Will (22 N. J. Eq. 403) 93, 509

51;
Kirkpatrick r.Chesnut (5 S. C 210)

V. Gibson (2 Brock. 388)

V. Ro£cer.s (6 L-ed. Eq. 130)

V. Rogers (7 Ired. Eq.44)
Kirksev v. Kirksev (30 Ga. 156)
Kirtland v. Davis (43 Ga. 318)
Kirwan v. Cullen (4 Ir. Cli. N. s. 322)
Kissel V. Eaton (04 Lid. 248)
Kitcliell V. Beach (35 N.J. Eq. 440)

V. Burgwin (21 III. 40)

V. Jackson (44 Ala 302)
Kitchens v. Kitcliens (39 (ia. 108)
Kittora's Estate (17 I'a. St. 410) 344, 843, 859
Kittredge v. Folsoiu (8 N. H. 98) 410, 508, 571,

804

V. Woods (3 N. H. 503) 597, 003

Kleberg v Bonds (31 Tex. 611) 699

Klein V. French (57 Miss. 602) .30.3, 366, 367
Kleppner v. Lavertv {70 Pa. St. 70) 901, 903
Kline's Appeal (39 Pa. St. 463) 1033

Appeal (117 Pa. St. 139) 269, 985, 1102
Kline v. Moulton (11 Mich. 370) 712

Klostermann, In re (6 Mo. App 314) 172

Klotz V. Macreadv (39 La. An. 638) 284, 2.11
Kiiapp V. Lee (42"Mich. 41) 307

V. Me Bride (7 Ala. 19) 281

V ReiUv (3 Deni. 427) GO

Knatchbuiry. Fearnhead (3 Mvl. & Cr.

122)
Knuclitu. United States Sav. Inst. ( 2 Mo.

App. 503)
Knight V. Davis (3 Mvl. & K. 358)

V. Godbolt (7 Ala. 304) 788

V. Havnie (74 Ala 542)

V. Knight (27 Ga. 033)

V. Kniglit (75 Ga. 380)

V. Knight (3 Jones Kq. 107)

V. Knight (2 Sim. & St. 490)

V. Lasseter (16 Ga. 151)

V. Loomis (30 Me. 204)

V. Oliver (12 Grat. .33) 1213, 1215, 1217

V. Wall (2 Dev. & B. 125) 890

V. Yarborough (4 Rand. 506) 693

90

827

1100

,822

739

439

645

902

1009

748

393, 504

Knifipenlierg v. Morris (80 Ind. 540)
Kiiorr y. Millard (57 Mich. 265)
Knott V. Ilogan (4 Met. Kv. 99)

t'. Stephens (3 Oreg. 2(19)
Knotts V. Bailev (54 .Mi.ss. 235)

V. S!earns"(91 IT. S. 0.38) 155,

Knowlcs r. Blodgett (15 R. I. 403} 1044,

V. Dodge (1 Mackev, 00)

V. Whaley (15 R. L 97) 841

Knovvlloii f. .inhnson (40 Me. 48.J)
Knox's Appeal (20 Conn. 21)
Knox V. liigginliotham (75 Ga. GJ9)

V. Jenks (7 Mass. 488)

V. Jones (47 N. Y. 389)

V. Knox (59 Wis. 172)
Koch, In re (3 Deni. 282)
Kogeri;. Franklin (79 Ala. 505) 527

Kohler V. K\m\>p (1 Bradf. 241)
Koltenbrock v. Cracraft (30 Oh. St. 584)
Konvalinka i: Scliletiel (104 N. Y. 125)
Koon s Appeal (113 Pa. St. 021) 1005,
Kooii v. Munro (11 S. C. 139) 700,

Koppeiihaffer v. Isaacs (7 Watts, 170)
Kort's Aiipeal (107 Pa. St. 143)
Kothiiiaii V. Markson (34 Kan. 542) 356,

Kramer v. Weinert (81 Ala. 414)
Kraiishaar i\ Merer (72 N. Y. 602)
Krehs V. Krebs (35 Ala. 293) 1216,

Kropff V. I'oth (19 Fed. R. 200)
Krneger v. Ferrv (41 N. J. Eq. 432)
Krng V. Davis (87 Ind. 590)
Krutz V. Stewart (76 Ind. 9)
Kuhn V. Stansfield (28 Md. 210)
Kuinpe V. Coons (03 Ala. 448)
Knnkel v Macgill (56 Md. 120)
Kiinnen v. Zurliiie (2 Cin. 440)
Kurz, Ex parte (24 S C 468)
Kvdd V. Dalrvnijile (2 Dem. 630)
Kvle V. Bariiett (17 Ala. 306)

V. Conrad (25 W. Va. 700) 1213,

V. Kvle (15 Oh. St. 15)
Kvles I'. "Kvle (25 W. Va, 376)

Page
842

895

120

294

989

1034

1045

050

, 842

345

37

275

1021

379

873

1231

, 572

fi.-)0

276

207

1010

11-38

11.^0

1155

357,

1142

31

832

1222

302

1106

140

1179

609

30

967

58

201

825

1139

1222

804

1125

3, 8

Labar v. Nichols (23 Mich. 310) 1105

Labarre v. Hopkins (10 La. An, 406) 901

La Bau v. Vanderbilt (3 Redf. 384) 34

Labauve's Succession (38 La. An. 235) 1197
Laberge v. McCausIand (3 Mo. 585) 621

Latiranclie v. Trepagnier (4 La. An. 558) 517
Lackawanna Co.'s Case (37 N.J. Eq. 20) Kill
Lacock V. Commonwealth (99 Pa. St. 207; 834
Lacompte v. Seargent (7 Mo. 351) 307

Lacoste v. Splivalo (64 Cal. 35) 548

Ladd's Will (00 Wis. 187) 83. 90

Ladd V. Ladd (14 Vt. 185) 247

V. Wiggiii (35 N. H. 421) 387, .5!i5

Laffertv v. Laffertv (10 Ark. 268) 8:)8

r. Tnrlev (3 Sneed. 1.57) 1247

Lafiton V. Doiron (12 La. An. 164) 1053

EaFov V. LaFov (43 N. ,L Eq. 200) 1237

La Framboise «* Grow (56 III. 197) 2.54

Lagaide's Succession (20 La. An. 148) 699
Laidlev r. Kline (8 W. Va. 218) 715

Lake r. Albert (37 Minn. 453) 1199

Lakiii V. Lakin (2 Allen, 4.5) 227

Lamar v. Micmi (112 U. S 452) 710

V. Scott (4 Rich. L. 516) 255

V. Scott (3 Strohh. 502) 229

V. Sheflield (60 Ga. 71U) 712, 713

Ixxxvi

TABLE OF CASES.

Piige

Lamb v. Carroll (G Ired. 4) 1221

V. Girtman (S-J Ga. 289) 08

V. Helm (5«J M... 420) 402, bM

V. Lamb (105 liul. 45(J) 35, 44, 4(;'J

i\ Lamb (1 Spuers Eq. 280) 0U7

Lambe v. Eaiius (L. K. 6 Ch. App. 597) 905

Laiiibell v. Lauibell (;i Hagg. 5C8) 520

Lambert v. Craft (98 N. Y. 342) 349, 82(5

V. Merrill (5G Vt. 4G4) 1199

V. Moore (1 Nev. 344) 1201

Lamberts v. Cooper (29 Grat. Gl) 475

Laiiibson, In re (2 Hughes, 233) IGO

Laiiikin v. Reese (7 Ala. 170) 1037

Lampert v. Haydel (20 Mo. App. 616) 956

Lancaster's Appeal (47 Conn. 248) 1196

Estate 14 Phila. 237) 1165

Lancaster i-. McBryde (5 Ired. 421) 494, 740

V. Washington Lite Ins. Co. (G2 Mo.

121) 445

Lancetield v. Iggulden (10 Ch. App. 136) 1094

Landers v. Stone (45 Ind. 404) 393, 534

Landlord v. Dunklin (71 Ala. 594) 396, 1047,

1089

Landis's Estate (13 Phila. 305) 1120

Landis v. Landis (1 Grant, 248) 37

Landreth v. Landreth (9 Ala. 430) 1156

Lane v. Courtnav (1 Heisk. 331) 238

V. Dorman (4 111. 238) 1038

V. Eggleston (2 Pat. & H. 225) 1132

I?. Lane (8 Allen, 350) 955

V. Lane (95 N. Y. 494) 70

V. Thompson (43 N. H. 320) 385, 715

Langs Estate (65 Cal. 19) 40, 89

Lang ?•. Hitchcock (99 111. 550) 277

V. Pettres (11 Ala. 37) 1012

Langan v. Bowman (12 8ni. & M. 715) 516

Laugdon v. Astor (3 Uuer, 477) 973

V. Astor (16 N. Y. 9) 974, 977, 979, 980

V. Ingram (28 Ind. 360) 955

V. Strong (2 Vt. 234) 1067

Langford v. Commissioners (75 Ga. 502) 836

Langham v. Baker (5 Baxt. 701) 841

Langhorne v. Hobson (4 Leigh, 224) 249

Langlev v. Harris (23 Tex. 564) 542

'v. iVIavhew (107 Ind. 198) 170, 171

Langstroch v. Golding (41 N. J. Eq. 49) 987,

989
787
1000
1270
553
734
629

Langton v. Higgs (5 Sim. 228)
Langworthv v. Chadwick (13 Conn. 42)
Lanier «. CJriffin (US. C. 565)

V. Irvine (21 Minn. 447)
Lank v. Kinder (4 HaiT. 457)
Lankford v. Barrett (29 Ala. 700)
Lanning v. Sisters of St. Francis (35 N. J.

Eq. 392)

Lansing v. Lansing (45 Barb. 182) 1138, 1168,

1176
Lantz V. Bover (81 Pa. St. 325)

V. Moffatt (102 Ind. 23)
Lapene v. Badeaux (36 La. An. 194)
Lapham v. Martin (33 Oh. St. 99)

V. Norton (71 IMc. 83)
La Plante v. Convery (98 Ind. 409)
Laporte v. Bishop (23 Pa. St. 152)
Lappin v. Mumford (14 Kan. 9)
Lapslev V. Goldsbv (14 Ala. 73)
Large's Appeal (54 Pa. St. 383)
Large v. Large (29 Wis. 60)
Lark v. Lin stead (2 Md. Ch. 162)
Larkin r. McMullin (49 Pa. St. 29)

V. Salmon (3 Dem. 270)

720

719

1089

1063

994

603

859, 861

1008

387, 693

856

1233

782

991

609

964

Page
Laroe v. Douglass (13 N. .1. Eq. 308) 1180
Larrabee r. Larrabee (28 Vt. 274) 87

Larrowe v. Beam (10 Oh. 498) 274

La Hue r. (.ilhert (18 Kan. 220) 211

Larue v. Van Horn (25 La, An. 445) 344

Larzelere v. Starkweather (38 Mich. 96) 1086
Lash V. Lash (57 Iowa, 88) 140

Lassell V. Keed (6 Me. 222) 603

Lassiter v. Cole (8 Humph. 021) 632

Lasure v. Carter (5 Ind. 498) 1037

Latham v. Barnev (14 Fed. li. 433) 1086, 1087,

1088

V. McLane (64 Ga. 320) 235, 238

V. Moore (6 .Jones L(|. 167) 693

V. Udell (38 Mich. 238) 46

Lathrop v. Smith (35 Barb. 64) 399

«. Smith (24 N.Y. 417) 399,532

Latimer v. Savre (45 Ga. 468) 774

Latourette v. VVilliams (1 Barb. 9) 640, 041

Latta V. Pvuss (9 Jones L. 1 1 1) 1153

Lattimore r. Simmons (13 S. & R. 183) 624

r. Williams (8 Ala. 428) 8.58

Laughlin r. Heer (89 111. 119) 1265

V. Lorenz (48 Pa. St. 275) 281, 285

Laughman v. Thompson (.6 Sm. & M.

2.59) 1080

Laurens r. Lucas (6 Rich. Eq. 217) 9.52

V. Read (14 Rich. Eq. 245) 967, 989

Lavin v. Emigrant Industrial Savings

Bank (18 Blatchf. 1) 451, 453, 461

Law V. Law (83 Ala. 432) 90, 93

V. Smith (2 R. I. 244) 121.5, 1221, 1226
Lawall V. Kreidler (3 Rawlc, 300) 762

Lawhorn v. Carter (H Bush, 7) 830

Lawley's Appeal (9 Atl. R. 327) 190

Lawrence's Appeal (49 Conn. 411) 273, 564,

1042, 1051
Case (Tuck. 68) 1182

Will (7 N. J. Eq. 215) 468, 497

Lawrence, In re (1 l.'edf. 310) 1050

V. Elmendorf (5 Barb. 73) 377

V. Embree (3 Bradf. 3G4) 994, 995, 1006
V. Englesbv (24 Vt. 42) 1254

V. Hebbard (1 Bradf. 252) 899

V. Lawrence (3 Barb. Ch. 71) 36G

V. Lawrence (Lit. Sel. Cas. 128) 740

V. Lawrence (4 Redf. 278) 1220

V. Lawrence (2 Vern. 365) 266

V. Miller (2 N. Y. 245) 243

V. Miller (1 Sandf. 516) 243

V. Mitchell (3 Jones, 190) 1215

V. Norfieet (90 N. C. 533) 842

V. Parsons (27 How. Pr. 26) 401

V. Rayner(Busb. L. 113) 1213

r. Security Co. (15 Atl. R. 406) 1006

I'. Steel (66 N. C. 584) 478

V. Wright (23 Pick. 128) 385, 432

Lawson's Appeal (23 Pa. St. 85) 1220

Lawson v. Crofts (1 Sid. 57) 404

V. De Bolt (78 Ind. 563) 253

V. Hansborough (10 B Mon. 147) 1155
V. Morrison (2 Dallas, 286) 483

V. Mosely (6 La. An. 700) 565

V. Powell (31 Ga. 681) 794

V. Riplev (17 La. 238) 323

Lawton v. Fish (51 Ga. 647) 688

t). Lawton(3 Atk. 13) 600

Lawyer v. Smith (8 Mich. 411) 90

Lay V. Clark (31 Ala. 409) 808

V. Lawson (23 Ala. 377) 698

V. Lay (10 S. C 208) 513, 741, 1164, 1242

TABLE OF CASES.

Ixxxvii

Lay V. Mechanics' Bank (61 Mo. 72) 829

Layman v. Conrey (00 Md. 28U) 40

Lavtin v. Davidson (U5 N. Y. 203) 1175

LaVton V. Butler (4 Harr. 507) 259

' V. HoKue (5 Or. 93) 702

Lazear v. Porter (87 Pa. St. 513) 240

Lazell I'. Lizell (8 Allen, 575) 340

Leach v. Buckner ( 19 W. Va. 36) 1184

V. House (1 Bai. 42) 423

V. Jones (80 N. C. 404) 1179

V. Leach (21 Hun, 381) 270

V. Leach (51 Vt. 440) 1198

V. Milhurn (14 Neb 100) 287

V. Pillsburv (15 N. H. 137) 415, 421

V. Prehster (39 Ind. 492) 41

Leaf's Appeal (105 Pa. St. 505) 281, 289, 290

Leake r. Fer;;uson (2 Grat, 419) 773

V. Gilchrist (2 Dev. L. 73) 307, 439

V. Leake (75 Va. 792) 1125, 1207, 1270

Leakey v. Jlaupin (10 Mo. 308) 039

Leanion v. McCubbin (82 III. 203) 431

Learned v. Cutler (18 Pick. 9) 248

V. Matthews (40 Miss. 210) 330, 1090

Leather Cloth Co. v. Amer. Co. (11 H. L.

523) 635

Leathers v. Gray (90 N. C. 548) 901

V. Greenacre, 53 Me. 501) 60, 85

V. Meglasson (2 T. B. Mon. 63) 1272

Leatherwood v. Sullivan (81 Ala. 458) 505,

540, 712, 714

Leavens's Estate (65 Wis. 440) 1131

Leavenworth v. Marshal! (19 Conn. 408) 171

Leavitt v. Beirne (21 Conn 1) 9.56

V. Leavitt (47 N. H. 329) 609

V. Wooster (14 N. H. 550) 1097

Leavcraft c. Simmons (3 Bradf. 35) 71

Lebeau v. Trudeau (10 La. An. 104) 873

Leber v. Kauffelt (5 W. & S. 440) 385

Leckey v. Cunningham (50 Pa. St. 370) 40

Ledl)etter v. Loftau (1 Murph. 224) 570

Leddel v. Starr (19 N. J. Kq. 159) 355, 570

Lee's Appeal (53 Conn. 303) 59

Succession (28 La. An. 23) 508

Lee, Apt>ellant (18 Pick. 285) 1104

V. Boak (11 Grat. 182) 119

V. Chase (.58 Me. 432) 421, 427, 632

V. Eure (82 N. C.428) 1238

t;. Eure(93 N. C. 5) 1238

V. Gardiner (20 Miss. 521) 1079

V. Gause (2 Ired. 440) 674

V. Gibbons (14 S. & R. 105) 421

V. He-ster (20 Ga. 588) lOSr,

V. Lee (6 Gill & J. 310) 1144, 1169, 1170

V. Lee (4 McCord, 183) 32

V. Lee (21 Mo. 531) 828

V. Pain (4 Hare, 201) 971

V. Patrick (9 Ived. 135) 802

V. Price (12 Md. 253) 753

V. Wheeler (4 Ga. 541) 642

V. White (4 St. & P. 178) 1078

V. Wright (1 Rawle, 149) 421

Leech's Appeal (44 Pa. St. 140) 1007

Leech v. Leech (1 Phila. 244) 34, 35

Leeke v. Beanes (2 Harr. & .L 373) 601

Lees v. Wetmore (58 Iowa, 170) 442

Leese, Goods of (2 Sw. & Tr. 442) 97

Lefever v. Hasbrouck (2 Dem. 567) 709

Lefevre v. Lefevre (59 N. Y. 434) 893, 911

Le Fevre v. Toole (84 N. Y. 95) 1097

Lefler v. Rowland (1 Phill. Eq., N. C. 143) 939

Legare v. Ashe (I Bav, 464) 91, 98

Page
Leggatt, In re (4 Redf. 148) 1171

Leggett V. Glover (71 N. C. 211) 830

Le Grand r. Fitch (79 Va. 035) 708

Lehman v. Rollers (81 Ala. 303) 258, 2.59

Lehr's Appeal^US Pa. St. 25) 1131

Lehr v. Tarball (2 How. Miss. 905) 578

Leible v. Ferry (32 N. J. E(|. 791) 689

Leigh V. Smith (3 Ired. Eq. 442) 28

Leighton v. Leighton (58 Me. 63) 942

'v. Orr (44 Iowa, 679) 499

Leinkauf, In re (4 Uem. 1) 1175

Leiper's Appeal (35 Pa. St. 420) IL'33

Leitz, In re (6 Mo. A|)p. 2.50) 348

Leland r. Felton (1 Allen, 531) 653

V. Havden (102 Mass. 542) 1003

V. Wliitaker (23 Mich. 324) 612

Lemage v. Goodban (L. It. 1 P. & D. 57) 97
Leman v. Sherman (117 III. 657) 323

V. Sherman (18 111. App. 3(58) 323

Lemmon v. Hnll (20 Md. 106) 1173

Lemon v. Lemon (8 Vin. Abr. .306, pi. 45) 206
Le Moyne v. (iaimby (70 111. 399) 715

Lenderman v. Lenderman (1 Houst. 523) 639
Lenfers v. Henke (73 III. 405) 229, 2.58, 202
Lenk Wine Co. v. Caspari (11 Mo. Apii.

382) 808, 820

Lennig's Estate (52 Pa. St. 135) 1105

Lenoir v. VViun (4 Desaus. 65) 738, 772, 787,

859
Lenow v. Fones (48 Ark. 557) 231, 244

Lenox r. Harrison (88 Mo. 491) 1127, 11-32
Lent V. Howard (89 N. Y. 109) 720, 1137

Leutz V. Pilert (00 Md. 290) 522, 523

Leonard v. Blair (59 Ind. 510) 421, 431, 1205,

1209
V. Cameron (39 Miss. 419) 1002

V. Columbia Co. (84 N. Y. 48) 630

V. Lining (57 Iowa, 648) 140

V. Morris (9 Pai. 90) 861

V. Simpson (2 Bing. N. C. 170) 797

Lepage v. McNamara (5 Iowa, 124) 884,

925 9-32
Le Rougetel v. Mann (63 N. H. 472) 969, 1097
Lesherr. Wirth (14 111. 39) 186

Leshey v. Gardner (3 W. & S. 314) 1003

Leslie v. Sims (39 Ala. 161) 74, 477

Lessassier's Estate (34 La. An. 1066) 190,

200

Lessing v. Vertrees (32 Mo. 431) 386

Lett V. Emmett (37 N. J. Eq. 535) 577

Levan's Appeal (112 Pa. St. 294) 524

Leverett v. Carlisle (19 Ala. bO) 46

V. Dismukes (10 Ga. 98) 516, 528

Levering v. Levering (64 Md. 399) 574, 576

Levi V. Huggins (14 Rich. 166) 396

Leviness v. Cassebeer (3 Redf. 491) 346, 867

Levins r. Stevens (7 Mo. 90) 1240

Lew's Estate (Tuck. 148) 1142

LevV V. Lew (28 Md. 25) 350

'v. Levv"(33 N. Y. 97) 923

V. RileV (4 Or. .392) 1079

V. Stewart (11 Wall. 244) 847

Lewes's Trust (L. R. 11 Eq. 236) 1015

Lewes v. Lewes (6 Sim. 304) 956

Lewin v. Lewin (2 Ves. Sr. 415) 988

Lewis's Case (33 N. J. Eq. 219) 35

Estate (39 Cal. .306) 1067

Will (51 Wis. 101) 37

Lewis V. Adams (70 Cal. 403) 362, 366

V. Bolitho (6 (;ray, 1.37) 127, 1195

V. Brooks (6 Yerg. 167) 395

Ixxxviii

TABLE OF CASES.

Lewis V. Carson (93 ]Mo. 587) 1143

V. Chiiiupidii (40 N. J. Eq. 50) 80G, 840
V. Coxe (5 Han-. 401) '250

V. Darling (IG How. 1) 989, 1104

V. Douglass (14 II. I. 004) 8i)-2

V. Ford (07 Ala. 143) 844

V. Gamb.s (0 Mo. App. 138) 549

V. Gorman (5 Pa. St. 164) 154

V. Johnston (09 N. C. 392) 794

V. Jones (50 Barb. 045) 40

V. Labauve (13 La. An 382) 1054

V. Liingd(jn (7 Sim. 421) 292

V. Lewis (13 Barb. 17) 69, 71

t;. Lewis(7 Ired. L. 72) 270,351

V. Lewis (11 N. Y. 220) 470

V. Lewis (0 S. & R. 489) 483

V. Lnndv (9 Atl. 883) 1216

V. Lusk'(35 Miss. 0ii6) 001

V. Lvons(13 111. 117) 386, 434

V. McCabe (76 ^lo. 307) 397

V. McFarland 9 Cr. 151) 367

V. McGraw (19 111. App. 313) 1070

V. Mason (109 Mass. 109) 48

V. Overbv (31 Grat. 601) 1260

r. Kingo'(3 A. K. Marsh. 247) 593

V. St. Louis (09 Mo 595) 494

V. St. Louis Railroad (59 Mo. 495) C70
V. Scofield (20 Conn. 452) 57

V. Smith (9 N. Y. 502) 267

V. Soper (44 Me. 72) 075

V. United States (92 U. S. 018) 287

V. Watson (3 Kedf. 43) 549

V. Williams (54 Mo. 200) 1132

Lex's Appeal (97 Pa. St. 289) 344, 1235

L'Fit V. L'Batt (1 P. Wms. 520) 486

Libby v. Cobb (TO Me. 471) 401. 752

Lichtenberg v. Herd if elder (103 N. Y.

302) 031, 1045

Liddel v. McVickar (11 N. J. L. 44) l(t25,

1125, 1135, 1150, 1159

Lidderdale v. Robinson (2 Brock. 159) 797,

1187
Lide V. Lide (2 Brev. 403) 341

Ligare v. Semple (32 Mich. 438) 225

Liggat V. Hart (23 Mo. 127) 887, 890

Light V. Kennard (11 Neb. 129) 1221

V. Leininger (8 Pa. St. 403) 827

V. Light (21 Pa. St. 407 ) 209

Lightcap's Appeal (95 Pa. St. 455) 1158

Lightfoot r. Lightfoot (27 Ala. 351) 1104

Ligon V. Rogers (12 Ga. 281) 333

Likefield v. Likefield (82 Kv. 589) 54

Liles V. Fleming (1 Dev. Eq. 185) 2 5

Lilev V. Hev (1 Hare, 580) 933

Lillard v. Reynolds (3 Ired. L. 366) 991,

992 91)3

Lillie V. Lillie (56 Vt. 714) 'l200

Lilly V. Currv (6 Bush, 590) 983

"d. Griffin (71 Ga. 535) 1148

V. Woolev (94 N. C. 412) 1041

Limekiller v. Hannibal R. R. Co. (33

Kan. 83) 630

Lindsav. Ex parte (2 Bradf. 204) 54

V. Harrison (8 Ark. 302) 608

V. Howertson (2 Hen. & M. 9) 1147

«. Jaffrav (55 Tex. 020) 1081

V. Lindsav (I Des. 150) 507

V. McCormack (2 A. K. Marsh. 229) 439,

472

V. Pleasants (4 Ired. Eq. 320) 940

Lindsey v. Lindsey (45 Ind. 552) 952

Page
Lingan v. Carroll (3 H. & McH. 333, s. c.

338) 943

Lingen v. Lingen (45 Ala. 410) 131, 157

Linginfetter v. Linginfctter (Hardin, 119) 100
Lingle v. Cook (32 Grat. 2(i2) 550, 551, 710
Link V. Ednuindson (19 Mo. 487) 244

Linnard's Appeal (93 Pa. St. 313) 94

Linnville v Darby (1 Baxt. 300) 330, 1090
Linsenbigler v. Courier (56 Pa. St. 166) 344,

350
Linstead v. Green (7 Md. 82) 880

Linton's Appeal (104 Pa. St. 228) 50

Succession (31 La An. 130) 1187

Lipe V. Mitchell (2 Yerg. 400) 325

Lippincott v. Lippincott (19 N. J. Eq.

121) 717

Lipse V. Spears (4 Hughe.«, 535) 1116

Liptrot V. Holmes (1 Ga. 381) 810, 817

Litchtield v. Cudworth (15 Pick. 23) 104,

703, 1056
Little's Appeal (117 Pa. St. 14) 943

Little V. Berry (94 N. C. 433) 532, 535

V. Birdwell (21 Tex. 597) 669, 901, 1123
V. Birdwell (27 Tex. 088) 170, 191, 215
V. Dawson (4 Dall. Ill) 824

V. Knox (15 Ala. 570) 559

V. Little (36 N. H. 224) 805

V. McPherson (76 Ala. 532) 177, 182, 188,

284
V. Sinnett (7 Iowa, 324) 1036

V. Thorne (93 N. C. 09) 354

V. Willford (31 Minn. 173) 920, 928, 932
V. Williams (7 111. App. 67) 762

V. Woodward (14 Bush. 585) 208

Littlefield v. Eaton (74 Me. 516) 648, 841, 1070
V. Tinsley (20 Tex. 353) 1059

Little Rock Co. v. Townsend (41 Ark.

382) 626, 628

Littleton v. Addington (59 Mo. 275) 718, 724,

735, 1024

V. Christy (11 Mo. 390) 397

V. Littleton (1 Dev. & B. L. 327) 245, 247

V. Patterson (32 Mo. 357) 274

Lively v. Harwell (29 Ga. 509) 100

Livermore v. Bemis (2 Allen, 394) 1194

V. Rand (26 N. H. 85) 1146

V. Wortman (25 Hun, 341) 705

Livingston v. Cochran (33 Ark. 294) 1060,

1085
V. Combs (1 N. J. L. 42) 1255

V. Langlev (3 S. E. R. 909) 161

V. Newki'rk (3 John. Ch. 312) 744, 1039,

1094

V. Noe (1 Lea. 55) 1079

Lloyd's Estate (82 Pa. St. 143) 1137

LloVd V. Connoyer (25 N. J. L. 47) 233

' V. Fulton (91 U. S. 479) 608. 61 1

V. Llovd (10 Kng. L. & Eq. 139) 934

V. LloVd (1 Redf. 399) 669

V. Rambo (35 Ala. 709) 879

V. Wayne Cir. Judge (56 Mich. 236) 464

Loane v. Casev (2 W. Bl. 965) 788

Lobit V. Castil'le (14 La. An. 779) 1119

Lockart v. Northington (1 Sneed, 318) 718

Locke V. Barbour (02 Ind. 577) 900

V. Rowell (47 N. H. 40) 200

Lockett V. James (8 Bush, 28) 246

Lockhart v. Bell (80 N. C. 443) 831

r. Cameron (29 Ala. 355) 639

V. White (18 Tex. 102) 204, 1154

Lockwood V. Gilson (12 Oh. St. 526) 1066

TABLE OF CASES.

Ixxxix

Lock wood V. Stockholm (11 Pai. 87) (ii'i

V. Sturdevant (6 Conn. 373) 1050, 10G7,

lOiiO

Loeb r. :\rcMahon (80 111. 487) 208

V. Kichardsou (74 Ala. 311) 170

Loebeut.lial r. Kulciu-h (3(1 N..I. Kq. 1G9) 732

Loeschigk v. Ilatlicld (hi N. Y. GGO) 280

Loftin V. Loftin (00 N. C. 24) 831

Logan V. IJardav (3 Ala. 301) G2G

V. Caldwell "(23 Mo. 372) 037

V. Gitrlev (9 Ga. 114) 1047, 1055

V. Hall (1!) I(.wa, 491) 009

V. LoLC.ui (13 Ala. 053) 1217

V. I'hillips (18 Mo. 22) 204

V. Troutinaii (3 A. K. Marsh. 00) 1100

V. Williams (70 111. 17-5) 329

Lomas v. Wright (2 :Mv1. & K. 709) 782

Lombard v. BovdFii (5'Alltii, 249) 902

V. Kiiizie (73 111. 440) 230

Lomerson v. Vroom (11 Atl. R., N. J.

13) 355

Lommen r. Tobiason (52 Iowa, 6G5) 1137

Long's Estate (0 Watts, 40) G77

Long V. Burnett (13 Iowa, 28) 1023

V. Easlv (13 Ala. 239) 522, 1191

V. Hitchcock (3 Ohio, 274) 024

V. Hugiiins (72 Ga. 770) 507, 510, 533

V. Joplin Min. Co. (08 Mo. 422) 394, 10G8,

1081
V. Long (118 III. 638; s. c. 19 111.

Ai)p. 383) 1221, 1220

V. Long (3 Ves. 286, note) 1009

V. Magestre (1 J(dm. Ch. 305) 433

V. Mitchell (63 (ia. 709) 125!}

V. Morrison (14 Ind. 595) 625

V. O'Fallon (19 How. 116) 595

V. Head (9 Lea, 538) 1098, 1102

V. Rodman (58 Ind. 58) 758

V. Short (1 F. Wms. 403) 908

V. Thompson (00 111. 27) 1125, 1127

V. Wortham (4 Tex. 381) 570, 570

Longstail' v. Rennison (1 Drew. 28) Gl

Longuefosse's Succession (34 La. An. 583) 400

Longwell c. Ridinger (1 (iill, 57) 779

Longwith v. Riggs (123 111. 258) 1102

Longworth v. Goforth (Wright, 192) 1079

V. WolMngton(6 Oh. 9) 1080

Loocock ('. Clarkson (1 Des. 471) 985

Looker r. Davis (47 Mo. 140) 833

Loomis V. Armstrong (49 Mich. 521) 284, 1150,

1109
V. Kellogg (17 Pa. St. 60) 473

Lord I'. Bourne (03 Me. 368) 902

V. Brooks (.52 N. H. 72) 1004

V. Lancev (21 Me. 408) 553

V. Lord (05 Cal. 84) 198

V. Lord (23 Conn. 327) 206, 272, 985

Lorieux v. Keller <.5 Iowa, 196) 70, 110, 5(I2,

885

Lorimer, Goods of (2 Sw. & Tr. 471) 510

Loring v. Craft (16 Ind. 110) 171

V. Cunningham (9 Cush. 87) 046

V. Oakev (98 Mass. 267) 481

V. Stememann (1 Met. Mass. 204) 1231,

12.i4
V. Woodward (41 N. H. 391) 967, 1000,

1008
Lorings v. ISIarsh (6 Wall. 3.37) 110, 922

Lothrop's Case (33 N. .J. Eq. 240) 407

Lothrop V. Foster (51 Me. 307) 250

Lott V. Meacham (4 Fla. 144) 990, 993

Page

Louaillier r. Castille (14 La. An. 777) 437

Loubat V. Nourse (5 Fla. 350) 289

Louis r. Easton (50 Ala. 470) 834

Louisiana Hank v. Kenner (I La. .384) 283

Louisville Railroad i\ Burke (G Coldw. 45) 029

V. McCov (81 Kv. 403) 627

V. Thompson ('S N. East. 357) 832

Lourev v. Herbert (25 Miss. 101) 106, 173

Love V. Berrv (22 Tex. 371) 1078

V. .lohnston (12 Ired. L. 355) 80, 113

r. Love (3 Ilavw. 13) 1024

Love^rove, Goods of (2 8w. & Tr. 453) 57

Lovejoyf. Irelan (19 Md. 50) 337

i\ Kavmond (58 Vt. 509) 1098

Lovell V. Minot (20 Pick. 110) 706

V. Nelson (11 Allen, 101) 829

V. ()uitmau (25 Hun, 5-37) 93

r. ()uitman (88 N. Y. 377) 93

Loveren v. Lamprey (22 N, H. 434) 88G

Lovering v. Lovering (129 Mass. 97) 940

V. Minot (9 Cush. 151) lOOG

Lovett V. Gillender (35 N. Y. 017) 883, 918.

955

Low V. Bartlett (8 Allen, 259) 361

V. Carter (1 Beav. 420) 790

V. Low (77 Me. 37) 979

V Low (77 Me. 171) 1237

Lowber v. Ueauchamp (2 Harr. 139) 337

Lowder v. Lowder (58 Ind. 5-38) 44

Lowe V. Guice (09 Ala. 80) 1034, 1001

V. .Tones (15 Ala. .545) 844, 845

V. Williamson (2 N. J. Eq. 82) 41, 47

Lowerv v. Lowerv (04 N. C. 110) 1195

i;.>errv (85N. C. 131) 1229

Lowndes v. Dickerson (34 Barb. 586) 596

Lowry v. Mountjoy (6 Call, 55) 991

V. Newsom (51 Ala. 570) 1231

Loxlev's Estate (14 Phila. 317) 578

Lov v. Kennedy ( 1 N. & S. 396) 70

LoVd 0. Lovd (9 Bax. 400) 842

Lo'vless V. Rhodes (9 Ga. 547) 1259

Lucas V. Goff (33 Miss. 629) 82, 83

V. Morse (139 Mass. 59) 351

V. N. Y. C. R. (21 Barb. 245) 517

V. Price (4 Ala. 079) 392

V. Sawver (17 Iowa, 517) 242

Luce V. Railroad (03 N. H. 588) 365, 366, 368

Lucht V. Behrens (28 Oh. St. 231) 688, 758

Lucich V. Medin (3 Nev. 93) 576, 1129, 11-30,

1170
Liickev, Matter of (4 Redf. 95) 705

Lucv i\ Lucy (55 .N . H. 9) 6-36, 1142

Ludlam's Estate (13 Pa. St. 188) 967, 973,

974

Ludlow V. Cooper (4 Oh. St. 1) 290

V. Flournoy (34 Ark. 451) 410

V. Johnston (3 Oh. 553) 330, 336, 1048,

1051
V. Ludlow (30 N. J. Eq. 597)
V. Park (4 Oh. 5)
V. Wade (5 Oh. 494)
Ludwi<,r V. Blackinton (24 Me. 25)
Lufkin V. Curtis (13 Mass. 223)
Luigart v. Ripley (19 Oh. St. 24)
Luni V. Dodson (Selw. N. P.)
Lumb V. Jenkins (100 M.ass. .527)
Lumpkin r. Smith (02 Tex. 249)
Lunav v. Vantvne (40 Vt. 501)
Lun<rr. Lund (41 N. H. 355) 76
Lunsford v. Jarrett (2 Lea, 579)

68, 70

1048

1051

858

250

962

441

22

436

140

705, 1186

214, 1070,

1123

xc

TABLE OF CASP:S,

Pase

Luntr. Lunt(108I11.307) 917

Luptoui;.Luptou(2Joliu. Ch.GU) fl8n,10()7,

UMb, 10U8, 1118

Luscomb V. Ballard (5 Grav, 40.J) 410

Lusk»> Aiulurson (1 Met. Kv. 420) 843, 1148

r. Benton (30 La. An. G8U) 350

V. Lewis (32 Miss. 2U7) 502, 957

Luther's Estate (67 CaL 319) 192

Lutlieran Congregation's Appeal (113 Pa.

St. 32) 911

Lutkins V. Leigh (Cas. Temp. Talb. 53) 1105

Lutz V. Christy (67 Cal. 457) 1197

V. Gates (62 Iowa, 513) ^ 7G1

Lvendecker v. Eisemann (3 Dem. 72) 1137,

1173

Lvle V. Richards (9 Serg. & R. 322) 17

" V. Rodders (5 Wheat. 394) 685

V. Williams (65 Wis. 231) 1153

Lvman v. Lvinan (2 Paine, 11) 201

Lvnch V. Baxter (4 Tex. 431) 330, 1030

' V. Clements (24 N. J. Eq. 431) 4G

V. Divan (66 Wis. 490) 1140

V. Hickev (13 111. App. 139) 1021, 1032,

1036

V.Hill (6 Mmif. 114) 880

V. Livingston (6 N. Y. 422) 2.52

V. Miller (54 Iowa. 516) 500

«. Rotan (3UI11 14) 432

Lvne V. Guardian (1 Mo. 410) 497

Lvnes v. Havden (119 Mass. 482) 350, 356

' V. Townsend (33 N. Y. 558) 882, 890

Lynn v. Gephart (27 Md. 547) 727

Lyon, Ex parte (60 Ala. 650) 407

In re (70 Iowa, 375) 1215, 1216

V. Allison (1 Watts. 161) 792

V. Church (41 N. J. Eq. 389) 1103

V. Havs (30 Ala. 430) 767

V. Lvon (8 Ired. Eq. 201) 702. 703

V. Magagnos (7 Grat. 377) 1010

D. Osgood (58 Vt. 707) 1140

V. Smith (11 Barb. 124) 67

V. Snvder (61 Barb. 172) 833, 834

V. Vick (6 Yerg. 42) 993

Lyons, Ex parte (2 Leigh, 761) 440

Lvtle V Beveridge (58 N. Y. 592) 702

Lyttleton v. Cross (3 B. & C. 317) 785

Maas V. Sheffield (1 Rob. 364; 10 Jur.

417)
Mabie v. Matteson (17 Wis. 1 ) 1066

Mabry v. Harrison (44 Tex. 286) 210

Macartv's Succession (3 La. An. 517) 1146
Succession (5 La. An. 4.34) 1166, 1180
Macaulev v. Dismal Swamp Co. (2 Rob.

Va. 50'7) 230

Maccubbin v. Cromwell (2 Harr. & G.

443) 255

Macias's Succession (31 La. An. 52) 1089

Mack V. Heiss (90 Mo. 578) 200, 207, 213

Maekay v. Church (15 R. I. 121) 367, 374

Mackenzie v. Handasvde (2 Hagg. Ec. R.

211) " 43

Mackev. Matter of (44 Hun, 571) 70

IV "Ballou (112 Ind. 198) 1144. 1195

V. Coxe (18 How. 100) 37.5, 651

V. Proctor (12 B. Mon. 433) 276, 277

Mackie v. Alston (2 Des. 362) 942

Mackintosh v. Barber (1 Bing. 50) 722

Macknet v. Macknet (24 N. J. Eq. 277) 76 1 ,

950

Page
Mackreth v. Jackson (note in 1 Mau. &

Sel. 40U) 785

Maclean c. Dawson (1 Sw. & Tr. 425) 407

Macnianus v. Cam]il.ell (.37 Tex. 267) 201

Macoleta v. Packard (14 Cal. 178) 809

Macv V. Ravmond (9 i'icU. 285) 1050

v. Sawver ^06 How. Pr. 381) 883

Maddox j;.Apperson (14 Lea, 596) 677

V. Maddox (11 Grat. 804) 958, 963

V. Maddox (i)7 Ind. 537) 817

Madison v. Shocklev (41 Iowa, 451) 415

Maeck v. Sinclear (10 Vt. 103) 1035, 1036

Magee's Estate (63 Cal. 414) 158

Magee «. Mellon (23 Miss. 585) 275

V. O'Neil (19 S. C. 170) 958

V. Vedder (6 Barb. 352) 346

INIagcrs v. Edwards (13 W. Va. 822) 355

Magill V. Brown (Brightlv, 373, note) 908,

927, 928
Magner v. Rvan (19 Mo. 196) 417, 426

Magniac v. Thompson (7 Pet. 348) 608

Magofbn v. I'atton (4 Rawle, 113) 1009

Magoohan's Appeal (117 Pa. St. 238) 96

Magraw v. Irwin (87 Pa. St. 139) 363, 374

V. McGlvnn (26 Cal. 420) 810. 863, 1134
Magwood V. "Johnston (1 Hill Ch. 228) 707

r. Legge (Harp. 116) 411

Mabafty v. Mahaflv (63 Iowa, 55) 213

Mahan; In re (98 N. Y. 372) 942

V.Owen (23 Ark. 347) 809

IMahon v. Bower (1 How. Miss. 275) 1237

Mahone v. Central Bank (17 Ga. Ill) 773

V. Haddock (44 Ala. 92) 860

Mahone V, Matter of (34 Hun, 501) 1021, 1033,

10.34

V. Young (3 Dana, 588) 234

Mahorner v. Hooe (!) Sm. & M. 247) 1239
Main v. Ryder (84 Pa. St. 217) 48, 65

V. Schwarzwaelder (4 E. D. Smith,
273) 602

Mairs. ISIatter of (4 Redf. 160) 1138

r. Freeman (3 Redf. 181) 31

Maitland r. Adair (3 Ves. 231) 936

Major r. Herndon (78 Kv. 123) 999

V. Williams (3 Curt.' 432) 101

Makepeace v. Lukens (27 Ind. 435) 335, 336

V. Moore (10 111. 474) 693

IMalcolm v Malcolm (3 Cush. 472) 878

Malin v. Malin (1 Wend. 625) 92

Malinda & Sarah r. Gardner (24 Ala. 719) 672
Mallet V. Smith (6 Rich. Eq. 12) 9-59

Mallett V. Dexter (1 Curt. 178) 1123, 1124
Mallonev v. Horan (12 Abb. Pr. n. s.
289) ' 246

V. Horan (49 N. Y. Ill) 246

Mallorv r. Craige (15 N. J. Eq. 73) 357

r. Russell (71 Iowa, 63) 2!J0

Malone v. Hundlev (52 Ala. 147) 805

r. McLaurin (40 Miss. 161) 277

Malonev's Estate (5 Pa. Law J. R. 139) 579
MaloneV v. Hefer (17 Pac. R. 539) 199

V. Wilson (9 Baxt. 403) 842

INlanchester v. Hough (5 Mas. 67) 248

Manderson v. Lukens (23 Pa. St. 31) 951

MandeviUe v. Mandeville (35 Ga. 243) 529,

532

V. Mandeville (8 Pai. 475) 543, 544

Mandlebaum v. McDonell (29 Mich. 78) 955
Mangum r. Piester (10 S. C. 310) 917

Manhattan Co. v. Kvertson (6 Paige, 457) 247
Mauice, In Re (31 Hun, 119) 1171

TABLE OF CASES.

XCl

Page

Manice v. Maiiice (43 N. Y. 303) 918

Maiiier r. Phelps (15 Abb. N. C. 123) 937

Mani-le's Estate (11 Fliila. 39) 1120

Manion r. Titsworth (18 B. Mon. 582) 371

Mankin r. Chandler (2 Brock. 125) 337

Manlv V. Turnipseecl (37 Ala. 522) 368, 073

Manii v. Copland (2 Madd. 457) 908

V. Edson (39 Me. 45) 232

V. Everts (64 AVis. 372) 819, 1209

V. Lawrence (3 Bradf. 424) 1159

V. Mann (12 Heisk. 245) 1219, 1237

V. Mann (U.John. 1) 892

V. Munn (1 .John. Ch. 231) 895

V. Mann (53 Vt. 48) 340

Jlauners v. Library Co. (93 Pa. St. 165) 907,

908

Ma nin« v. Laboree (.S3 Me. 343) 250

V. Mani.in-(12 Rich. En. 410) 1214, 1216,

1222

V. Purcell (7 DeG. M. & G. 55) 486

V. Randolph (4 X. J. L. 144) 638

V. Thurston (.59 Md. 218) 1216

Mannv v. Kixford (44 III. 129) 612

Mansfield v. Turpin (32 Ga. 260) 309, 492

Manuel v. Manuel (13 Oh. St. 4.58) 495

]\Ian\varing v. Jeuisou (01 Mich. 117) 602

Manwell v. Bngus (17 Vt. 176) 385, 620, 643

Maples V. Howe (3 Barb. Ch. 611) 1075

V. Millon (^1 Conn. 598) 597, 598

Mara r. C^uin (6 T. K 1) 794

March r. Huvter (50 Tex. 243) 57

Marcv c. Mafcv (32 Conn. 308) 364, 371

V. Marcv (6 Met. Mass. 360) 47-i

Harden, Estate of (Myr. 184) 1043

Margar}' v. Kobinson (L. E. 12 Prob.

D. 8) 64

Markham v. Merrett (7 How. Miss. 437) 235,

251, 290
Markland v. Albes (81 Ala. 433) 579

Marks, Succession of (35 La. An. 1054) 888,

889, 890

V. Marks (35 La. An. 993) 20

r. Rvan (03 Cal. 107) 600

Marlatt r. Scantland (19 Ark. 443) 283

Mailer v. Marler (6 Ala. 307) 631

Marlett v. Jackman (3 Allen, 287) 288

Marlow V. Marlow (48 Iowa, 639) 807

Marnell v. Walton (T. T. 1796) 60

Marr, Ex parte (12 Ark. 84) 1032

17. Boothby (19 Me. 150) 1050

V. McCullough (6 Fort. 507) 942

V. Marr (2 Head, 303) 78

V. Peav (2 Mnrphv, 84) 512

V. Rucker (1 Huniph. 348) 632, 1110

Marre v. Ginochio (2 Bradf. 105) 1130, 1189

Marrey's Estate (65 Cal. 287) 1148, 1195

Marriott v. Thompson (Willes, 180) 787

Marsden v. Kent (L. R. 5 Ch D. 598) 710

Marsellis v. Thalhimer (2 Pai. 35) 276

Marsh, In re (45 Hun, 107) 481, 491

V. r5errv (7 Cow. 344) 330

V. Boar'd, &c. (38 Wis. 2.50) 713

V. Doolev (52 Cal, 2-32) 840

V. Hague (1 Edw. Ch. 174) 1009, 1010

V. Harrington (18 Vt. 1.50) 740

V. Lazenbv (41 Ga. 153) 181

V. Marsh ("lO B. Mon. .360) 1103

V. Marsh (3 Jones L. 77) 10 )

V. Marsh (1 Sw. & Tr. 528) 486

V. Mitchell (26 N J. Eq. 497) 253

V. Oliver (14 N. J. Eq. 259) 740

Page
Marsh V. People (15 111. 284) .570, 583, 588, 749
V. Tavlor (43 N. .1. i:(i. 1) 1000. 1007

Marshall r. Berrv (13 Allen, 43) 117, 120, 127
V. Broadhurst (1 Tvrwh. 348) 687

V. Conrad (5 Call, '.04) 22

V. Crow (29 Ala. 278) 433

?.'. Flinn (4 Jones L. 199) 46

v. Gavle (58 Ala.284) 433

V. Hidson (9 Yer-. 57) 819

V. King (24 Miss. 85) 432, 1239

V. Perkins (72 Me. 343) 803

V. Rench (3 Del. Ch. 239) 978, 1215, 1224,

1225

i\ Kose (86 III. 374) 1030

r. Wv.song (3 Deni. 173) 1174

Marshall Co. v. Hanna (57 Inwa, 372) 387, 693

Marsteller v. Marsteller (93 Fa. St. -ibQ) 844

Marston, Petitioner (79 IMe. 25) 70, 527, 1200

V. Carter (12 N. H. 159) 1001

V. Roe ex dem. Fox (8 Ad. & El. 14) 106

V. Paulding (10 Pai. 40) 346

V. Wilcox (2 111. 60) 331, 572

- - ■ 2ii2

268, 275

780

71

380) 55

47

953

631

1153

680

70) 407, 539

437

748, 750

65

831

9.35

994

236

259, 265

952

739

631

1010

52

289, 290

905

385, 410

277

472, 474

1241

1040

355

325, 330, 4.52

031, 632, 1070

1035, 1038

547

827

714

702

212, 208

Marten v. Van Schaick (4 Pai. 479)
Martien v. Norris (91 Mo. 405)
Martin's Appeal (33 Pa. St. 395)

Estate (58 Cal. 5-30)
Martin, Goods of (L. R. 1 P. & D
In re (98 N. Y. 193)
V. Ballou (13 Barb. 119)
V. Bolton (75 Ind. 295)
r. Campbell (35 Ark. 137)
V. Clapp (99 Mass. 470)
r. Dry Dock Co. (92 X. Y.
V. Dupre (1 La An. 239)
V. EUerbe (70 Ala. 320)
V. Hamlin (4 Strohh. 188)
V. Jones (59 Mo. 181)
V. Lachasse (47 Mo. -591)
V. Lapham (38 Oh. St. 538)
V. Lincoln (4 Lea, 289)
V. .Alartin (22 Ala. 80)
V. Martin (131 Mass. 547)
V. Martin (13 Mo. 36)
V. Martin (1 Vt. 91)
V. Martin (6 Watts, 67)
V. Mitchell (28 Ga. 382)
V. Morris (62 Wis. 418)
V. Osborne (85 Tenn. 420)
V. Peck (2Yerg. 298)
V. Fepall (6 R. I. 92)
V. Perkins (56 Miss. 204)
V. Reed (30 Ind. 218)
V. Reliehan (3 W. Va. 480)
V. Koach (1 Harring. 477)
V. Robinson (67 Tex. ;;08)
V. Root (17 Mass. 222)
V. Starr (7 Ind. 224)
V. Tally (72 Ala. 23)
V. White (58 Vt. 398)
V. Williams (18 Ala. 190)
V. AVvncoop (12 Ind. 200)
Martindaie v. Smith (31 Kan. 270)

Warner (15 Fa. St. 471) 871

Martineau v. Rogers (8 DeG. M. & G.

.328) 881

Marvel v. Babbitt (143 Mass. 226) 386, 704,

744

Marvin's Estate (Mvr. 163) 1173

Marvin r. Dutcher (20 Minn. 391) 834

V. Marvin (59 Iowa, 099) 229

Marwick v. Andrews (25 Me. 525) 952

XCll

TABLE OF CASES.

Marx V. McGlvnn (88 N. Y. 357) 4fi, 49, 4'Jl

Mason, In re (98 N. Y. 527) 1174, 117«

V. IJair (3;j III. 194) 10-29

V. 15o-j;(2 Mvl. & Cr. 443) 8.19

V. Bull CiG Ai-k. 104) 8(19

D. l)iinni:in (1 iMiinf. 45fi) 84

V. Farnell (12 M. & W. G74) 991

W. Fuller (12 La. An. 08) 553

V. Ham (30 Me. 573) 1050, lOfiO

V. Holman (10 Lea, 315) 1223

V. Mason (3 Bibb, 448)

V. M. E. Church (27 N. J. Eq. 47)

V. O'Brien (42 Miss. 420)

V. Osfrood (04 N. C. 407)

V. Peter (1 Munf. 437)

V. Trustees (27 N. J. Eq. 47)

V. White (8 Jones L. 421)

Mass. Mut. Co. V. Elliott (24 Minn. 134)

Massev's Appual (88 I'a. St. 470)

Massev r. Jerauld (101 Ind. 270)

t'.'Modawell (73 Ala. 421)
Massie v. Hiatt (82 Ky. 314 ) 1240, 1264, 1205
Massingale r. Meredith (3 Havw. 30) 793

Master v. Fuller (4 Bro. C. C.'l5) 879

Masterman v. Maberlv (2 Hairg. 2S5) 57, 00
Masters v. Masters (1 P. Wnis. 421) 987

Masterson v. Girard (10 Ala. 00) 713

Matheney v. Guess (2 Hill S. C. Ch. 63) 042

792

890

923

173

1059

1206

1103

895

841

944, 940

1072

727

Mathes v. Bennett (21 N. li. 188)

V. Jackson (6 N. H. 105)
Mathews v. INIathews (2 Ves. Sr. 635)

V. Patterson (42 Me. 257)
Mathewson's Petition (12 R. I. 145)
Mathev v. Smart (51 N. H. 438)
Mathis V. Mathis (18 N. J. L. 59)

165, 189,
1202
804
975
559
989

906, 1137.
1187

Matnev v. Graham (50 Mo. 559) 257

Matooii V. Clapp (8 Oh. 248) 794

Matson v. Mai^rath (1 Robert. 080) 100

Matthews v. Douthitt (27 Ala. 273) 395, 1255

V. Durvee (4 Keyes, 525)
V. FogI? (35 N. H. 289)
V. Fnuisham (L. R. 2 Eq. 669)
V. Hunter (67 Mo 293)
V. Jones (2 Met. Kv. 204)
V. Pate (93 Ind. 443)
V. Turner (04 Md. 109)
Ward (10 (i. & J. 443)

Matthis V. Hammond (0 Rich. Eq. 399)
Mattill V. Baas (89 Ind. 220)
Mauck V. Melton (04 Ind. 414)
Maurer v. Naill (5 Md. -324)
Maverick v. Reynolds (2 Bradf. 360)
Mawson v. Mawson (50 Cal. 539)
Maxon v. Gray (14 R. I. 641)
Maxwell, Ex parte (37 Ala. 302)

Matterof (3N. J. Eq. 611)

V. Featherston (83 Ind. 339)

V. McClintock (10 Pa. St. 237)

V. Maxwell (3 Met. Kv. 101)

V. Smith (80 Tenn. 530)
May's Appeal (41 Pa. St. 512)
MaV V. Bennett (1 Riiss. Ch. 370)
'v. Bradlee(127 Mass. 414)

V. Fletcher (40 Ind. .575)

V. Green (75 Ala. 102)

V. Mav(28 Ala. 141)

V. Parham (68 Ala. 253)

V. Rumnev (1 Mich. 1)

V. Taylor "(27 Tex. 125)

237

1200

974

289

809

136

993

302, 305

910

240

59

517

43

215

255

540

513

936

1187

54, 5.T

1228

937

990

41. 48

221

1137, 1148, 1107

351, 980

1041

235, 274

1057

Page
Mav V. Vann (15 Fla. 553) 802

MaVall, Appellant (29 Me. 474) 953

Mavberrv's Appeal (33 Pa. St. 258) 1167

Mavberrv v. McClurj,- (51 Mo. 250) 815

MaVburrV v. Brien (15 Pet. 21)- 233, 261

.Mavburv v. Gradv (07 Ala. 147) 904, 987

Maves r. Houston (01 Tex. 690) 579

' V. Jones (02 Tex. 305) 1264, 1272

Mavlield v. Kil^our (31 Md. 240) 609

Mavnard v. Mavnard (30 Hun, 227) 22, 305
'v. Vinton (59 Mich. 139) 40, 48, 08

Mavo V. Bland (4 Md. Ch. 484) 965

' V. ChuRv (.J7 Jlis.s. 674) 1132

V. Hamlin (73 Me. 182) 244

f. Jones (78 N. C. 402) 35, 37

I'. Whitson (2 Jones L. 231) 3-36

Mayor v. Johnson (3 Lev. 35) 416

Ma"ys V. Huaers (37 Ark. 155) 1020. 1028

Mazvck V. Vanderhorst (Bai. Eq. 48) 879, 915
McAdoo V. Thompson (72 N. C. 408) 1129
McAlee r. Bettis (72 N. C. 28) 206

V. Phillips (25 Oh. St. 374) 1129

McAlister v. Butterfield (31 Ind. 25) 892

r. Novenger (54 Mo. 251) 227

McAllister ■;;. McAllister (46 Vt. 272) 893, 923
McAnnulty v. McAnnnltv (120 III. 26) 107
McAnulty'f. Hodi^es (33 Miss. 579) 1087

V. M'cClav (10 Neb. 418) 362

McArthur v. Franklin (15 Oh. St. 485) 237
V. Scott (113 U. S. 340) 407, 469, 499,
502 942
IMcAuley v. Wilson (1 Dev. Eq. 276) 930, 932
McBaiirc. Wimbish (27 Ga. 259) 439

McBeth r. Hunt (2 Strob. 335) 529, 533

r. McBeth (11 Ala. 598) 482

JIcBrifle's Appeal (72 Pa. St. 480) 346

McBride v. Smvth (54 Pa. St. 245) 880

McCaa v. Wooif (42 Ala. 389) 1241

iSlcCabe's Estate (08 Cal. 519) 60

McCabe v. Fowler (84 N. Y. 314) 707, 708
V. Lewis (76 Mo. 296) 331, 372, 398, 571
V. Mazzuchelli (13 Wis. 478) 201

McCaffrey's Estate (38 Pa. St. 331) 571

McCaleb'f. Burnett (55 Miss. 83) 214

McCall V. Lee (120 111. 261) 815, 826, 827,

863, 947

V. McCall (15 La. An. 527) 196

V. Peachy (3 Munf. 288) 1158, 1165

V. Vallandingham (9 B. Mon. 233) 499

McCallam v. Pleasants (67 Ind. 542) 860

McCalley v. Wilburn (77 Ala. 549) 757

McCallister v. Brand (11 B. Mon. 370) 273

McCampbell v. Gilbert (6 J. J. Marsh.

592) 439

V. McCampbell (5 Litt. 92) 1109

McCandless's Api)eal (01 Pa. St. 9) 842

McCandlish r. Hopkins (6 Call, 208) 523

McCants v. Bee (1 McCord Ch. 383) 737

McCarthy v. Chicago R. R. (18 Kan. 46) 630

McCartney v. Calhoun (17 Ala. 301) 702

V. Garneau (4 Mo. App. 567)

300, 548,
866, 1194

V. Osburn (118 111. 403) 361, 496. 895,
896,899,937, 941

V. Osburn (121 111. 408)
McCartv's Estate (58 Cal. 335)

Estate (9 Phila. 318)
McCarty v. Frazer (62 Mo. 263)

V. Hal! (13 Mo. 480)
V Kearnan (86 111. 291)

361, 496

1207

824

653, 654,

1140

368

125

TABLE OF CASES.

XCUl

Page
McCartv v. McCarty (8 Bush, 504) 4'J8

McCaiij^'hal v. Uvaii ('27 Barb. ;J7(5) 310

McCaulev's Estate (50 Cal. 544) 211, 215

McCauIev v. Biickuer (8 S. \V. K. 196) 8)1
McCaw V. Blewit ^2 McCord Ch. 90) 1 1 72,

1219, 122 1

McChord V. Fisher (13 B. Mon. 193) 431, 554

McClanalian v. Davis (8 How. 170) 991. 992

V. McClanahan (12 ilL'isk. 379) 1193

V. Porter (10 Mo. 741)) 2G1

McClav V. Foxworthy (18 Neb. 295) 1034,

1040
McClead v. Davis (83 Ind. 263) 636, 1 142,

1143
jNlcCIean v. McBean (74 111. 134) 1264

:\IcClearv r. Monke (III:) 111. 294) 432, 433
McCleland r. BideiiiMii (5 La. An. 503) 578
McClellau's Appeal (16 Pa. St. 110) 519, 529,

530, 533

McClellan v. Downev (63 Cal. 520) 547. 1239

r. Filson (44 Oli. St. 184) 759, 760, 762

McClendon v. Gnniilloii (Diullev, 48) 1137

McCliiitock's Appeal (58 Mich."l52) 1223, 1224

Appeal (29 Pa. St. 360) 842

McCIiiitock V. Dana (106 Pa. St, 386) 1002

r. Graham (3 McCord, 553) 602

McCloskev V. Gleasnn (56 Vt. 264) 678, 1138

McClov v. Ariiett (47 Ark. 445) 214

V. Trotter (47 Ark. 445) 215

McClure v. Bates (12 Iowa, 77) 358

V. Colcloiiyh (5 Ala. 65) 560

V. McClure (6 S. W. R. 44) 48, 100

V. Miller (4 Hawks, 133) 624

V. Owens (32 Ark. 443) 230

V. People (19 111. App. 105) 411, 414, 426

V. Williams (58 Ga. 494) 1064

McClurg V. Schwartz (87 Pa. St. 521) 247

V. Turner (74 Mo. 45) 257

McClurkeu v. McClurken (46 III. 327) 200

McColloni V. Hincklev (9 Vt. 143) 857

McComb, E.n: parte (4 Bradf. 151) 1002

McConkev v. McConkev (9 Watts, 352) 160

McConnel i'. Smith (39 "ill. 279) 1030, 1072

MeConnell v. McConnell (94 111. 235) 424

McCook V. Pond (72 Ga. 150) 357

McCord V. McCord (77 Uo. 166) 122, 124

V. McKinlev(92 111.11) 172

V. Ochiltree (8 Blackf. 15) 921

V. Thompson (92 Ind. 565) 360, 365

McCormack v. Kimniel (4 111. App. 121) 199,

329, 1089

McCormick v. McCormick (40 Miss. 760) 691

V. McNeel (53 Tex. 15) 212

V. Sullivant (10 Wheat. 192) 32-5, 378,

494, 496

V. Wheeler (36 Til. 114) 333, 337

V. Wright (79 Va 524) 738

McCorn v. McCorn (100 N. Y. 511) 989, 1098

McCown V. Foster (33 Tex. 241) 1079

MeCov r. Hvatt (80 Mo. 130) 612

v'. JlcCo'y (4 Hedf . 54) 47

V. Morrow (18 III. 519) 1025

V. Payne (68 Ind. 327) 421

V. Scott (2 Rawle, 222) 1142

McCracken v. Hall (7 Ind. 30) 605

V. McCracken (6 T. B. IMon. 342) 1165

McCrae v. Hollis (4 Des. 122) 1131

McCrarv v. rasker(41 Iowa, 255) 1026

McCraw v. Fleming (5 Ired. Eq. 348) 1247

McCrea v. Harazthy (51 Cal. 146) 468, 841,

1257

Pase.
MtCrearv v. Tavlor (38 Ark. 393) 505

McCredv's AjipL-al (47 Pa. St. 442) 1097

McCreeiy v. Allender (4 H. (Si McH. 409) 22
MctJrubb v. Brav (36 Wis. 333) 703

McCuan v. Tanner (54 Cal. 84) 217

V. Turrentine (48 Ala. 68) 205, 216

McCue V. Garvev (14 Hun, 562) 762

McCullers v. Haines (39 Ga. 195) 2lU)

McCuUoch's Appeal (113 Pa. St. 247) 112

McCullogh V. Campbell (49 Ark. 367) 36, 46. 47
('. Weaver (14 La. An. 33) 1081

McCullom V. Chidester (63 III. 477) 1103

IMcCullough's Estate (Mvr. 76) 64

McCullough V. Copeland (40 Oh. St. 329) 1097
V. Wise (57 Ala. 623) 714

McCullum r. McKenzie (26 Iowa, 510) 110
McCullv's Estate (13 Phila. 296) 522

McCullv V. Chapman (58 Ala. 325) 10.55

McCIune's Estate (76 .Mo. 200) 8-59, 865, 1195
McCurdv r. IMiddlc-ton (82 Aln. 131) 238

V. Neall (42 N. .1. E(|. 333) 86

McCurlev cMeCurlev (00 JId. 185) 624

McCustian v. Kamey733 Ark. 141) 645, 674,

844

McCntchen r. McCutchen (S Port. 151) 074

McDade v. Burch (7 Ga. 559) 329

McDaniel v. Crosbv (19 Ark. 533) 36, 47

V. Douglas (6 ilumph. 220) 269

V. Grace (15 Ark. 465) 276

V. .Johns (8 .Jones, 414) 696

V. King (90 N. C. 597) 892

McDearman v. Hodnett (83 Va. 281) 1223

McDeannon v. Maxtield (38 Ark. 631) 410, 412

McDermott's Appeal (106 Pa. St. 358) 612

McDermott r. Haves (00 N. H. 9) 332

McDonald v. Aten (1 Oh. St. 293) 1123, 1124

V. Burton (68 Cal. 445) 1043

v. Craiulall (43 III. 231) 206

V. Huttou (8 X. .J. Eq. 473) 1031

V. IVIcDonald (8 Yerg. 145) 1247

V. Webster (2 Mass. 498) 829, 854

V. Williams (16 Ark. 36) 643

McDonnell, Ex parte (2 Bradf. 32) 503

McDonogh'a Succession (7 La. An. 472) 542,

576, 1166

McDonogh r. Murdoch (15 How. 367) 913

INIcDonough r. Loughlin (20 Barb. 238) 76

McDougal V. Hepburn (5 Fla. 568) 230

McDowell r. Addnms (45 Pa. St. 430) 151

V. Branham (2 Nott & McC. 572) 794

r. Caldwell (2 McC. Ch. 43) 774

r. Ifendrix (67 In<1.513) 637

r. Hendrix (71 Ind. 286) 637

V. ?^Iurdock (1 Nott & McC. 237) 122, 123

r. Pevton (2 Des. 313) 497

McElmovne v. (Johen (13 Pet. 312) 776

IMcElmuVrav v. Loomis (31 Fed. Rep. 395) 188

^IcElrov's Case (6 W. & S. 451) 33

:McElro"v i: Thompson (42 Ala 656) 705

JIcElwiiu, Ex parte (29 III. 442) 251

McElwaine, In re (18 N. J. Eq. 499) 66

McElwee >\ Ferguson (43 Md. 479) 39

McFadden v. Hefley (5 S. E. R. 812) 964, 967,

987

i\ Hewett (78 Me. 24) 553

V. Ross (93 Ind. 134) 573, 575, 576

McFadgen v. Council (81 N. C. 195) 578, -580

McFait's Appeal (8 Pa. St. 290) 1 104

McFall V. Sullivan (17 S. C. 504) 1215

McFarland r. Baze (24 Mo. 156) 102, 177

V. Febigers (7 Oh. 194) 250

XCIV

TABLE OF CASES.

Patre
McFiuliinJ V. Stone (17 Vt. 1G5) 622

McKarlane v. Kaiidle (41 Miss. 411) 1187

Mcb'eelev's Estate (2 Kedf. 541) 1052. 1051)
MiFeelv ». Scott (128 Mass. IG) 451

MctJauIrhev r. Ik-iiiv (15 H. Mon. 383) 1239

, . . , ' - . • » 1 ,,'. . il -,..|\ 1 1 Ml

ll:i9

1237

213

247

MiGearv's'Aiipual (G Atl. 7G3)
McGee v. Ford (5 Siii. & M. 7G9)

V. McGoe (91 III. 548)

i: McCiee (4 Ired. L. 105)

V. McNeil (41 Miss. 17) oo

McGehee v. Jones (41 Ga. 123) 830

■y. Polk (24 Ga. 4UG) 374

r. Uagan (9 Ga. 135) 5G5

McGhee v. Hovt (lOG Pa. St. 516) 10G7

McGill V. Dennnt; (44 Oh. St. 645) 228

JIcGinnis ii. Keiiipsev (27 Mich. 303) 37

Mctiirr v. Aaron (1 Pa. 49) 923

Mc(;iawn V. Fx.we (74 Ga. 34) 992

McGlinsev's Appeal (14 S. & K. 64) 701

McGooch"'??. McGooch (4 Mass. 348) 519, 528
McGovnev v. State (20 Oh. 93) 552

McGowaii V. McGowan (48 Mis.s. 553) 702
McGrath v. Reynolds (116 Mass. 566) 121, 123,

125

V. Sinclair (55 Miss. 89) 200

McGrepor v. Biiel (24 N. Y. 100) 514

v. McGregor (33 How. Pr. 450) 506, 508

740
523
901
903
47
730
931
809
202
835
923

V. McGregor (35 N. Y. 218)
McGuire ». Bucklev (58 Ala. 120)

V. McGowan (4 Des. 480)
Mcllvaine v. Gethan (3 Whart. 575)
Mclntire v. MeConn (28 Iowa, 480)

V. Morris (14 Wend. 90)

V. Zanesville (17 Oh. St. 352)
Mcintosh V. Greenwood (15 Tex. 116)
Mclntvre v. Clnrk (43 Hun, 352)

w.'Meldrim (40 Ga. 490)

V. Zanesville (9 Oh. 203)
McKamie v. Baskerville (7 S. W. E. 194) 157
McKay v. Donald (8 Rich. 331) 549

r." Green (3 .John. ch. .50) 798, 1117

McKoan r. Brown (83 Kv. 208) 229

V. Vick (108 111. 373) 281, 288, 1027

McKee's Appeal (96 Pa. St. 277)

Appeal (104 Pa. St. 571)
McKee v. Cottle (0 Mo. App. 410)

V. McKee (8 B. IVIon. 401)

V. Reynolds (20 Iowa, 578)

V. White (50 Pa. St. 354)

V. Wilcox (11 Mich. 3.58)
McKeegan v. O'Neill (22 S. C. 454)
McKeehan v. Wilson (53 Pa. St. 74)
McKeen v. Frost (40 Me. 239) 384, 410, 473, 470

V. Oliphant (18 N. J. L. 442)

v. Waldrnn (25 Minn. 400) 819,

ISIcKeithan v. Terry (04 N. C. 25)
ISIcKenna's Estate" (1 Leg. Gaz. Rep. 12)
INIcKennan's Appeal (27 Pa. St. 237)
McKenzie's Appeal (41 Conn. 007)
McKenzie v. Donald (61 Miss. 452)

V. Pendleton (1 Bush. 164)

918
902
277
1152
249
475
201
59
880

McKeown v. Harvey (40 Mich. 226)
McKey v. Young (4H. & M. 430)
ISI.'Kie V. Clark (3 Dem. 380)
McKim V. Aulhach (130 Mass. 481)

V. Blake (132 Mass. 343)

V. Duncan (4 Gill, 72)

V. Thompson (1 Bland, 150)
McKinley's Estate (49 Cal. 152)
McKinley v. Lamb (04 Barb. 199)

V. McGregor (10 Iowa, 111)

811

1209

1070

705

545

948

255

423

680

702

1175

737, 738

551

1168, 1174

799

814

69

623

Page

McKinney v. Abbott (49 Tex. 371) 140

Mclvinster v. Smith (27 Conn. 628) 955

McKinzie v. Hill (51 Mo. 303) 842, 844, 847

McKnii^ht V. Morgan (2 Barb. 171) 631, 658

V. Walsh (23 N. J. Eq. 130) 1012

McLachlan r. McLachlan (9 Pai. 534) 952

McLain v. Carson (4 Ark. 164) 287

McLane v. Belvin (47 Tex. 493) 800, 811

V. Johnson (43 Vt. 48) 6".l, 058

V. Paschal (47 Tex 305) 210, 216

V. Spence (0 Ala. 894) 672, 702

V. Spence (11 Ala. 172) 672

McLaren «■. Clark (02 Ga. 106) 274

McLaughlin's Will (Tuck. 79) 502

McLaughlin v. Jannev (0 Grat. 009) 1050

r. McDevitt (63 N. Y. 213) 48

r. ^IcLaughlin (16 Mo. 242) 231, 632

V. McLaughlin (20 N. J. En. 190) 257.

258, 262

V. McLaughlin (22 N. J. Eq. 505) 257

V. McLaughlin (4 Oh. St. 508) 326

V. Newton (53 N. H. 531) 821, 822

V. Winner (03 Wis. 120) 707

McLaurin r. Thompson (Dud. 335) 574

McLean, Succession of (12 La. An. 222) 1045

V. Bergner (80 Mo. 414) 1127

V. Leach (68 N. C. 95) 798

V. McLean (88 N. C. 394) 757

V. Meek (18 How. 10) 360, 301

V. Robertson (120 Mass. 537) 980

V. Wade (53 I'a. St. 146) 356

»; Weeks (01 Me. 277) 631, 632, 1070

McLeery v. McLeerv (65 Me. 172) 205

JlcLella'n's Appeal (76 Pa. St. 235) 1126

McLellan v. Lunt (14 Me. 254) 675

JIcLemore v. Blocker (Harp. Eq. 272) 638

McLeod V. Dell (9 Fla. 427) 916, 917

v. Dell (9 Fla. 451) 80

V. Griffis (45 Ark. 505) 1122, 1123

McLeran v. Benton (73 Cal. 329) 713

McLoskevt^. Reid (4 Bradf. 334) 1012

McLuve v. Steele (14 Rich. Eq. 105) 1217, 1222

McMahan's Estate (19 Nev. 241) 1252

McMahan v. Harbert (35 Tex. 451) 089

McMahill v. McMaiiill (105 111. 596) 213

V. McMahill (09 Iowa, 115) 1214, 1220

McMahon v. Harrison (6 N. Y\ 443) 408

V. Russell (17 Fla. 098) 235, 237

V. Ryan (20 Pa. St. 329) 47

McManus's Estate (14 Phila. 600) 170

jMcManus V. McDowell (11 Mo. App. 436) 339,

1183
McMasters v. Blair (29 Pa. St. 298) 39

Mc:\lechen v. McMechen (17 W. Va.

083) 37, 65

McMeekin v. Hvnes (80 Kv. 343) 423

V. McMeekin (2 Bush, 79) 71

McMenamin's Estate (12 Phila. 510) 1108
McMillan v. Rushing (80 Ala. 402) 1083

McMo'ine v. Storey (4 D. & B. 189) 418, 420
McMullen v. Brazelton (81 Ala. 442) 1230
Mc:Mullin V. Brown (2 Hill Ch. 457) 493, 1239
jNIcMurray v. Shuck (6 Bush, 111) 181

Mc^NIurrv f. Stanley (69 Tex. 227) 877, 948
McMiirti-ie v. McMurtrie (15 Nr J. L.

276) 871

McNab V. Stewart (12 Minn. 407) 836

McNabb v. Wixom (7 Nev 103) 669

McNair's Appeal (4 Rawle, 148) 737

McNair v. Dod^e (7 Mo. 404) 506

I'. Hunt (5 Mo. 301) 697

TABLE OF CASES.

XCV

Pafre
McNairv v. Bell (6 Yerg. 302) 406

McNallv V. Brown (5 Kedf. 372) 482

V. Havnes (5y Tex. 583) 1078

McNamara r. Dwver (7 Pai. 239) 371, 1184

V. McNamara' (62 Ga. 200) 363, 366

McNaiij^htoii V. McNaughton (34 N. Y.

201) 946

McNoel's Estate (68 Pa. St. 412) 661

McNeil V. Smith (55 Ga. 313) 396

McNeilledge v. liarclav (11 S. & R. 103) 904

V. Galbraith (8 S. '& R. 43) 904

McNitt V. Turner (16 Wall. 352) 329, 1037,

1089
McNiiltv V. Hiird (72 N. Y. 518) 349, 803, 826

V. Lewis (8 Sm. & M. 520) 173, 187, 190
McPnxton v. Dickson (15 Ark. 97) 1148

McPiierson's Appeal (11 Ati. R. 205) 40

McPherson v. Clark (3 Bradf. 92) 93

V. Cunhff Ul S. & R. 422) 323, 325, 330,
338, 448, 103U. 1089

V. Israel (5 Gill & J. 60) 1165, 1173

McQueen's Estate (44 Cal. 584) 1137

McRae v. McRae (3 Bradf 199) 1216

r. McRae (11 La. 571) 375

McRea v. Central Bank (66 N. Y. 489) 606
McRearv v. Robinson (12 Sm. & M.318) 106,

171)
McRee v. Means (-34 Ala. 349) 948, 949

McRevnoIds's Estate (61 fowa, 585) 187

McRevnolds v. Counts (9 Grat. 242) 273

McSorlev v. McSovlev (2 Bradf. 188) 40

McSwean v. Faulks (46 Ala. 610) 1062

McTaggart v. Thompson (14 Pa. St. 149) 42, 43
McTaggert v. Smith (14 Bush, 414) 211, 214
McVaughters v. Elder (2 Brev. 307) 385

McVpv v. McVev (51 Mo. 406) 1054, lOfiO
McWliirter v. Jackson (10 Humph. 209) 846

V. Roberts (40 Ark. 283) 241

McWhorter r. Reason (Hopk. 28) 1145, 1165

V. Donald (39 Miss. 779) 809

McWiUiams's Appeal (117 Pa. St. Ill) 844
McWilliams e. Hopkins (4 Rawle, 382) 540,

552
McWillie v. Van Vacter (-35 Miss. 428) 349
Meach v. Meach (24 Vt. 591) 118, 120, 125
Meacham v. Edmonson (54 Miss. 746) 208

Mead v. Bvington (10 Vt. 116) 387, 1153

V. Kildav (2 Watts, 110) 797

V. Langdon (22 Vt. 50) 1246

V. Orrery (3 Atk. 235) 990

V. Sherwood (4 Redf. 352) 1037

V. Willoughby (4 Dem. 364) 1181

Meadows v. Meadows (73 Ala. 356) 1036,

1037, 1061
Meakin v. Duvall (43 Md. 372) 109ij

Means v. Evans (4 Des 242) 887

V. Moore (3 McCord, 282) 89

Mears v. Mears (15 Oh. St. 90) 38

Meason, Ex parte (•> Binn. 167) 780, 821

Mebane v. Mebane (4 Ired. Eq. 131) 957

Mechanics' Bank i\ Harrison (68 Ga. 463) 3.53
Meck's Appeal (97 Pa. St. 313) 58, 60

Meckel's Appeal (112 Pa. St. 554) 1130

Medley v. Dunlap (90 N. C. 527) 184

Medomak Bank v. Curtis (24 Me. 36) 827
Medsker v. I'.onebrake (108 U. S. 66) 610

Meec'i V. Mcech (.37 Vt. 414) 212, 1202

V. Weston (33 Vt 561) 171

Meehan v. Roiirke (2 Bradf. 385) 71

Meek v. Perry (36 Miss. 190) 49

Meeker v. Me"eker (75 III. 260) 30

Page
Meeker v. Meeker (37 N. W. R. 7.33) 41, 1149
V. Vanderveer (15 N. .J. L. 39:i) 687

Meeks v. Hahn (20 Cal. 620) 713

Megee v. Beirne (39 Pa. St. 50) 337

Meier v. Thieman (90 Mo. 433) 830, 834

V. Thieman (15 Mo. App. 307) 834

Meinzer v. Berington (42 Oh. St. 325) 680, 682
Meisenhelter's Will (15 Phila. 651) 82

Melcher v. Stevens (1 Dem. 123) 332

Melia v. Simmons (45 Wis. 334) 448, 451

Melizct's Appeal (17 Pa. St. 449) 243, 269
Mellen v. Boarnian (13 Sm. & M. 100) 1056,

1077

Mellick V. Asylum (1 .Tac. 180) 934

Melms V. Ptister (59 Wis. 186) 735, 1024

Meirish v. Milton (L. R. 3 Ch. D. 27) 485

Melone v. Davis (67 Cal. 279) 1248

Melton V. Da^ idson (5 S. W. R. 530) 155

Melvin v. Bullard (82 N. C. 33) 1217

Mendenhall v. Mower ( 16 S. C. 303) 916

Mengel's Appeal (116 Pa. St. 292) 1222

Menifee v. Menifee (8 Aik. 9) 712

Mentney v. Petty (Prec. Ch. 593) 131

Mercein v. Smith (2 Hill, N. Y. 210) 827

Mercer's Succession (28 La. An. 564) 97

Mercer v. Hogan (4 Mackey, 520) 320,1124

V. Mackin (14 Bush, 434) 482

u. Newsom 23Ga. 151) 702,703

Jlerchant's Case (39 N. J. Kq. 506) 648, 1136

Case (41 N. J. Eq. 349) 648, 1136

Will (Tuck. 17) 543

Merchant v. Driver (1 Sandf. 303) 797

V. Merchant (2 Bradf. 432) 120, 126

Merchants' Bank r. Rawls (21 Ga. 334) 685

V. Ward (45 Mo. 310) 808

Merchants' Ins. Co. v. Linchey (3 Mo.

App. 587) 809

Mercier v. West Kansas Land Co. (72

Mo. 473) 905

Meredith's Estate (1 Pars. Sel. C. 433) 722
Meriwether v. Morrison (78 Kv. 572) 122

Jlerkel's Appeal (109 Pa. St. 235) 880

Merkle i'. Township (.35 N. W. R. 846) 627
Merklein v. Trapnell (34 Pa. St. 42) 1244

Jlerrick's Estate (8 Watts & S. 402) 346, 655
Merrick v. North (28 La. An. 878) 1078

Merritieid r. Longmire (&', Cal. 180) 1138, 1195
Merrill v. BickfoVd (65 Me. 118) 1097

V. Kmerv (10 Pick. 507) 952

V. Harris (26 N. H. 142) 330, 1031, 1048,

1089

V. Moore (7 How. Miss. 271) 1167

V. N. E. Ins. Co. (103 Mass. 245) 361

V. Kolston (5 Redf. 220) 34

V. Sherburne (1 N. H. 199) 243

Merrils v. Adams (Kirbv, 247) 1200

Merriman r. Lacefield (4"Heisk. 209) 205, 1219

Merritt r. Biichanon (78 Me. 504) 1097

V. Bucknani (77 Me. 253) 920

V. Lvon (3 Barb. 110) 611

V. Merritt (97 III. 243) 211

V. Merritt (62 Mo. 150) 651, 708, 1040,

1041

I'. Merritt (43 N. J. Eq. 11) 988, 1002

V. Richardson (14 Allen, 239) 995

Merryfield i'. Longmire (66 Cal. 180) 1 138, 1 195

Merselis v. Merselis (7 N. J. Eq. 557) 1123

Meserve r. Meserve (63 Me. 518) 27, 885, 886

V. Meserve (19 N. H. 240) 258

Mesick v. Mesick (7 Barb. 120) 11.50

Messer v. Messer (59 N. H. 375) 289

XCVl

TABLE OF CASES.

Metcalf '•. Fvamingham (128 ^Mass. 370) 906
■ r. Metcalt(l'JAla.31'J) '^J^.

MeteaUe,Good«<.f(lAdd.343 400

r. Colles (43 N. J. Kq. HS) 1107, Uli
MeUjodistCUurd. .. ClarM41^M|c..^^^

V. Remiiiicton (1 Watts, 218)
Metteer v. Wiley (34 I(iwa,214)
Metts-s Appeal (1 Whart. 7
Metzger v. ML'tzi,-er (1 Bradf. 20o)
Meurer's Will (44 Wis. 3U2)
Meyer v. Fogg (7 Fla. 292)

V. Gossett (38 Ark. 377)

V. Mever (7 b la. 292)

V. Mever (23 Iowa, 359)

r. M<.lir(19 Abb. Pr.299)

V. (iiuirternious (28 Ark. 45)

V. Steuart (48 Md. 423)
Mevriek v. xViiderson (14 A. ^; Ji.. aa;
Michael V. Baker (12 Md 158)
Michel's Succession (20 La. An. 233)
Michener v. Dale (23 I'a. bt. 59)

908

207

851

1189

71

24, 70

248, 249

24, TO, 408

183, 203

247, 275

803

1192

Miller r. Goodwin (8 Gray, 542)
V. Gre.'nhaui (11 Uh. St. 480)
V. llarri.-on (■ii N. .L Lq. 374)
V. Helm CiSni. & M. 087)
V. Holt (08 Mo. 684)
Hurt U2 Ga. 357)

113,

1223
05
1012
233
353
702, 1088
1009
340. 1155
285
232
1004
765
1103
1213, 1214, 1222
1219
903
727
1219, 1223
1018
859
377, 1239
397, 399
1144, 1147
929
608
63
272
474
932
929

Page

608

1073

855

745, 800

00

87,

1196

421

352

696

117, 126,

127, 129

Michoud V. Girod (4 How. U^ S. 503) 700
Mickel r. Brown (4 Baxt 408) 707
«. Hicks (19 Kan. 578 10; 0

Micken V. Maxent (6 La. An. 2 3 11J6
Middlebrouk r. Merchants' Bank (3 Abb. _^^^

''^■'^Merc'hams' Bank (41 Barb. 481) 307

V. Merchants' Bank (27 How Pr. 4.4) 307

Middleton's .\ppeal (1<« fa- fet. 92) 002

Middleton t'. Middleton (15 Beav. 450 1106

Milan V. Femberton (12 Mo. 598 -^2^, 331

Milburn v. Milburn (00 Iowa, 411) 110, lo7

Mildred v. Morriss (9 Keu-k. 814)

Miles's Will (4 Dana, 1)

Miles V. Bovden (3 Fick. 213)

V. Fisher (10 Ohio, 1)

V. Peabodv (04 (ia. 729)

D.Wheeler (43 111. 121)

D. Wister (5 Binn. 477)

Millard v. Harris (119 111. 185)

V. Ftamsdell (Harr. Ch.3/3)
Milledge v. Lamar (4 Desaus. 017)
Millen v. Guerrard (67 Ga. 284)
Millenovich's Estate (5 Nev. 101)
Miller's Appeal (7 Atl. 190)
Appeal (31 Fa. St. 337)
Appeal (40 Pa. St. 57)
Appeal (52Pa. St. 113)
Appeal (00 Fa. St. 404)
Appeal (107 Pa. St. 221)
Estate (48 Cal. 105)
Estate (82 Pa. St. 113)
Estate (3 Kawle, 312)
Succession (27 La. An. 574
Miller, In re (4 Kedf. 302)

V. Atkinson (03 N. ('. 537)

V. Bingham (1 Ired. Ivi- 423)

V. Brown (2 Hagg. 2 9)

V. Buell (92 Ind. 482)

V. Carothers (6 S. & R- 215)

V. Chittenden (2 Iowa, 315)

V. Chittenden (4 Iowa, 2.52)

V. Commonwealth (2 Cent. Rep. 830) 1123

V. Commonwealth (HI Pa. St. 321) r28

V. Congdon (14 Gray, 114) 391

r. Defoor (50 Ga. 566) ^^^''o 2«-

r. Dorsev(9Md. 317) ^^^'f'f,

V. Gee (4 Ala. 359) 5*>0

V. Irbv(63 Ala. 477)

V. Iron County (29 Mo. 122)

V. Jeffress (4 Grat. 472)

V. Jones (26 Ala. 247)

V. Jones (39 111. 54)

V. McNeill (35 Pa. St. 217)

V. Major (07 Mo. 247)

V. Marckle (27 111.402)

V. Meetch (8 Fa. St. 417)

V. Miller (5 Ileisk. 723)

V. Miller (82 111. 463)

V. Miller (91 N. Y. 315)

V. Miller (3 Serg. & R. 207)

D. Miller (10 Tex. 319)

V. Northern Bank (34 Miss. 412)

V. Palmer (55 Miss. 323)

V. Fettit (16 N. J. L. 421)

V. Philip (5 Fai. 573)

V. Phillips (9 R. I. 141)

V. Redwine (75 Ga. 130)

V. Reigne (2 Hill, S. C. 592)

V. Simpson (2 S. W. R. 171)

V. Speer (38 N. J.E(|. 507)

V. Springer (70 Fa. St. 209)

V. Steele (04 Ind. 79)

V. Stepper (32 Mich. 194)

V. Stump (3 Gill, 304)

V. Tallev (48 Mo. 503)

V. Teachout (24 Oh. St. 525)

V. Towles (4 J. J. Marsh. 255)

788. 789

320, 320

123, 124

440

281

70

1132

203, 208

511

409, 499

191, 192, 1209

157

47

1023

287

1081

804

994

108, 481

732

385

1148, 1234

153

892

1131

245

236

256

913, 922

794, 1157

... Trustees (5 Sm. & M. 651) SJ]0

V. Umbehower (10 S. & R. 31) 62.3

V. Williamson (5 Md. 219) Oil, 013, 1001
V. Wilson (24 Fa. St. 114) ,,^, S?.

V. Woodward (8 Mo. 169) 355, 1123, 1209

Millett r. Ford (109 Ind. 159)

V. Millett (72 Me. 117)
Milligan's Appeal (82 Pa. St. 389)
Milli'kin v. Martin (00 111. 13)

V. Welliver (37 Oh. St. 460)
Million V. Ohnsorg (10 Uo. App. 432)
Mills, In re (34 Minn. 290)
V. Banks (3 P. Wms 1)
V. Carter (8 Blackf 203)
V. Humes (22 Md. 346)
V. Joiner (20 Fla. 479)
V. Jones (2 Rich. 393)
D. Van Voorhies(20N.^.412)
V. Wildman (18 Conn. 124)
Millsap V. Stanley (50 Ala. 319)
Milne's Appeal (99 Pa. St. 483)
Succession (1 Rob. La. 400)
Milne v. Milne (17 La. 46)
Milnes, Goods of (3 Add. 55)

V. Slater (8 Ves. 295)
Miltenberger v. Knox (21 La. An. d99
V. Miltenberger (78 »Io 27)
V. Miltenberger (8 Mo. App. 306)
Milton V. Hunter (13 Bush, 163)

V. Milton (14 Fla. 369)
Miner v. Atherton (35 Pa- St. 528)

V. Aylesworth (18 Fed. R. 199)
Minkler v. Minkler (14 Vt. 125)
Minor v. CardwcU (37 Mo. 350)
V. Dabnev (3 Rand. 191)

901
803
1245
94
269
809
841
732
571
468
824
777
2-37
8.56
1123
332
1173
924
406
1106
440
477
477
476
259
980
845
91, 480
358
969

36

TABLE OF CASES.

xcvu

Page

Minor v. Guthrie (4 S. W. R. 179) 91

V. Mead (3 Conn. 28'J) 570, 631, 66()

r. Minor(8 Grat. 1) 827

V. Kotrers (40 Conn. 412) 122

Minot V. Boston Asylum (7 Met. 41G) (-"J^J

V. Norcross (143 Mass. 32iJ) 749

V. Paine (99 Mass. 101) 1003

Minter's Appeal (40 Pa. St. Ill) 940

Miskimins's Appeal (114 Pa. St. 530) 344,

1023, 1040
Missouri Historical Society v. Acadcniv

(94 Mo. 459) 929, 931

Mitcham v. Moore (73 Ala. 542) 177, 190

Mitchel V. Lunt (4 Mass. 654) 414, 416, 522

Mitchell's Appeal (60 Pa. St. .502) 1196

Mitchell V. Adams (1 Ired. 298) 511, 582

V. Billingslev (17 Ala. 391) 597

J7. Blain(5 Pai.588) 986

V. Bliss (47 Mo. 353) 1059

V. Hotchkiss (43 Conn. 9) 626

V. Kirk (3 Srieed, 319) 414, 417, 427

V. McMullen (59 Mo. 252) 1078, 1086

V. Miller (6 Dana, 79) 2.58

V. Mitchell (8 Ala. 414) 1219, 1223, 1231

V. Mitchell (18 Md. 405) 9.58

V. Mitchell (21 Md. 244) ]0;)4

V. Morse (77 Me. 423) 948

V. Overman (13 Otto, 62) 333, 334

V. Pease (7 Cush. 350) 127, 854

V. Presbyterian Church (3 Dem. 603) 932

V. Pvroii (17 Ga. 416) 1194, 1195

V. Rice (6 J. J. Marsh. 623) 410, 653

r. Savings Institution (56 Miss. 444) 836

V. Spence (02 Ala. 450) 721

V. Trotter (7 Grat. 136) 678

V. Vickers (20 Tex. 377) 83

V. Word (60 Ga. 525) 254, 265

V. Word (64 Ga. 208) 185, 375, 380

Mitchelson v. Piper (8 Sim. 64) 786

Mitchener v. Atkinson (63 N. C. .585) 1102

Mitford V. Revnolds (1 Phillips, 185) 928

Mix's Appear(35 Conn. 121) 1125

Moale V. Cutting (21 Mo. 347) 1222

Mobley v. (Jureton (2 S. C. 140) 1270

V. Moblev (9 Ga. 247) 331, 1259

V. Nare (67 Mo. 546) 1080

Mock V. Pleasants (34 Ark. 63) 1087, 1131,

11.32, 11.52
Modawell v. Holmes (40 Ala. .391) 12.56

V. Hudson (80 Ala. 265) 5.50

Moffat r. Loughridge (51 Miss 211) 1167

Moffettv. Moffett (67 Tex. 642) 81

Moffitt V. Moffitt (69 111. 641) 10-37, 1048

Mogan's Estate (Mvr. 80) 1144

Mohr V. Tulip (40 Wis. 66) 326

Mole V. Mole (1 Dick. 310) 1009

Mollan V. GrilHth (3 Paige, 402) 1105

Mollison V. Mills (25 N. W. 631) 841

Monahon v. Vandvke (27 III. 154) 1021

Monck V. Monck (1 Ball & Beat. 298) 981
Moncrief v. Moncrief (73 Ind. 587) 1079

Monell V. Monell (5 John Ch. 283) 737

Money v. Turnipseed (50 Ala. 499) 1037

Mong V. Rousch (29 W. Va. 119) 924

Moninger v. Ramsey (48 Iowa, 308) 210

Monk ». Home (38 Miss. 100) ^ 1037

Monongahela Bank v. Jacobus (109 U. S.

275) 8.34

Mom-oe v. James (4 Munf. 194) 385, 410

V. Napier (52 Ga. 385) 836

V. Van Meter (100 111. 347) 276, 277

VOL. I. — g

Page
Monroe r. Wilson (6 T. B. Mon. 122) 1069
Montague v. Allen (78 Va. 592) 44, 49

v.^Self (106 111.49) 215

Montalvan v. Clover (32 Barb. 190) 371

MontefitH-e v. Guedalla (1 De G- F. & J. 93) 978
JMonteith r. Baltimore Assoc. (21 Md.

426) 11-37

Montgomery's Appeal (92 Pa. St. 202) 1229

Montgomery i-. Armstrong (5 J. J. Marsh.

175) 645

V. Dorion (7 N. H. 475) 22, 306

V. Gordon (51 Ala. 337) 1245

V. Johnson (31 Ark. 74) .329, 1047, 1089

V. Perkins (2 Met. Kv. 448) 71

V. Robertson (57 Ga. 258) 1234

V. Williamson (37 Md. 421) 3,32

Moutmollin v. Gaunt (5 Dana, 405) 698

Moody r. Butler (03 Tex. 210) 1060

r. Fry (3 Humph. 567) 632

r. Grant (41 IMiss. 565) 3-36

V. Hemphill (71 Ala. 169) 1138, 1139

V. Hemphill (75 Ala. 268) 639

V. Hutchinson (44 Me. 57) 1208

V. Moody (29 Ga. 519) 525, 528, 1208

V. Moody (11 Me. 247) 1046

V. Vandyke (4 Binn. 31) 393

Mooers v. White (6 John. Ch. 360) 22, 305,

1025, 1033

Moon V. Evans (09 Wis. 607) 1 1 1

V. Stone (19 Grat. 1-30) 897

Moor V. Raisbeck (12 Sim. 123) 103

Moore's Estate (57 Cal. 437) 195

Estate (-57 Cal. 440) 162

Estate (68 Cal. -394) 1192

Estate (Tuck. 41) 677

Moore, Ex parte (7 How. Miss. 665) 27 1

In re (72 Cal. 335) 1140, 1148, 1152, 1189

V. Beauchamp (4 B. Mon. 71) 1137

V. Beckwith (14 Oh. St. 129) 988, 989,

1104
V. Brown (14 Mo. 165) 815

V. De La Torre (1 Phillim. 375) 99

r. Dimond (5 R. 1.121) 9-39

V. Dunn (92 N. C. 63) 8-59

V. Dutson (4 S E. R. 169) 8-35

V. Ellsworth (51 III. 308) 1025, 1027

V. Felkel (7 Fla. 44) 705

V. Fields (42 Pa. St. 467) 368

». Foster (1 Bai. -370) 793

V. Gleaton (23 Ga. 142) 1241

V. Gordon (24 Iowa, 158) 1239

V. Harris (91 Mo. 610) 2-54

V. Hegeman (72 N. Y. -376) 879

V. Holmes (32 Coin. 5-53) 660, 663

V. Jordan (36 Kan. 271) 359, 362, 368.
375 441. 442
V. Kent (37 Iowa, 20) 243, 261

V. Kerr (10 Serg. & R. -348) 792

V. Lesueur (33 Ala. 237) 1229

V. Lyons (25 Wend. 119) 949

V. McDonald (12 Atl. R. 117) 48

V. Maguire (26 Ala. 461) 342

V. Moore (14 Barb. 27) 1042

V. Moore (12 B. Mon. 6.51) 871

V. Moore (2 Bradf, 201) 31

V. Moore (1 Bro. C. C. 127) 968

1'. Moore (4 Dana, 354) 921, 931

V. Moore (1 Dev. L. 3-52) 3-33, -571

V. Moore (21 How, Pr. 211) 825

V. Moore (22 La. An. 226) 1074

V. Moore (67 Mo. 192) 41

XCVIU

TABLE OF CASES.

Pase

Moore r. Moore (1 Phillim. 406) 99

V. Neil QVJ 111. 2y(i) 329, 1059

V. New York (8 N. Y. 110) 239

V. New York (4 Saiulf. 45U) 239, 242

V. Pafje (111 U. S. 117) 609, (ilO

f. Parker (13 S. C. 48ii) 202

V. Kake (2G N. .1. L. 574) 248

V. Kandolpli (70 Ala. 575) 1147, 1173

V. Rawlins (45 Me. 493) 229

V. Kidgewav (1 B. Mon. 234) 507

V. Rogers (19 111. 347) 815

V. Sanders (15 S. C. 440) 955

V. Shields (08 N. C. 327) 1272

«. Smith (24 111.512) 602

V. Smith (5 Me. 490) 465

V. Smith (11 Rich. 569) 450, 460

V. Spier (80 Ala. 129) 49, 68, 1202

V. State (49 Ind. 558) 558, 559

V. Steele (10 Ilinnph. .562) 24, 77, 472, 473

t'. Stephens (97 Ind. 271) 61

r. Thornton (7 Grat. 99) 641, 642

V. Waller (2 Rand. 418) 258

V. Ware (51 Miss. 206) 1038

V. Weaver (10 Gray, 305) 896

V. Weaver (53 Iowa, 11) 140

r. Willett (2 Hilt. 522) 739

V. Wingate (53 Mo. 398) 1054

Moores's Appeals (34 Pa. St. 411) 287

Moores v. Moores (41 N. J. L. 440) 720

Moorman v. Smoot (28 (irat. 80) 1002

Mootrie r. Hunt (4 Bradf. 173) 402

Moran v. Dillehav (8 Bosh, 434) 874

Mordecai v. Bovlaii (6 Jones Eq. 365) 375, 898

Morehouse v. Cotheal (21 N. J. L. 480) 949

r. Ware (78 Mo. 100) 748, 749

Moreland v. Brady (8 Or 303) 894

jj. Gilliam (2r Ark. 507) 1208

Moren v. McCown (23 Ark. 93) 357

Morev v. Sohier (03 N. H. 507) 104, 109

Morford v. Dieffenbacker (54 Mich. 593) 328

Morgan's Appeal (4 Atl. 506) 1089

Estate (.53 Cal. 243) 399

Succession (23 La. 290) 150, 1216

Morgan, Matter of (104 N. Y. 74) 1217, 1239

V. Darden (3 Dem. 203) 956

V. Davenport (60 Tex. 230) 111

V. Dodge (44 N. H. 2.55) 313, 342. 435,

448, 550, 560, 572, 892

V. Fisher (82 Va. 417) 1083

V. Gaines (3 A. K. Marsh. 613) 373

V. Hamlet (113 U.S. 449) 846

V. Lorke (28 La. An.806) 568

V. Long (29 Iowa, 434) 866

1'. Moore (3 Grav, 319) 816

V. Morgan (5 Day, 517) 915

V. Morgan (83 111. 196) 762, 121)2

V. Morgan (36 Miss. 348) 188

V. Perry (5 Iowa, 196) 885

V. Rotch (97 Mass. 396) 1 122

V. Smith (25 S. C. .337) 236, 260

t7. Stevens (78 111.287) 82.83

V. Wattles (69 Ind. 260) 1086, 1087

Moriarta v. McRea (45 Hun, 564) 233

Moritz V Hoffman (35 111. 553) 609

Morningstar r. Selhv (15 Oh. 345) 470

Morrell v. Dickey (1 .John. Ch. 153) 61, 355,

1012
f. Morrell (1 Hagg. 51) 85

Morrice v. Bank of England (Talb. Cas.

218) '' 785

Jlorrill V Carr (2 La. An. 807) 693

Morrill V. Foster (33 N. H. 379) 669

V. Morrill (1 Allen, 132) 362, 650

V. Morrill (13 Me. 415) 416, 419

V. Phillips (142 Mass. 240) 89!t

Morris's Appeal (88 Pa. St. 368) 603

Morris v. Chic, R. I. & P. R. (65 Iowa,
727) 543', 552, 567, 630

V. Hovle(37Ill.]50) 10-32

V. Kent (2 Edw.Cli. 175) 953

V. Morris (9 Heisk. 814) 177, 551

V. Morris (3 Houst. 568) 823, 976

V. Morris (12 111. App.68) 1206

V. Morris (1 Jones Eq. 326) 1168, 1170

V. Morris (27 Miss. 847) 495

V. Mowatt (2 Paige. 586) 1109

V. Potter (10 R. 1. 58) 154, 949

V Stokes (21 Ga. 552) 31, 49, 484
V. Swanev (7 Heisk. 591) 480
r. Underdown (Willes,293) 943

Morrison v. Cones (7 Blackf. 593) 588

V. Dapman (3 Cal. 255) 3-36

u. Lavell (81 Va.519) 547

V. Morrison (2 Dana, 13) 269

V. Rice (35]Minn.436) 243

V. Smith (3 Bradf. 209) 39

Morriss v. Garland (78 Va. 215) 966

Morrow's Appeal (116 Pa. St. 440) 54

Morrow v. Allison (39 Ala. 70) 1147, 1149

V. Bright (20 Mo. 298) 828

?'. Mon-ow (2 Tenn. Ch. 549) G8it

V. Pevton (8 Leigh, 54) 552, 558

V. Scott (7 Ga. 535) 155

V. Walker (10 Ark. 569) 1192, 1199

Morse v. Clark (10 Col. 216) 839, 842

V. Clavton (13 Sm. & M. 373) 744

V. Griffith (25 La. An. 213) .397

r. Hodsdon (5 Mass. 314) 554

r. Mason (11 Allen, 36) 888,896

r. Morse (42 Ind. 365) 109

?;. Scott (4 Dem. .507) 33

V. Stearns (131 Mass. 389) 893

». Thorsell (78 111.600) 236

Mortimer v. MofFatt (4 H. & IM. 503) 1000

r. Paull (L. R.2 P. & I).85) 402

Morton. Goods of (L. R. 12 Prob. D. 141) 94

r. Barrett (22 Me. 2.57) 902

r. Hatch (.54 Mo. 408) 367. 368

V. Ingram (11 Ired. L. 368) 72, 75, 76

V. Murrell (68 (in. 142) 967

V. Onion (45 Vt. 145) 104

V. Preston (18 Mich. GO) 427

Moselin v. Martin (37 Ala. 216) 395

Mosely's Estate (12 Phila. .50) 590

Moselv V. Floyd (31 Ga. 504) 7;;6

i\ Taylor (4 Dana, 542) 795

Moses V. Moses (.50 Ga. 9) 661, 1147

r. Miirgatroyd (1 John, Ch. 119) 596,

645

V. Ranlet (2 N. H. 488) 8.59

Mosher r. iMosher (15 Me. 371) 230

V. Mosher (32 Me. 412) 233, 234

V Yost (33 Barb. 277) 594
Mosier v. Zimmerman (5 Humph. 62) 792
Moss's Appeal (83 Pa. St. 264) 1004
Moss V. Helslev (60 Tex. 426) 944, 945

V. Moorma'n (24 Grat. 97) 1157

V. Rowland (3 Bush. 505) 369

V. Sandefur (15 Ark. 381) 681

Mosser r. Mosser (:'2 Ala. 551) 28

Motier's Estate (7 Mo. App. 514) 186, 1151.

TABLE OF CASES.

XCIX

Mott V. Ackerman (92 N.Y. 539) 718, 720, 724

Moulton's Petition (50 N. H. 532) 1200

Moultoii, In re (48 Cai. 191) 1113

V. Holmes (57 Cal. 337) 084

V. Moulton (70 Me. 85) 227

V. Smith (12 All. K., K. I. 891) 701,

702, 787

Moultrie v. Hunt (23 N. Y. 394) 492, 495

Mount V. Brown (33 Miss. 500) 1004

V. Mitchell (32 N.Y. 702) 332

V. Slack (39 N. J. Eq. 230) 348, 1171,

1200

V. Valle (19 Mo. 621) 1030

V. Van Ness (34 N. J. Eq. 523) 1200

Mountain v. Bennet (1 Cox Cli. (J. 353) 44

Mountforil v. Gibson (4 East, 441) 415, 417.

424, 427

Mourain v. Poj'dras (0 La. An. 151) 375

Mouton's Succession (3 La. An. 501) 414

Mower's Appeal (48 Mirli. 441) 1105. 1194

Mowrey r. Adams (14 Mass. 327) 300

Mowry v. H adley ( 1 1 R. L 370) 234

V. Peck (2 K' I. 1)0) 8ij5

V. Robinson (12 R. 1. 152) 1028, 1045,1194

V. Smith (12 R. I. 255) 1225

Mowser r. :\r(nvser (87 Mo. 437) 175, 184

Move V. Albritton (7 [red. Eq. 02) 1155

MoVer's Appeal (112 Pa. St. 290) 824

Mover V. Swvicart (125 111. 202) 1149

Mu'ckleslon v '^Brown (0 Ves. 52) 910

Mull's Succession (35 La. An. 394) 94

Muir V. Thompson (0 S. E. R. 309) 306

V. Trustees (3 Barb. Ch. 477) 421

Muirhead v. Muirhead (0 Sm. & M. 451) 527,

530, 533, 574

V. Muirhead (8 Sm. & M. 211) 588, 1203

Muldoon V. Crawford (14 Bush, 125) 774

V. Muldoon (133 Mass. Ill) 354

Mulford V. Mulford (40 N. J. Eq. 103) 045,

606

V. Mulford (42 N". J. Eq. 68) 503, 1003

Mullaiiphv V. Countv Court (6 Mo. 503) 331,

530, 571, 1205

Mulier, Matter of (29 Hun, 418) 1013

Midler v. St. Louis Hospital (73 Mo. 242) 32,

37, 49
V. St. Louis Hospital (5 Mo. App. 390) 32,

37, 49

Mulligan v. Leonard (46 Iowa, 692) 80, 82, 489

Mulvey v .Johnson (90 III. 457) Siil

Mumford v. Coddington (1 Dem. 27) 345

V. Hall (25 Minn. 347) 550

Mumm V. Owens (2 Dill. 475) 836

:Mumper's Appeal (3 Watts & S. 441) 1149

Munchus r. Harris (09 Ala. 500) 201

Mundell v. Green (108 Mass. 277) 355

Munden v. Bailev (70 Ala. 03) 677, 1146,

1147, 1152, 1154, 1158

Mundv V Muudv (15 N. ,L Eq. 290) 89

Mungerw. Perkins (02 Wis. 499) 246

Municipal Courts. Henry (11 R. I. 503) 1249

Munnikliausen v. Magraw (57 Md. 172) 401

Munnikhuysen v. Magraw (35 Md. 280) 52

Munro v. .Jeter (24 S. C 29) 201

Munroe »'. Barclay (17 Oh. St. 302) 40

V. Holmes (9 Allen, 244) 1182

r. .lames (4 Munf. 194) 567

r. People (102 111. 400) 395

Munsev v. Webster (24 N. H. 120) 530

Munteith v. Rahn (14 Wis. 210) 693

Murchison v. Whitted (87 N. C. 405) 1029

Page
Murdock V. Hunt (08 Ga. 104) 529

V. Ratcliff (7 Oh. 119) 693

Murff r. Frazier (41 Miss. 408) 1230, 1232
Alurlield's Estate (38 N. W. R. 170) 80

Murgitroyde v. Clearv (10 Lea, 53U) 1228,

1246
Murphree v. Singleton (37 Ala. 412) 38;).

991, 992
Murphy's Appeal (8 W. & S. 165) 796

Estate (Mvr. 185) 400

Murphv V. Bla^ck (41 Iowa, 488) 470

V. Carter (23 Grat. 477) 1045

V. Creigh'on (45 Iowa, 179) 441

V. Hanrahan (50 Wis. 485) 432

V. Marcellus (1 Dem. 288) 1000

V. Menard 11 Tex. 673) 749

V. Menard (14 lex. 02) 395. 749

V. Murphv (24 Mo. 520) 70, .530

V. Murphy (2 Mo. App. 156) 1126, 1193
V. New York R. R. Co. (29 Conn.

496) 629

V. Rav (73 N. C. 588) 835

V. Rulh (24 La. An. 74) 187

V. Teter (56 Ind. 545) 1085, 1087

V. VauLchan (55 Ga. 301) 767

V. AValker (131 Mass. 341) 1207

Murrav v. Barlee (3 M. & K. 209) 25

i'."Mumford (6 Cow. 441) 283

V. Oliver (3 B. Mon. 1) 574

V. Oliver (0 Ired. Eq. 55) 86, 113

V. Ridley (3 H. & McH. 171) 773

Musgrave i\ Down (2 Hagg. 247) 61

Mus'ick r. Beebe (17 Kan. 47) 1122

Muskingum v. Carpenter (7 Oh. 21) 1073

Mussault's Executor (T. U. P. Charlt.

2.59) 612, 582. 1254

Musselman's Appeal (101 Pa. St. 165) 303
Estate (5 Watts, 9) 1223

Musser v. Currv (3 Wash. C. C. 481) 113

V. Oliver (21 Pa. St. 302) 1228, 1229

Mussleman's Appeal (65 Pa. St. 480) 350

Mutual Benefit Co. v. Howell (-32 N.J. Eq.

140) 801

Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co v. Tisdale

(91 U. S. 238) 449

Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Hopper (43 N. .1.

Eq.387) 1268,1271

r. Watson (30 Fed. R. 653) 834

Mutual Sav. Inst. v. EunHu (37 Mo. 453) 231

Mvatt ». Mvatt (44 HI. 473) 582

Mver V. Cole ( 12 -lohii. 349) 795

Mvers v. Daviess (10 B. Mon. 394) 50 i

V. Davis (47 Iowa, 325) 329

V. Eddv (47 Barb. 203) 109;)

V. Vanderbelt (84 Pa. St. 510) 62

Mvrick's Estate (33 La. An. 611) 1144

Nabers v. IMeredith (67 Ala. 333) 337

Nagle's Appeal (13 Pa. St. 260) 727

Nalle V. Fen wick (4 Rand. 686) 473

Nally V. Long (50 Md. 667) 1190

V. McDonald (06 Cal. 530) 810

Nancv i'. Snell (0 Dana, 148) 991, 992, 993

Nanfan v. Legh (7 Taunt. 85) 879

Nanz V. Oakley (37 Hun, 495) 559

Napier, In re (1 Phillim. 83) 4.52

Napton V. Leaton (71 Mo. 358) 103

Nash V. Cutler (16 Pick. 4!) I) 145

V. Hunt (116 Mass. 237) 41, 478

V. Morley (5 Beav. 177) 934

0

TABLE OF CASES-

Page
Nash r. Simpson (78 Me. 142) 354

V. YouiiK (.-Jl Miss. 134) 213

Naslivilie Kailroiid v. Tiiiice (2 Heisk.

580) fi29

Nasoii V. Smallev (8 Vt. 118) 73()

Nass V. Van Swraringen. (7 S. & R. 92) 4lti

Nat V. Coons (10 Mo. 543) 406

National Bank v. B()iine(8 Fed. R. 115) 1204

V. Stanton (110 Mass. 435) 435, 540,

589, 055, G7G, 793, 1040

V. Weeks (53 Vt. 115) 757

Naundorf v. Schumann (41 N. J. Eq. 14) 720

Naylor v. Moffat (20 Mo. 120) 350, 530

V. Moody (2 Biackf. 247) 358, 360

Nazareth lustitutiou v. Lowe (1 B. Mon.

257) 239

Neal I'. Baker (2 N. H. 477) 425

V. Charlton (.52 Md. 495) 537

i;. Cosden (34Md. 421) 881

V. Knox & Lincohi K. R. (61 Me. 298) 046

Neale's Appeal (104 Pa. St. 214) 880

Neale v. Hagthrop (3 Bland Ch. 551) 387,

414, 745
V. Peay (21 Ark. 93) 1199

Nearpass v. Gilnian (104 N. Y. 506) 833

Nector V. Gennett (Cro. Eliz. 466) 789

Neda v. Fontenot (2 La. An. 782) 1084

Needham v. Allison (24 N. H. 355) 604

V. Belole (39 Mich. 487) 263, 1074, 1075,

1152

V. Gillett (39 Mich. 574) 433

V. Grand Trunk Co. (38 Vt. 294) 628, 630

V. Ide (5 Pick. 510) 41

Needles v. Martin (33 Md. 609) 920, 925

Neel's Appeal (88 I'a. St. 94) 350

Neel r. Potter (40 Pa. St. 483) 490

Neely v. Butler (10 B. Mon, 48) 277

V. Wise (44 Iowa, 544) 145

NefE's Appeal (48Pa. St. 501) 87,101

Appeal (57 Pa. St. 91) 678

Neglev V. Gard (20 Oh. 310) 1129

Negus" V. Negus (40 Iowa, 487) 110

Nehbe v. Price (2 Nott & McC. 328) 795

Neibert v. Withera (Sm. & M. Ch. 599) 852

Neighbors v. Hamlin (78 N. C. 42) 580

Neil V. Cunningham (2 Port. 171) 819, 1208

Neill V. Cody (20 Tex. 280) 1059, 1000

Neilson v. Cook (40 Ala. 498) 009

Neistrath's Estate (66 Cal. 3:;0) 980

Nellons v. Truax (6 Oh. St. 97) 1007

Nelson v. Carrington (4 Munf. 332) 534

V. Cornwell (11 Grat. 724) 685, 991, 993,

1247
V. Haeberle (26 Mo. App. 1) 840

V. Hall (5 Jones Eq.. 32) 708

V. Havner (00 111. 487) 291, 295

V. Hei-kel (-30 Kan. 450) 844

V. Hill (5 How 127) 287

V. Hollins (9 Baxt. 553) 611

V. Jaques (1 Me. 139) 1045

V. Kownslar (79 Va. 469) 1133

V. McGifford (3 Barb. Ch. 158) 71, 96, 98.

484
V. Murfree (69 Ala. 598) 1236, 1237

V. Nelson (90 Mo. 400) 1222, 1223

V. Russell (15 Mo, 356) 787

V. Smith (12 Sm. & M. 318) 106

V. Tenner (36 Hun, 327) 280

V. Wilson (01 Ind. 255) 170

V. Wvan (21 Mo. .347) 1216, 1222

Nesbit V 'Glrvan (1 Swan, 468) 154

Page
Nesbit V. Tavlor (1 Rice, 296) 419

Nesbitt V. Richardson (14 Tex. 656) 1081

Nesniith v. Dinsmore (17 N. H. 515) 1220

Nettles V. Cunmiings (9 Rich. E(i. 440) 310
r. Elkins (2 McCord Ch. 182) 751

Nettleton v. Dinehart (5 Cush. 543) 624

V. Dixon (2 Ind. 440) 102G, 1041

Nettman v. Schramm (23 Iowa, 521) 737

Nevin's Appeal (47 Pa. St. 230) 183

Nevins v. Gourlev (95 111. 200) 953, 1014

New V. Nicoll (73 N. Y. 127) 757

Newberry v. Hinman (49 Conn. 1.30) 942

Newbold, Goods of (L. R. 1 P. & 1). 285) 519
Newcastle Banking Co. v. Hymers (22

Beav. 367) 79c'

Newcomb v. Goss (1 Met. Mass. 333) 792.

797, 852

V. Smith (5 Ohio, 447) 1024

V. Stehbins (9 Met. Mass. 540) 1142

V. Williams (9 Met. Mass. 525) 558, 5V0,

1011, 1012

Newcomers. Wallace (30 Ind. 216) 1040, 1105

Newell V. Anderson (7 Oh, St. 12) 24S*

t;. Nichols (75 N. Y. 78) 4J7

New England Co. v. Woodworth (111

U. S. 138) 441

New England Hospital v. Sohier (115

Mass. 50) 1052

New England Trust Co. v. Eaton (140

Mass. 532) 346

Newhall v. Lynn (101 Mass. 428) 237

V. Turnev (14 111. 338) 745

Newhouse v-'Gale (1 Redf. 217) 499, 581

V. Godwin (17 Barb. 236) 475

V. Redwood (7 Ala. 598) 750

New Jersey v Meeker (37 N. J. L. 282) 1201

Newkerk v. Newkerk (2 Games, 345) 954

Newland v. Attorney General (3 Mer.

683) 928

Newman's Appeal (35 Pa. St. 339) 1097

Estate (16 Pac. R. 887) 140

Newman v. Jenkms (10 Pick. 515) 444

V. Willetts (52 111. 98) 494

V. Winlock (3 Bush, 241) 183

New Orleans v. Baltimore (15 La. An.

625) 1110, 1168

Newsom v. Carlton (59 Ga. 516) 1072

V Jackson (29 Ga. 61) 625

r. Thornton (82 Ala. 402) 990, 1097

». Tucker (30 Ga. 71) 408

Newson v. Starke (46 Ga. 88) 921

Newsum v. Newsum (1 Leigli, 86^ 645

Newton V. Bennett (1 Bro, Ch. 359) 1139

V. Cocke (10 Ark 169) 368, 512

V. Cox (76 Mo. 352) 553

V. Marsden (2 J. & Hem. 356) 962

r. Newton (12 Ir Ch. 118) 96

V. Poole (12 Leigh, 112) 690, 1125

V. Snider (44 Ark. 42) 122

New York Conference v. Clarkson (8 N.

J. Eq.54I) 893

New York, L., &c. R. Co , In re (105

N.Y. 89) 949

Niccolls V. Esterly (16 Kan. 32) 835

Nicholas 1-. Adams (2 Whart. 17) 117, 120,

126

V. Kershner (20 W Va 251) 35

V. Purczell (21 Iowa, 205) 203

Nicholls V. Gee (30 Ark. 135) 860

V. Hodges (1 Pet. 562) 821, 1165

Nichols, In re (40 Hun, 387) 92

TABLE OF CASES.

CI

Nichols V. Chapman (9 Wend. 452)
V. Day (32 N. H. 133)
V. Disner{29 N. .I.L. 293)
V. Disiier (31 N. J. L. 4Gl)
V. Eaton (91 U. S. 716)
V. Nichols (13() Mass. 256)

Page

777

1029

457

457

956

242

V. Shearon (49 Ark. 75) 215, 848, 1030

V. Shei.ard (63 N. H.391) 149

Nicholson's Estate (1 Nev. 518) 1150, 11 GO

Succession (37 La. An. 346) 932

Nicholson v. Showevman (6 Wend. 554) 793

Nickell V. Handlv (10 Grat. 336) 9.5(;

V. Tomlinson (27 W. Va. 697) 232

Nickelson v. Ini,n-am (24 Tex. 630) 526

Nickerson v. Bowly (8 Met. 424) 1233, 1239

Nicolas's Succession (2 La. An. 97) 532

Nicole V. Mumford (Kirbv. 270) 382, 369

Nicoll V. Ogden (29 111. 323) 290

V. Scott (99 111. 529) 719

V. Todd (70 111. 295) 2-36

Nightingale v. Buvrell (15 Pick. 104) 897,915

V. Gouldbourn (2 Phillips, 594) 928

Niller v. Johnson (27 Md. 6) ^ _6_09

Nimmo v. Commonwealth (4 H. & M. 57) 773,

« 777, 1144

Nisbet V. Stewart (2 Dev. & B. 24) 365, 419

Nisbett V. Murray (5 Ves. 149) 968

Nix V. Bradley (6 Uich. Eq. 43) 607

V. French (10 Heisk. 377) 1265

Nixon V. Armstrong (38 Tex. 296) 75

V. Bullock (9 Yerg. 414) 792

V. Williams (95 N. C. 103) 276, 277

Noble r. Burnett (10 Rich. 505) 72, 76

V. Enos (19 Ind. 72)

V. McGinnis (55 Ind. .528) 3.39

V. Morrev (19 Iowa, 509) 782

Nock V. Nock (10 Grat. 106) 68

Noddings, Goods of (2 Sw. & Tr. 15) 510

Noe V. Kern (93 Mo. 367) 876

Noel v. Ewing (9 Ind. 37) 242, 243

V. Harvev (29 Miss. 72) 1147

Noell V Nelson (2 Saund. 226) 793

Nolan V. Bolton (25 Ga. 352) 1216

Koland V. Calvin (12 Sm. & M. 273) 738

V. Turner (5 J. J. Marsli. 179) 1230

Nolasco V. Lurtz (13 La. An. 100) 1247

Nooe V. Vannov (6 Jones Eq. 185) 974

Noon V. Finnegan (29 Minn. 418) 621, 714,

731

V. Finnegan (32 Minn. 81 ) 622, 714, 731

Noonan v. Bradley (9 Wall. 394) 358

Norfleet v. Riddick (3 Dev. 221) 418

Norman's Will (72 Iowa, 84) 41, 480

«. Baldrv (6 Sim. 621) 790

V.Norman (3 Ala. 389) 12-55

V. Olney (31 N. W. Rep. 555) 1046

Norris's Appeal (71 Pa. St. 106) 705

Norris o. Callahan (59 Miss. 140) 213

V. Chambers (29 Beav. 246) 29

V. Clark (10 N. J. Eq. 51) 2iJ8

V. Howe (15 Mass. 175) 1058

V. Morrison (45 N. H. 490) 211

V. Moulton (34 N. H. 392) 210, 212

V. Towle (54 N. H. 290) 6.54

North's Estate (48 Conn. 583) 145

North t). Priest (81 Mo. 561) 1125, 1152, 1197

t: Priest (9 Mo. App. 586) 1153

V. Walker (66 Mo. 453) 846

v. Walker (2 Mo. App. 174) 846

Northampton v. Smith (11 Met. 390) 499, 1194

Northcut V. Wilkinson (12 B. Mon. 408) 736

Page
Northcutt V. Northcutt (20 Mo. 266) 66

V. Whipp (12 B. Mon. 65) 232

Northern Bank of Kentucky v. Roosa (13

Oh. 3.34) 231

Northern Railway «. Cantmi (30 Md.347) 603
North Georgia Mining Co. v. Latimer (51

Ga. 47) 830

North Riyer Meadow Co. v. Shrewsbury

Church (22 N. J. L. 424) 94

Northwestern Conference v. Myers (36

Ind. 375) 421, 431

Norton's Appeal (46 Conn. 527) 1195

Norton v. Citizens' Bank (28 La. An.

354) 1043

r. Ci-aig (68 Me. 275) 603

V. Kdwards (66 N. ('. .367) 1063

r. Frecker (1 Atk. 524) 843

i: Norton (5 Cush. 524) 609, 1031

V. Palmer (7 Cush. 523) 363, 649

V. Sewall (106 Mass. 143) 625

V. Thompson (68 Mo. 143) 432

Norwalk Bank r. Sawyer (38 Oh. St. 339) 293

Norwood r. Harness (98 Ind. 1-34) 711

v. Marrow (4 Dey. & B. 442) 247

Nosworthy r. Blizzard (53 Ga. 668) 1056, 1065

Xottes's Appeal (45 Pa. St. 361) 176

Nowell r. Nowell (2 Me. 75) 1182

?•. Nowell (8 Me. 220) 1026

Nowler v. Coit (1 Ohio, 519) 359, 1081

Noyes v. Kramer (54 Iowa, 22) 538

«. Phillips (57 Vt. 229) 811

V. Southworth (55 Mich. 173) 104, 108

Nudd V. Powers (136 Mass. 273) 1098, 1102

Nugent V. Ladnke (87 Ind. 482) 693

Nuiian's Estate (Mvr. 238) 399

Nunn V. Barlow (ISini. & Stu. 588) 786, 787

V. Owens (2 Strobh. 101) 503

Nusz V. Groye (27 Md. 391) 519, 520, 524

Nutall V. Brannin (5 Bush, 11) 808

Nutt V. Norton (142 Mass. 242) 106, 109

Nutter V. Vickery (64 Me. 490) 871, 901, 940,

995
Nutting r. Goodridge (46 Me. 82) 624

Nye V. Taunton R. R. Co. (113 Mass.
277) 240

Oakes v. Buckley (49 Wis. 592) 1231

Oberle v. Lerch (18 N. J. Eq. 346) 12-33

Obert V. Hammel (18 N. J. L. 73) 320, 324,

325, 326, 330

V. Obert (12 N. J. Eq. 423) 1086, 1087
O'Brien's F>tate (3 Dem. 156; 67 How.
Pr. 503) 526

Estate (63 Iowa, 622) 527

O'Brien, Matter of (45 Hun. 284) 646

O' Bryan v. Allen (95 Mo. 68) 832

O'Bvrne v. Feely (61 Ga. 77) 24

Ochiltree v. Wright (1 Dey. & B. Eq.

336) 738

Ochoa V. Miller (59 Tex. 460) 466, .502

O'Conner v. Flynn (57 Cal. 293) 1084, 1088

V. Harris (81 N. C. 279) 640

O'Dee V. McCrate (7 Me. 467) 680

Odell V. Odell (10 Allen. 1) 919, 920

O'Dell V. Rogers (44 Wis. 136) 470, 1085

Odenwaelder v. Schorr (8 Mo. App. 458) 70
Odiorne's Appeal (54 Pa. St. 175) 184, 520
O'Docherty v. McGloin (25 Tex. 67) 214, 487
O'Donnell v. Hermann (42 Iowa. 60) 805

V. Rodiger (76 Ala. 222) 28, 31, 36, 39

Cll

TABLE OF CASES.

O'DriscoIl r. Roger (2 Desaus. 295) 2(i',)

Oertlc, In re (:U Minn. lT,i) 1000

Oliicer c. Uoaid of Missions (47 IIun,352) 718
Ortlev V. Olliuv (I'r. Ch. 2ti) 70.0

Oftutt v. Gott'(l-2 G. & J. 385) 588, 1203

V. Offutt (3 B. Mon. 102) 84

O'Gara v. Eisenlohr (38 N. Y. 290) 520

OiTden's Appeal (70 Pa. St. 501) 008

Uadeii r. Astor (4 Sandf. 311) 291

V. Saunders (12 Wheat. 213) 823

Osilvie V. O^ilvie (1 Bradf. 350) 120, 1J37
Ogle V. Tavloe (49 Md. 158) 1097

Ogiesbv (.-.■Giiniore (5 Ga. 50) 748

V. Howard (43 Ala. 144) 570, 077

O'Hanlin r. Den (20 N. J. L. 31) 300, 715

r. Den (21 N. .J. L. 582) 300

Ohlendorf v. Kanne (00 Md. 495) 533, 1172
Okeson's Appeal (2 Grant Cas. 303) 1247

Old V. Little (3 Cai. 287) 1173

Old South V. Crocker (119 iMass. 1) 923

Oliveira r. University (Phill Kip 09) 307
Oliver v. Forrester (90 III. 315) 284

V. Vance (34 Ark. .504) 154

Ollifte V. Wells (130 Mass. 221) 895

Olmstead v. Brush (27 Conn. 530) 1100

Olmsted V. Blair (45 Iowa, 42) 2-59

V. Clark (.30 Conn. 108) 422, 420

V. Keves (85 N. Y. ,593) 510, 042

Ohviiie's Appeal (4 W. & S. 492) 392

Ommanev v. Butcher (1 Turn. & Kuss.

200) ' 934

Oneal v. Mead (1 P. Wms. 693) 1105

O'Neal V. Tisdale (12 Tex. 40) 545

O'Xeale V. Ward (3 Harr. & McH. 93) 902
O'Neall V. Abnev (2 Bai. 317) 751

V. Boozer (4 Rich. Eq. 22) 880

O'Neil's Appeal (.55 Conn. 409) 1198, 1235
O'Neil, In re (27 Hun, 130) 64

v. Farr (1 Rich. 80) 47, 114

V. Freeman (45 N. J. L. 208) 849

O'Neill V. Duff (11 Phila.244) 284

V Smith (33 Md. 569) 82

O'Niel, Matter of (2 Redf. 544) 525

Onions v. Tvrer (2 Vern. 741) 90

Opening of Beekman Street (4 Bradf. 503) 591
Opie V. Castleman (32 Fed. Rep. 511) 710
Orcutt r. Orms (3 Pai. 459) 362, 794

Ordinary r. Cooley (30 N. J. L. 179) 552, 553

V. Matthews (7 Rich. L. 26) 345

V. Smith (15 N. J. L. 92) 12:;0

V. White (43 N. ,J. L. 22) 1227

Ordronaux r. Helie (3 Sandf. Ch. 512) 300
Ordwav v. Plielps (45 Iowa. 279) 810

O'Reiliv r. Bradv (28 Ala. 530) 284

V. Hendricks (2 Sm. & M. 388) 419

r. IMever (4 Dem. 161) 1147

Orford v. Benton (■iC N. H. 395) 277

Ormiston v. Olcott (84 N. Y. 339) 709, 711
Orndorf v. Hummer (12 B. Mon. 619) 70

Orr-s Estate (29 Cal. 101) 214

Orr V. Kaine (2 Ves. Sr 294) 001

V. Moses (52 Me. 287) 873, 990

Orrick ?•. Roehm (49 Md. 72) 728, 884, 943, 971

V. Rohbins (-34 Mo. 220) 257

?•. Vahev (49 M... 428) 301

Orser v. Orser (5 Dem. 21) 1188

v. Orser (24N. Y. 51) 470

Orth V Orfh (37 N. W. R. 67) 200

Orthwein r. Thomas (13 N. E.ist. R. .504) 157
Orton V. Orton (3 Abb. App. Dec. 411) 80S,

985

Osborn V. Bell (5 Denio, .370) 618

r. Horine (19 111. 124) 249

V. Jefferson Bank (110 111. 130) 110

Osborne v. Leeds (5 Ves. -309) 971

». McAlpine(4 Uedf. 1) 907

V. Moss (7 John. 101) 420, 058

V. Rogers (1 Saund. 205) 423

Osburn v. Cook (11 Cush. 532) 70

Osdendorff, Ex parte (17 S. C. 22) 523

O-good's Instate (\ivr. 153) 1052

Osgood V. Breed (if Mass. 355) 1214,

1218, 1222

V. Franklin (2 John. Ch. 1) 718

V. Spencer (2 H. & G. 133) 283

Osman v. Traphagen (23 Mich. 80) 330, 735,

1(124,1050. 1059, 1089

Osmond v. Fitzrov (3 P. Wms. 129) 42

Osnum V. Porter (39 N. J. Eq. 141) 209

Osterhoutt'. Hardenbergh (19 John. 200) 793

Oswalt r. Moore (19 Ark. 257) 816

Otis's Estate (Mvr. 222) 1078

Otis V. Prince (li) Gray. .581) 961

Otterson v. Gallagher (88 Pa. St. 355) 345,

1235
Otto V. Dotv (61 Iowa, 23) 34

Ould V. Washington Hospital (95 U. S.

303) 920, 928

Ourvr. DufReld (1 Ariz. 509) 022

Outcalt V. Ap])leby (30 N. J. Eq. 73) 1002
Outlaw V. Farmer"(71 N. C. 31) 411, 5.54

Overburv v. Overburv (2 Show. 242) 105

Overdeer v. Updegraif (09 Pa. St. 110) 1057,

1063
Overfield v. Bullitt (1 Mo. 749) 387, 693

Overly v. Overlv (1 Met. Ky. 117) 685, 809
Overseers v. Gu'Uifer (49 Me. 300) 325

Overton v. Cranford (7 Jones L. 415) 330,

1089

V. McFarland (15 Mo. 312) 355

V. Sawyer (7 Jones L. 6) 119

V. Woodson (17 Mr,. 442) 1034

Owen V. Blanchar.l (2 Cr. C. C. 418) 076

V. Bracket (7 Lea. 448) 204

V. Brown (2 Ala. 120) 791, 826

V. Ellis (04 Mo. 77) 593

V. Hvde (0 Yerc. 334) 230

v. Miller (10 Ohio St. 13f;) 050

Owens V. Bloomer (14 Hun, 290) 10-38

i: Childs (.58 Ala. 113) 1038

V. Clavton (.50 Md. 129) 1098

V. Coliinson (3 Gill & J. 25) 1154

r. Couan (7 B. Mon. 1.52) 589

r. Owens (6 S. E. R 794) 229

r. Thurmond (40 Ala. 289) 1190

V. Walker (2 Strobh. Eq. 289) 549

Owingst'. Bates (9 (Jill, 403) 510, 525, 529 531

V. Owings (1 H & G 484) 533

Oxenham v. Clapp (1 B. & Ad, 313) 427

r. Clapp (2 B. & Ad. 309) 423

Oxley V Lane (35 N. Y. 340) 884

Oyster ». Oyster (1 S. & R. 422) 1221

Pace V. Oppenheim (12 Ind. 533) 436

Pacheco's Estate (23 Cal. 470) 524, 579

Packman's Case (0 Co. 19) 404, 587

Padfield V. Padtield (78 Til. 16) 188

Padget V. Priest (2 T. R. 97) 415, 417

Padgett V. State (45 Ark. 495) 846

Paff r. Kinney (1 Bradf. 1) 740, 12.55

Page's Appeal (71 Pa. St. 40^) 1007, 1008

TABLE OF CASES.

cm

Page's Estate (57 Cal. 238)
Estate (75 Pa. St. 87)

Page, In re (118 111. 57(i)
V. Cook (2(i Ark. 122)
V. Foiist (8'J X. C. 447)
V. Frazer (14 Bush, 205)
Gilbert (32 IIiui, .301)

Page
757
727
481, 482, 483
373
880
952, 954
1(37

V. Leapiiigvvell (18 Ves. 4G3) 908, 'J87
V. Matthews (41 Ala. 7l;i) 1037

V. Page (2 Kob. Va. 424) 489

V. Pat ton (5 Pet. 304) 789

V. Thomas (43 Oh. St. 38) 293

V. Tucker (54 Cal. 121) 622, C72, 713

V. Whidden (-59 N. H. 507) 954

Paice I'. Archbishop of Canterbury (14

Ves. 3G4) 701

Paige, Matter of (G2 Barb. 47G) 499

V. Pai-e (71 Iowa, 318) 2.34

Paine v. Barnes (100 Mass. 470) 730

V. Fox (IG Muss. 12.)) 1048, 1052

V. Goodwin (5G Me. 411) 1194

V. Hall (18 Ves. 475) 910

V. Nichols (15 Mass. 2.53) 855

V. Parsons (14 Pick. 318) 978, 979

V. Paulk (39 Me. 15) 18G

V. PeniUeton (32 Miss. 320) 1032, 1040

v. Ulnier (7 Mass. 317) 620

Painter r. Henderson (7 Pa. St. 48) 108(i

Palmer. A|ipellant(l Uoug. Mich. 422) 10G5

V. Haltord (4 Kuss. 403) 915

V. Horn (84 N. V. 516) 91G

V. Litherlaud (Latch, 160) 404

V. Maxwell (11 Neb. 598) 419

f. Mikell (2 Des. 342) 497

V. Palmer (13 Gray, 326) 1026

V. Palmer (55 Mich. 293) 646

V. Pollock (26 iMinn. 433) 748

V. Simpson (69 Ga. 792) 209

V. Stevens (11 Cush. 147) 648, 731

V. Waller (1 M. & W. 689) 797

Palmes v. Stephens (R. M. Charlt. 56) 759

Palms V. Probate Judge (39 Mich. 302) 1204

Palomares's Estate (63 Cat. 402) 183

Panaud v. Jones (1 Cal. 488) 36

Pancoast v. Graham (15 N. J. Eq. 294) 38

Parcell v. McKevnolds (71 Iowa, 623) 834

Parcher v. Bussell (11 Cush. 107) 1254

r. Savings Inst. (78 Me. 470) 116, 120

Parchman v. Charlton (1 Coldw. 381) 308,

309

Pardue v. Girens (1 Jones Eq. 306) 954

Parham v. Parham (6 Humph. 287) 265

V. Stith (56 Miss. 465) 693, 699

V. Tompson (2 J. J. Marsh. 159) 600

Parish V. Stone (14 Pick. 198) 121, 125

V. Weed (7 S. E. R. 138) 8 JG

Park V. Lock (48 Ark. 133) 8.!6

V. Marshall (4 Watts, 382) 752

Parker's Appeal (44 Pa. St. 309) 518, 520

Appeal (61 Pa. St. 478) 375, 1130

Parker v. Allen (4 Atl. 300) 1048, 1070, 123:'.

«. Atfeild (1 Salk. 311) 798

V. Bernal (66 Cal. 113) 622

I'. Bogardus (5 N. Y. 309) 887

V. Brown (6 Grat. 554) 502

17. Chambers (24 Ga. 518) 992

V. Converse (5 Griv, 336) 607

V. Cowell (16 N. H. 149) 924, 11.54

V. Dee (3 Swanst. (529. note) 786, 794

V. Edwards (4 South. R., Ala. 612) 830

V. Gainer (17 Wend. 559) 777

Page
Parker v. Glover (42 N. J. Eq. 559) 710, 937
V. Grant (91 N. C. 338) 1238

I'. Gregg (23 N. H. 416) 857

V. Gwvnn(4 Md. 423) 1173

V. lasigi (138 Mass. 416) 878

V. Kett (1 Ld. Ravm. GGl; 12 Mod.

471) ■ • 426

V. Lambert (31 Ala. 89) 816

17. Lewis (2 Dev. L. 21) 760

17. Linden (44 Ilun, 518) 726

t'. McGaha (11 Ala. 521) 1153

V. Marston (27 Me. 196) 125

V. Moore (25 N. J. Eq. 228) 1103

V. Nichols (7 Pick. Ill) 1046

V. Parker (11 Cush. 519) 470, 473, 493

V. Parker (123 Mass. 584) 952

V. Parker (5 Met. 134) 949

V. Parker (17 P;ck. 236) 230

V. Reynolds (32 N. J. Eq. 290) 111.5

V. Small (55 Iowa, 732) 242

V. Thompson (30 N. J. Eq. 311) 414

V. Waslev (9 Grat. 477) 873

V. Whiting (6 How. Miss. 352) 8.52

Parkinson v. Jacobson (18 Hun, 353) 1028

Parkison r. Parkison (12 Sm. & M. 672) 82

Parkman v. Bowdoin (1 Sumn. 359) 897

Parks V. Hardev (4 Bradf. 15) 259

V. J(,hnson'(5 S. E. R. 243) 188

V. Kimes OOO Ind. 148) 157, 879

V. Perrv (2 Blackf. 74) 1102

Parramore ?;. Tavlor ( 1 1 Grat. 220) 46. 68

Parrish v. V^aughan (12 Bush, 97) 881

Parrott v. Dubignon (T. U. P. Charlt.

2G1) 620

Parsell i: Strvker (41 N. Y. 480) 58. 59

P=irsons's Estate (65 Cal. 240) 1150

Estate (13 Phila. 406) 1015

Parsons v. Bovd (20 Ala. 112) 2-32

r. Hancock (I Moodv & Malk. 330) 792

r. Lanoe (1 Ves. Sr. 189) 55

r. Lvman (4 Bradf. 268) 371

V. LVman (20 N. Y. 103) 365, 371

r. Mills (1 Mass. 431) 855

V. Parsons (66 Iowa, 754) 41, 48, 490

V. Parsons (L. R. 8 Eq. Cas. 260) 633

V. Parsons (2 Me. 298) 83

V. Spauldint; (130 Mass. 83) 564

t'. Winslow'(6 Ma"^s. 1G9) 963

Partee v. Caut^hran (9 Yerp;. 460) 422

Partridge v. Partridge (2 H. & J. 63) 975

Paschal v. Acklin (27 Tex. 173) 922

Paschall v. Hailmau (9 111. 285) 786, 821

(.'. Hall (5 Jones Eq. 108) 609

Passmore v. Passmore (1 Phillim. 216) 57

Patch i\ White (117 U. S. 210) 893, 894

Patchen v. Wilson (4 Hill, 57) 643

Patee v. Mowrv (59 Mo. 161) 1031

Patillo r. Barksdale (22 Ga. 356) 440

Paton, In re (41 Hun, 497) 897

Patrick I'. Petty (83 Ala. 420) 829

Pattee v. Lowe"(36 Me. 1-38) 854

Patten, Goods of (Tuck. 56) 684

V. Talhnan (27 Mo. 17) 72, 474

Patterson, Ex parte (4 How. Pr. 34) 40

V. Allen (50 Tex. 23) 4-34, 1241

V. Bell (25 Iowa, 149) 1122, 1124

17. Cobb (4 Fla. 481) 845

V. Craiff(l Baxf. 291) 7.57

V. Oushaue (115 Pa. St. .334) 837

V. Eua-lish (71 Pa. St. 454) 62

V. Hickev (32 Ga. 156) 90

CIV

TABLE OF CASES.

Page

Patterson v. High (8 Ired. Etj. 52) 432, 518,

533, 1001

V. Lamson (45 Oh. St. 77) 154

V. Lemon (50 Ga. 231) 329, 108!}

V. McCami (3'J Ark. 577) 848

V. Mills (Gi) Iowa, 755) 1220

V. Pagan (18 S. C. 584) 358, 302

V. Patterson (49 Midi. 176) 203

V. Patterson (-^5 N. II. 104) 009

V. Patterson (59 N. Y. 574) 759, 702

V. Phillips (Hemp. 09) 1153

V. Kamsev (I Ilinn. 221) 770

V. Swallow (44 Pa. St. 487) 940

V. Wadsworth (89 N. C. 407) 708

Pattison v. Coons (50 Mo. 109) 072

Patton's Appeal (31 Pa. St. 405) 401, 571

Estate (Mvr. 241) 707

Patton r. Bostwick (39 Mich. 218) 854

V. Farmer (87 N. C. 337) 710

V. Overton (8 Humph. 192) 371

V. Patton (2 Jones Eq. 294) 974

Patullo's Case (Tuck. 140) 552

Paul V. Davis (100 Ind. 422) 141

V. Paul (130 Mass. 280) 199

■y. Stone ai2 Mass. 27) 807

Paup V. Sylvester (22 Iowa, 371) 183

Pawlet V. "Clark (9 Cr. 292) 923

Pawling V. Speed (5 T. B. Mon. 580) 440

Pawtucket r. Ballon (15 R. I. 58) 07

Paxson V. Potts (3 N. J. Eq. 313) 272

Pavne v. Banks (32 Miss. 292) 37

" /;. Becker (22 Hun, 28) 254

V Becker (87 N. Y. 153) 255
r. Uotson (81 Mo. 145) 227

V Harris (3 Strobh. Eq. 39) 593
V. Hook (7 Wall. 425) 357, 848, 1204,

1269

V. Pavne (11 B. Mon. 138) 517

V. PaVne (18 Cal. 291) 86, 266

V. Plppev (49 Ala. 549) 1055

V. Piisev (8 Bush. 564) 788, 843

Parson v. Hadduck (8 Biss. 293) 856, 1204

Payton r. Bowen (14 R. I. 375) 269

Pea ?'. Waggoner (5 Havw. 242) 1039

Peabodv's Petition (40 N. H. 342) 857

Peacock v. Albin (39 Ind. 25)

V. Harris (85 N. C. 146) 707

V. Haven (22 111. 23) 849

V. Wilson (9 Lea, 398) 815

Peake v. -lenkins (80 Va. 293) 69, 70

V. Redd (14 Mo. 79) 333

Peale v. White (7 La. An. 449) 546, 579

Pearce, Ex parte (44 Ark. 509) 1120

V. Calhoun (59 Mo. 271) 340, 355, 658,

850, 1027, 1107, 1263

r. Castrix (8 Jones, 71) 523

V. Goddard (2 Brev. 360) 734

Pearcv v. Green well (80 Kv. 616) 952

Pearson, Ex parte (76 Ala." 521) 184

V. Carlton (18 S. C. 47) 156

V. Darrington (32 Ala. 227) 170, 348,

115.3. 1155, 1159, 1188,1191

Pease v. Allis (110 Mass. 157) 72

Peaslee v. Barney (1 Chip. 331) 631

V. Keller (38 N. H. 372) 797

V. Peaslee (17 N. East. R. 506) 264

Peck's Appeal (50 Conn. 562) 99, 100

Peck V. Brummagim (31 Cal. 440) 611

V. Carr (27 N. Y. 9) 40

V. Henderson (7 Yerg. 18) 622

t;. McKean (45 Iowa, 18) 831

Page

Peck V. Mead (2 Wend. 470) 605

V. Sturges (11 Conn. 420) 855

V. Wheaton (1 Mart. & Y. 353) 1270

Peekham v. Newton (15 K. I. 321) 710, 936

Peebles' Ajjpcal (15 S. & L'. 39) 421, 448, 508

Peebles v. Case (2 Bradf. 220) 475

V. North CainliMa (03 N. C. 238) 622

V. Watts (9 Dana, 102) 534, 553, 502, 1043

Peele v. Chever (8 Allen. 89) 1082

Feeples v. Smith (8 Rieli.90) 1208

Peet V. Commerce Co. (8 S. W. R. 203) 895,

902, 903

Peiffer v. Lvtle (58 Pa. St. 386) GIO

Peirce v. 0''Brien (29 l''ed. R. 402) 242, 261

V Whittemore (8 Mass. 282) 857

Peisch V. Dickson (1 Mason, 9) 893

Pelamourges v. Clark (9 Iowa, 1) 41

Pelharn clMurrav (04 lex. 477) 323, 330

V. Wilson (4'Ark. 289) 1044

Pell V. Bali (1 Speers Ch. 48) 966, 1104

V. Farquar (3 Blackf. 331) 1079

r. Mercer (14 R. 1.412) 893,929,931,1006

Pelton V. Johnson (52 Vt. 138) 1156

Pemberton v. Conv (Cro. Eliz. 164) 504

Pendarvis v. Wall" (14 La. An. 449) 698

Pendergrass v. Pendergrass (26 S. C.

19) 1039

Pendill v. Neuberger (35 N. W. R., Mich.

249) 829

Pendleton r. Pendleton (6 Sm. & M.448) 527

r. Phelps (4 Dav, 476) 1208

Penhallow v. Dwiglft (7 JVIass. 34) 600

V. Kimball (61 N. H. 590) 271

Penn r. Guggenheimer (70 Va 836) 1016

Pennel v. Wevant (2 Harr. 501) 494, 500

Pennell's Appeal (20 Pa. St. 515) 1070, 1233

Pennington v. Gibson (6 Ark. 447) 826

Pennisson v. Pennisson (22 La. An. 131) 323

Penniston's Succession (18 La. An 281) 1201

Pennock's Appeal (14 Pa St. 440) 1057

Estate (20 Pa. St. 208) 876

Pennock v. I'.agles (102 Pa. St. 290) 941

Pennsj-lvania Co.'s Appeal (83 Pa St,

312) 1103

Appeal (109 Pa. St. 479) 988

Pennsvlvania Co. v. Price (7 Phila. 465) 917

Penny's Appeal (109 Pa. St. 32.3) 1098

Succession (13 La. An. 94) 567

Penton v. Robart (2 East, 88) 598

People V. Admire (39 111. 251) 1228

V. Brooks (123 III. 240) 1261, 1262, 1205

V. Brooks (22 III. App. 594) 819,849, 1207

V. Chapin (101 N. Y. 082) 1251

V. Conklin (2 Hill, N. Y. 67) 22, 304,

305, 309

V. Corlies (1 Sandf. 228) 324

V. Curry (59 III. 35) 549, 550, 551

V. Folsom (5 Cal. 373) 303

V. Gibbs (9 Wend. 29) 618

t). Gray, 72 111.343) 325

V. Hartman (2 Sweeney, 576) 581

V. Houghtaling (7 Cal "348) 848

r. Judges of Erie (4 Cow. 445) 792, 796

V. Lott (27 111. 215) 550, 551, 5.50

V. Marine Court (2 Abb. Pr. 120) 1192

V. Marshall (7 Abb. N. Gas. 380) 326

V. Olvera (43 Cal. 492) 1144

V. Phelps (78 111. 147) 1155

V. Roach (18 Pac. R. 407) 306

V. Stacy (11 III. App. .506) 547, 548

r. White (11 in. 341) 4-tO

TABLE OF CASES.

cv

Page
People's Bank v. Wilcox (15 R. I. 258) 324,
325, 327, 587
Pepoon's Will (91 N. Y. 235) 475

Pepper r. Sidwell (30 Oil. St. 454) 804

V. Zaliiisintjer (94 Iiid. 88) 2(5.3, 1075

Peppercorn ». Wagman (5 DeG. & Sm

230)

721
70
1192
690
765
333

Peralta r. Castro (6 Cal. 354)

V. Castro (15 Cal. 511)
Percival v. Herbemont (1 McMull. 59)

V. McVov (Uudlev L.337)

Perdue v. Bradshaw (18 Ga. 287)

Perin v. Carev (24 How. 4(i5) 919, 922, 929

Perkes v. PerUes (3 B. & Aid. 489) 90

Perkins v. Brown (29 G;i. 412) 992

V. Cartmell (4 Harr. 270) 1247

V. Emorv (55 Md. 27) 1100

V. Geovfre (45 N. H. 453) 885

V. Gridley (.50 Cal. 97) 1023, 1061,1062

v. Hollister (59 Vt. 348) 705, 1139

V. Ladd (114 Mass. 420) 417

V. Mathes (49 N. H. 107) 871, 966, 98(1

r. Micklethwaite (1 V. Wms. 275) 889

V. I'erknis (27 Ala. 479) 334

r. Perkins (39 N. H. 163) .37

r. Perkins (46 N. H. 110) 646

V. Perkins (58 N. H. 405) 835

V. Se Ipsain (11 R. I. 270) 786

V. Simonds (28 Wis. 90) 145

V. Stone (18 Conn. 270) 375

V. Williams (2 Root, 462) 302, 369

I'. Winter (7 Ala. 855) 329

Perlev v. Sands (3 Edw. Ch. -325) 331

Perot"'s Appeal (102 Pa. St. 235) 147, 153

Perret's Succession (20 I.a. An. 86) 1207

Perrin v. Lepper (40 N. W. R. 8.V.)) 11-37, 1138

Perrine v. Pettv (34 N. J. Eq. 193) 707, 709

V. Vreeland (33 N. J. Eq. 102)

V. Vreeland (33 N. J. E(i. .590)

Perrott v. Perrott (14 East, 423)

Perry v, Carmichael (95 111. 519)

V. Clarkson (16 Oh. 571)

V. Cunninc;liam (40 Ark. 185)

V. De Woif (2 R. L 103)

V. Dixon (4 Des. 504)

V. Field (40 Ark. 175)

V. Hale (44 N. H. 363)

V. Maxwell (2 Dev. Eq. 488)

708

708

91

628

1050

757

513, 525

701

846

994, 1103

905, 975,

1168, 1172

V. Phelips (10 Ves. 34) 785

V. St. Joseph R. R. Co. (29 Kan. 420) 440,

628

V. Snioot (23 Grat. 241) 708

V. West (40 Miss. 233) 805

V. Wooten (5 Humph. 524) 677, 679

Perrvman v. Greer (39 Ala. 133) 1239

Person's Appeal (74 Pa. St. 121) 1216

Personette v. Johnson (40 N. J, Eq.

173) 735, 1023, 1038, 1209

V. Personette (35 N. J. Eq. 472) 787

Peter's Appeal (2 Cent. Rep. 528) 970

Peter v. Beverly (10 Peters, 532) 718, 727,

738, 796

V. Kinii (13 Mo. 143) 809

Peters's Appeal (38 Pa. St. 239) 685

Peters v. Breckeuridge (2 Cr. C. C. 518) 414,

422
V. Carr (2 Dem. 22) 348

17. Carr(16Mo. ,54) 878

V. Clendenin (12 Mo. App. ,521) 1234

V. Leeder (L. J. 47 Q. B. 573) 419

Pa^'e

Peters v. Pub. Adm'r (1 Bradf. 200) 531

V. West (70 Ga. 343) 258

Peterson's Appeal (88 Pa. St. .397) 727

Peterson v. Chemical Bank (32 N. Y. 21) 367.

387
Petigru V. Ferguson (6 Rich. Eq. 378) 395
Petit's Succession (9 La. An. 207) 532

Pettee v. Wilniarth (5 Allen, 144) 193

Petters v. I'etters (4 McCord, 151) 874

Pettes V. Bingham (10 N. H. 514) 37

Pettifer v. James (Bunb. 16) 520

Pettingiil V. Pettingill (60 Me. 411) 5-53,

1159, 1193

Pettus r. Clawson (4 Rich. Eq. 92) 1189

r. .McKinnev (56 Ala. 41) 199, 215

v. McKinneV (74 Ala. 108) 2.J8

Pettv v. Barrett "(37 Tex. 84) 210

'v. Pettv (4 B. Moil. 215) 242. 245

V. Waiford (11 Ala. 143) 1231

V. Young (43 N. J. Eq. 654) 821

Pettvjohn r.'Woodroof (77 Va. 507) 1001, 1002

Pew'r. Hastings (1 Barb. Ch. 452) 323

Pevnado v. Pevnado (82 Kv. 5) 913

Pevser v. Weiult (2 Uem.221) 1235, 12-36

Pevton r. Smith (2 D. & B. Eq. -325) 1187

' V. Stratlon (7 Grat. 380) 286

Pfarr r. Belmont (39 La. An. 294) 81

Pfeiffer r. Suss (73 Mo. 245) 781, 804

V. Suss (5 Mo. App. 590) 804

Pfirshing V. Falsh (87 111. 260) 1193

Pflugar r. Pultz (43 N. J. Eq. 440) .59

Pfuelb's Estate (48 Cal. 643) 938, 939

Phallon V. Houseal (3 McC. Ch. 423) 416

Pharis v. Leachman (20 Ala. 662) 750

Phelan v. Bird (20 La. An. 355) 1040

V. Phelan (13 Ala. 679) 858

Phelps V. Bates, 54 Conn. 11) 878, 881

V. Culver (6 Vt. 430) 034

I'. Funkhouser (39 111. 401) 715

V Jepson (1 Root, 48) 233

V. Martin (74 Ind. 339) 575

V. Miles (1 Root. 102) 1207

V. Morrison (24 N. J. Eq. 195) 009

V. Phelps (72 111. ,545) 175, 180, 213

V. Phelps (143 Mass. 570) 1102

V. Phelps (20 Pick. 5-50) 612

17. Rice (10 Met. 128) 827

V. Robbins (40 Conn. 2.50) 1018

Phene's Trust (L. R. 5 Ch. App. 1-39) 445

Philadelphia's Appeal (112 Pa. St. 470) 726

Philadelphia v. Fox (64 Pa. St. 169) 9-33

V. Girard (45 Pa. St. 9) 930, 931

Philadelphia Trust Co. v. Lippincott (106

Pa. St. 295) 722

Philbrick v. Spangler (15 La. An. 46) 62

Philips's Will (1 How. Pr. N. s. 291) 71

Will (98 N. Y. 267) 71

Philips V. Grav (1 Ala. 226) 712

V. Philips"(2 Bro. Ch. 273) 1100

1'. Stewart (59 Mo. 491) 511

Philipson v. Harvev (2 Lee. 344) 1115

Phillips, Goods of (2 Add. 336, note b) 406

In re (71 Cal. 285) 345. 1235

V. Alleghenv R. R. (107 Pa. St. 465) 815

V. Bear(32 Beav. 25) 1001

V. Bignell (1 Phillim. 239) 662

r. Chappell (16 Ga. 16) 1223

V. Chater (1 Dem. 533) 34

V. Graves (20 Oh. St. 371) 006

V. McCombs (.53 N. Y. 494) 975, 981

V. McLaughlin (26 Miss 596) 1214

CVl

TABLE OF CASES.

'SMi

287

'2tj;i

2til
434

200
793

995
72

Page
I'lnllips V. Medburv (7 Conn. 508) 902

V. raii-v (-2-2 Beav. 279) 1100

V. I'liiliips (81 Kv. 328) 1U9

V. Phillips (1 Slew. 71) 741

V. Kicliaidson (4 J. J. Marsh. 212) 1170

V. Slewart (59 Mo. 491) 634, 723

r. Wooster (30 N. Y. 412) 610

Pliiliipsbin-Kli 0. IJurch (37 N. J. Eq. 482)
Phillip.sc V. Hif,ai(iii (Bust). L.38())
Philsoii V. Baiiiplield (1 Brev. 21)2)
Phiiiney v. Joliuson (13 S. C. 25)

V. iolinsoii (15 S. C. 158)

V. Warren (52 Iowa, 332)
Pliipps v. Aeton (12 Bush, 375)

V. Addison (7 Black f. 375)

V. Anneslev (2 Atk. 57)

v. Earl of Anf;lesev (7 Br. P. C. 443)

V. Hope (10 Oh. St. 580) 82, 121

Phoebe v. Bog-j^ers (1 Grat. 129) 84

Pha-nix r. Livingston (101 N. Y. 451)
Phvfe V. Phvfe (3 Bradf. 45)
Piatt I'. St. Clair (6 Ohio, 227)
Picard's Succession (33 La. An. 1135)
Pickens r Davis (134 Mass. 2.j2)

v. Dorris (20 Mo. App. 1)

V. Miller (83 N. C. 543)
Pickering v. Coleman (12 N. H. 148)

V. Lan-don (22 Me. 413)

V. Pen'dexter (40 N. H. 69)

V. Pickering (50 N. H. 349)

V. Rhotwell (10 Pa. St. 23)

V. Towers (2 Lee, 401)
Pickett r. Everett (11 Mo 5G8)
Pico's Estate (56 Cal. 413)
Pico V. De La Guerra (18 Cal. 422)

1175
900
659
566
100
956

n;]8

427

97, 877

525

893

922

504

639

538

803, 819

Picot V Bates (47 Mo. ^390) ' 1132

V. Biddle (35 Mo. 29) 1122

Picquet, Appellant (5 Pick. 65) 360, 546, 552

V. Swan (4 Masoi'. 443) 609, 642

Pidcock r. Potter (68 Pa. St. 342) 42

Pierce r. Allen (12 K. L 510) 853

V. Boston Savings Bank (129 Mass.

423) 118,119

V. Pierce (.38 Mich. 412) 39, 40, 46

V. Proprietors (10 R. I. 227) 591

V. Trigg (10 Leigh, 406) 235, 290

Pierson v. Archdeaken (1 Ale. & Nap. 23) 790

-"- 250

596

861

239

150

1221

401, 500

577, 682

941

803

972

910

6.59

308

1145,

V, Armstrong (1 Iowa, 282)

V. Post (3 Cai. 175)
Piester v. Piester (22 S. C. 139)
Pifer V. Ward (8 Black f. 252)
Piffefs Succession (39 La. 556)
Pigg V. Carroll (89 111. 205)
Piggot's Case (5 Rep. 29)
Pike's Estate (45 Wis. 391)
Pike V. Stephenson (99 Mass. 188)

V. Thorp (44 Conn. 450)

V. Walle}- (15 Gray, 345)
Pilkington v. Boughev"(12 Sim. 114)
Piman v. Insall (1 Mac. & G. 449)
Pimb's Case (Moore, 196)
Pinckard v. Pnickard (24 Ala. 250)

1146, 1148, 1149
Pinckney v. Pincknev (2 Rich. Eq. 218) 269.

1104
Pinkard v. Smith (Little's Sel. Cas. 331) 639
Pinkerton v. Sargent (102 Mass. 568) 270

V. Sargent (il2 Mass. 110) 1248

Pinkham v. Blair (57 N. H. 226) 915, 949

V. Gear (3 N. H. 163) 2.59

V. Grant (78 Me. 158) 426

Pawe
Pink.staff v. People (59 III. 148) 548

Piuneoj;. Goodspeed(120 111. 524) 1151, 11.56,

1157

Pinnev's Will (27 Minn. 280) 41

PinneV v. Bissell (7 Conn. 21) 1244

u." Fellows (15 Vt. 525) 611

V. McGregorv (1()2 Mass. 186) 361, 442

V. Orth (88 N. V. 447) 831

Piper's Estate (15 Pa. St. 533) 1140

Piper r. Clark (18 N. II. 41.5) 822

V. Goodwin (2:) ISIe. 251) 793

V. Moulton (72 Me. 155) 76, 921, 934

V. Piper (34 N. II. 563) 164

V. Smith (1 Head, 93) 284, 290

Pirtle r. Cowan (4 Dana, 302) 992

Pistole V. Street (5 Port. 04) 520, 696

Pistorius's Appeal (53 Mich. 350) 761

Pitcher v. Armat (5 How. Miss. 288) 404

Pitkin V. Pitkin (7 Conn. 307) 283, 1122

Pitner v. Flanagan (17 Tex. 7) 810

Pitney i'. Everson (42 N. .1. Eq. 361) 1175

Pitt V. Petwav (12 Ired. 69) 1083

Pittard v. Foster (12 III. App. 132) 38

Pitte V. Shiplev (46 Cal. 154) 861

Pittenger v. Pi'ttenger (3 N. J. Eq. 156) 1037

Pittman v. Johnson (35 Hnn, 38) 1006

V. Pittman (59 Miss. 203) 1057

Pitts V. Jameson (15 Barb. 310) 635

V. Melser (72 Ind. 409) 502

1-. Singleton (44 Ala. ;i63) 1157

V. Wooten (24 Ala. 474) 736

Pixlev V. Bennett (11 Mass. 298) 253

Pizzala V. Campbell (46 Ala. 35) 200, 257

Place. In re (1 Kedf 276) 1134

V. Oldham (10 B. Mon. 400) 775

Plaisance's Estate (Mvr. 117) 508

Planters' Bank v. Davis (31 Ala. 626) 277

V. Neelv (7 How. Miss. 80) 332

Plasket V. Beebv (4 East, 485) 1261

Plate V. Koehler (8 Mo. App. 396) 204

Platiier r. Sherwood (6 John. Ch. 118) 463

Piatt's Appeal (80 Pa. St. 501) 184, .380

Piatt r. Piatt (42 Conn. 330) 292, 1232

V. Piatt (105 N. Y. 488) 757, 1028, 1270,

1271
Pleasants v. Dunkin (47 Tex. 343) 562, 568
V. Glasscock (1 Sm. & M. Ch. 17) 421
Plenty v. West (1 Rob. Ecc. 264) 97, 98

Plimpton V. Fuller (11 Allen, 139)
Plowman v. Henderson (59 Ala. 659)
Plume r. Beale (1 P. Wms. 388)

r. Howard Savings Inst. (46 N. J. L.

211) 324,325,330,455,468

Plumer v. Marchant (3 Burr. 1380) 787

V. Plumer (.30 N. H. 5.58) 603

Plummer r. Brandon (5 Ired. Eq. 190) 362

V. White (101 111. 474)
Plunket V. Penson (2 Atk. 290)
Plunkett V. Kelly (22 Ala. 655)
Pocock V. Redinger (108 Ind. 573) 894, 895
Poe V. Domic (54 Mo. 119) 832

Poindexter v. Blackburn (1 Ired. Eq. 286) 598
V. Gibson (1 Jones Eq. 44) 1146

Poland V. Vesper (07 Mo. 727) 214, 1076

Pole V. Simmons (49 Md. 14) 796

V. Somers (6 Ves. 309) 976

Polhemus v. Middleton (37 N. J. Eq.

240) 1147, 1151

Polk V. Allen (19 Mo. 467) 385

V. Schulenburg (4 Mo. Apn. 592) 12.56

Pollard V. Pollard (1 Allen, 490) 985, 1007

1106
527
484

207
657
433

TABLE OF CASES.

evil

Pollard V. Scears (28 Ala. 484)
V. Slaughter (*J2 N. C. 72)
Pollev V. Pulley (82 Kv. 64)
Pollock, Matter of (3 Kedf. 100)
V. Buie (43 Miss. 140)
V. Glassell (2 G rat. 439)
V. Learned (102 Mass. 49)

Pase
843
232
1220
1187
1255
474, 475
995
Pomerov r. Uailev (43 N. H. 118) 009

V. Mills (37 N. J. Eq. 528) 1129, 1105,
1107, 1108

V Mills (40 N. J. Eq. 517) 1171
Pond y. Allen (15 R. I. 171) 1100

V. Bergt) (10 Pai. 140) 880, 881, 890, 940

^•. Irvin (113 Iud.243) 145

V. Kimball (101 Mass. 105) 293, 294

V. Make|ieace (2 Met. Mass. 114) 300, 537

Poiisford V. Hartley (2 John. & H. 730) 1118

Ponton V. Bellows (22 Tex. 081) 12-58

Pool's Succession (14 La. An. 077) GG9, 078

Pool V. Docker (92 111. 501) 1241

V. Ellis (04 Miss. 555) 1058, 1059, 11)71

V. llodnett (18 Ala. 752) 1078

Poole V. Brown (12 S. C. 550) 340

V. .McLeod (1 Sm. & M. 391) 337

V. Mimday (103 Mass. 174) 090

V. Richardson (3 Mass. 330) 41

Poor K. Bovce (12 Tex. 440) 330

V. Larfabee (58 Me. 543) 1050

V. Kohinson (10 Mass. 131) 1044

Pope ('. Bovd (22 Ark. 535) 843, 847, 800

V. Cutler (34 Mich. 150) 492

V. Delavan (1 Wend. 08) 794

V. Elliott (8 B. Mon. 50) 9.50

V. Havs (.30 Ga. 539) 1198

V. Mathews (18 S. C. 444) 708

V. Mead (99 N. Y. 201) 2-38, 254

Porche r. Banks (8 La. An. 65) 1140, 1188

Porschet v. Porschet (82 Kv. 93) 48

Porter's Appeal (45 Pa. St! 201) 902

Appeal (94 Pa. St. 3-32) 872, 1215, 1221,

1222
Estate (77 Pa. St. 43) 701

Porter r. Ford (82 Kv. 191) 28

V. Hevdock (6 Vt. 374) 375

V. HoVnsbv (32 La. An. 337) 499

V. .TacksoiJ (95 Ind. 210) 1097, 1099

V. Lazear (109 U. S. 84) 249

v. Porter (7 How. Miss. 106) 12.11

u. Porter (51 Me. 376) 1226

V. Sweenev (01 Tex. 213) 803

V Trail (30 X. J. Eq. 100) 509
Portevant v. Nevlans (3.s Miss 104) 345
Portis V. Cole (11 Tex. 157) 758, 1140
Portman v. Klemish (54 Iowa, 198) 419
Portsmouth v. Shackford (46 N. H. 423) 904
Portsmouth Ins. Co. v. Revnold.s (32 Grat.

613) ■ 647

Portwood V. Hunter (6 B. Mon. 538) 83

Portz V. Schaiitz (70 Wis. 497) 330, 502

Posev V. Decatur Bank (12 Ala. 802) 844

Post'r Caulk (3 Mo. 35) 506

V. Cavender (12 Mo. App. 20) 1002

V. Herl)ert (27 N. J. Eq. 540) 943

V. Mackall (3 Bland Ch. 480) 1107

V. 'SUi^on (26 Hun, 187) 49, 499

V. Ma.son (91 N. Y. 5-39) .50

Postlewait r. Howes (3 Iowa, 355) 1205

Postley V. Cheyne (4 Dem. 492) 578

Postmaster v. Robbins (1 Ware, 165) 772

Postmaster General v. Early (12 Wheat.

136; 554

Potter's Appeal (53 Mich. 100)
Potter V. Baldwin (133 Mass. 427)
v. Brown (11 R. I. 332)
V. Cromwed (40 N. Y.287)
V. Cuminings (18 Me. 55)
V. Everett (7 Ired Eq. I."r2)

Page
46
48, 490
111
603
684
255

McAlpine (3 Dem. 1(18) 661, 9.^/8

I'. McDowell (31 Mo. (i2) (i09

r. National Bank (102 U. S. 103) 8:i3

V.Smith (36 Ind. 231) 703, 1087

V. Titcomb (7 Me. 302) 1140

V. Titcomb (10 Me. 53) 666

V. Wheeler (13 Mass. 104) 2i3

Potts V. House (6 Ga. 324) 31, 41, 43, 46, 47!t

V. Smith (3 Rawle, 361) 745, 746, 752

Potwine's Appeal (31 Conn. 381) 324, 325

I'ouls.m V. Bank (33 N. ,J. Eq. 618) 1199

Povall, Ex parte (3 Leigh, 810) 492

Powel r. Thompson (4 Dcs. 162) 545

Powell's Succession (14 La. An. 425) 1100

Powell, Matter of (5 Dem. 281) 530

V. Boon (43 Ala. 454) 710

V. Burrus (35 Miss. 605) 1165

V. Monson Co. (3 Mass. 347) 248, 250

V. North (3 Ind. 392) 281, 340

V. Powell (10 Ala. 900) 1104

V. Powell (30 Ala. 697) 103

V. Powell (80 Ala. 11) 1157

V. Powell (5 Dana, 168) 1214

r. Powell (18 Kan. 371) 224

V. Powell (23 Mo. App. 305) 689, 757

V. Stratton (11 Grat. 792) 371

Power's Estate (14 Phil. 289) 421

Power V. Davis (3 Mac Arthur, 153) 1099

V. Dougherty (83 Ky. 187) 146

r. Hatlev (4"S. W. R.683) 141

Powers V. Biakey (10 Mo. 437) 682, 1123

V. Douglass (53 Vt. 471) 685, 811

r. Kite (83 N. C. 156) 158

V. Powers (57 Vt. 49) 815, 851, 8.52

V. Powers (28 Wis. 059) 10H7

Powys V. Mansfield (3 Mvl. & Cr. 359) 981

Prater v. Whittle (16 S. C. 40) 1206

Prather v. Prather (58 Ind. 141) 939

Pratt's Appeal (117 Pa. St. 401) 635

Pratt V. Atwood (108 Mass. 40) 156

V. Douglass (38 N. J. Eq. 516) 266, 1016

V. Elkins (80 N. Y. 198) 836

V. Flamer (5 Har. & L 10) 8 )8

V. Houghtaling (45 Mich. 457) 1027, 1028

V. Kitterell (4'Dev. 168) 1198

V. Leadbetter (38 Me. 9) 879

V. McGhee (17 S. C. 428) 938

V. Northam (5 Mason, 95) 1247

V. Patterson (81 Pa. St. 114) 836

V. Pond (5 Allen, 59) 354

r. Pratt (22 Minn. 148) 1248

V. Skolfield (45 Jle. 380) 244

V. Stewart (49 Conn. 339) 724

V. Tefft (14 Mich. 191) 225

Prav V. Fleming (2 Ilill Ch. 97) 697

'v. Hegeman (92 X. Y. 508) 918

Preachers' Aid Society v. Rich (45 IMe.

552) 893, 923

Preble r. Preble (73 Me. 362) 835

Prendergast, Re (5 Notes of Cas. 92) 85

Prentice v. Janssen (79 N. Y. 478) 728

Prentiss v. Prentiss (11 Allen, 47) 110

Presbyterian Church v. McElhinnev (61

Mo: 540) 340,' 348, 10.38

Prescott's Estate (Tuck. 430) 688

CVlll

TABLE OF CASES.

Pape

ya?, y-io

6G5

1045, 1048

6(15

915
196, 209
293
149

Prescott I'. Pi-pscott (7 Met. 141)
V. Tavbell (1 Mass. 204)
V. Walker (10 N. H. 340)
V. Ward (10 Allen, 203)
President, &.c. v. Browne (34 Md. 450) 509

53;
Preslev v. Davis (7 Rich. Eq. 105)
Pressley v. Ilohinsun (57 Tex. 458)
Prestun v. Colbv (117 111. 477)
f. Cole (13"Atl. R. 788)
V. Cutter (13 Atl. 874) 631, 796, 822, 841,
842, 843
V. Jones (9 Pa. St. 456) 500

V. Palmer (42 Hun, 368) 89

Prevo V. Walters (5 111. -id) 1043

Prewet v. Wilson (103 U. S. 22) 608

Price's Estate (81 Pa. St. 263) 1149

Price, Goods of (I>. K. 12 Prob. D. 137) 26, 27
Matter of (67 N. Y. 231) 1233

V. Bravton (19 Iowa, 309) 597

I'. Cole (83 Va. 343) 873

V. Courtney (87 Mo. 387) 732

r. Dietrich (12 Wis. 626) 865

V. Hobbs (47 Md. 359) 261

V. Likens (23 Tex. 335) 336

V. Mace (47 Wis. 23) 361

V. Mathews (14 La. An. 11) 288

V. Maxwell (28 Pa. St. 23) 9", 98

V. Mitchell (10 Sni. & M. 179) 1153

V. Morris (5 McLean, 4) 368

i: Nesbitt (1 Hill Ch. 445) 568, 693

V. North (1 Phillips, Eng. 85) 1095

V Pickett (21 Ala. 741) 638

V. Price (6 Dana, 107) 230

. V. Price (75 N. Y. 244) 625

V. Winter (15 I'la 60) 1030

V. Woodford (43 Mo. 247) 270

Prickett v. Parker (3 Oh. St 394) 154

Pride v. Watson (7 Heisk. 232) 173

Pridiien v. Pridgen (13 Ired. L. 2.59) 71

Priest r. Cummings (20 Wend. 338) 251

V. McMaster (52 Mo. 60) 336

V. Watkins (2 Hill, 225) 412, 426

Primm v. Stewart (7 Tex. 178) 446

Prince v. Guillemot (1 Rich. Eq. 187) 775
V. Hazelton (20 John. 502) 82, 489

V. Nicholson (5 Taunt. 665) 785

r. Prince (47 Ala. 283) 7o8

Princeton v. Adams (10 Cush. 129) 954

Pringle v. Dorsev (3 S. C. 502) 932

V. Dunklev (14 Sm. & M. 16) 962

V. Gaw (5"S. & R. 536) 254

V. McPherson (2 Brev. 279) 90

■y. McPherson (2 Des. 524) 686

t'. Pringle (59 Pa. St. 281) 631

Priori.' Talbot (10 Cush. 1) 391

Pritchard v. Pritchard (69 Wis. 373) 824, 831
V. State (34 Ind. 137) 558, 5.59

r. Th-mpson (95 N. Y. 76) 921

Pritchett's Estate (51 Cal. 568) 1229, 1230
Probate Court v. Angell (14 R. I. 495) 391,

655
V. Chapin (31 Vt. 373)
V. Hazard (13 R. I. 1)
V. Kent (49 Vt. 380)
V. Merriam (8 Vt. 234)
V. Strontr (27 Vt. 202)
V. Van Duzer (13 Vt. 135)
Probate Judge n. Abbott (.50 Mich. 278)
r%Ellis(63N. H. .366)
V. Mathes (60 N. H. 433)

865
391, .560

8f;5

1255
553
855
435
806, 846
709

PaRc
Procter v. Newhall (17 Mass. 81) 150, 1238,

1245
Proctor r. Atkvns (1 Mass. 321) 844

V. Robinson (35 Mich. 284) 992

V. Wanmaker (1 Barb. Ch. 302) 399, 571
Proprietors, &c. v. Mussev (48 Me. 30. ) 554
Proseus v. Mclntyre (5 Barb. 424) 1218

Prosser v. Lealhernian (4 How. Miss. 237) 745
Proud V. Turner (2 P. Wnis. 560) 1216

Prouty V. Mather (49 Vt. 415) 1066

Provenchere's Appeal (67 Pa. St. 463) 942
Providence Gas Co. v. Thurber (2 R. I.

15) 602

Pruden v. Pruden (14 Oh. St. 251) 877, 890,

946

Pry's Appeal (8 Watts, 253) 1041

PrVor t: Coggin (17 Gii. 444) 93

- V. Downey (.50 Cal. 388) 428, 1023, 1038

Public Administrator r. Elias (4Dem. 139) 680

V. Peters (1 Bradf. 100) 399, 571

r. Watts (1 Pai. 347) 400

Public Works v. Columbia College (17

Wall. 521) 496, 1027, 1263, 1269

Puekett V. James (2 Humph. 565) 805, 1239,

V. McCall (30 Tex. 457) 821

Pugh r. Jones (6 Leigh, 299) 364, 1201

v. Ottenkirk (3 W. & S. 170) 1201

V Pugh (105 Ind. 552) 899

V Russell (27 Grat. 789) 1110
Pulliam V. Bvrd (2 Strobh. Eq. 134) 693
Pullman v. Willets (4 Dem. 536) 1148, 1170
Pumpellv V. Tinkham (23 Barb. 321) 562
Purcelly r. Carter (45 Ark. 299) 1015, 1239
Piirdew r. Jackson (1 Russ. Ch. 1) 641
Purdv V. Purdy (3 Md. Ch. 547) 2-36
Purnell v. Dudley (4 Jones Eq. 203) 878
Purple V. Whithed (49 Vt. 187) 366
Pursel V. Pursel (14 N. J. Eq. 514) 668, 1150,

1154

Purvear v. Beard (14 Ala. 121) 494

\\ Puryear (5 Baxt. 640) 220

V. Reese (6 Coldw. 21) 37, 42

Pusey V. Clemson (9 Serg. & R. 204) 684, 1163

Putnam v. Osgood (52 N. H. 148) 610

V. Parker (55 Me. 235) 294

V. Putnam (X Pick. 433) 224, 225

V. Story (1.32 Mass. 205) 719

V. Young (57 Tex. 461) 209

Putnam Free School v. Fisher (30 Me.

523) 718

Putney v. Fletcher (140 Mass. 596) 1195

Pvatt'v. Brockman (6 Cal. 418) 1251

PVle's Appeal (102 Pa. St. 317) 941

P>m r. Lockver (5 Mvl. & Cr. 29) 977

Pyne v. WooHand (2 Ventr. 179) 426

Quackenboss v. Southwick (41 N. Y. 117) 536

Quackenbush v. Campbell (Walk. Ch.

525) 852

V. Quackenbush (42 Hun. 329) 1099

Quain's Appeal (22 Pa. St. 510) 688

Quarles v. Campbell (72 Ala. 64) 1035, 1038

r. Capell (2 Dver 204 b) 1093

r. Garrett (4 Desaus. 145) 270

V. Lacev (4 Munf. 251) 242

V. Quarles (4 Mass. 680) 1216, 1220

Queen v. Millis (10 CI. & F. 534) 222

Quick V. Ludburmw (3 Bulst. 29) 686

V. Quick (1 N. J. Eq. 4) 1097

V. Quick (3 Sw. & Tr. 442) 483

TABLE OF CASES.

CIX

Page
Quick V. Staines (1 Bn«. & Pull. 293) 389
Quicksall V. Quicksall (-2 N. J. L. 457) 7U3
Quidort v. Pergeaux (18 N. J. Eq. 472) 5(J5,

508
Quigg V. Kittredge (18 N. H. 137) 804, 803
Quiglev V. Mitchell (41 Oh. St. 375) 140

Quinbv v. Frost (01 Me. 77) 10:j(j

r.'Manhattaii Co. (24 N. J. Eq. 200) 002
Quincy v. lingers (9 Cush. 291) 870, 873, 884
Quinlan v. Fitzpatrick (25 Ark. 47l) 804

Quinn's Succession (34 La. An. 87'J) 1054,

1004

Quinn v. Butler (L. R. 6 Eq. Cas. 225) 90

V. Hardenbrook (54 N. Y. 83) 883, 890

V. Moss (12 Sm. & M. 365) 1012

V. Shields (02 Iowa, 129) 922

V. Stockton (2 Lit. 343) 733, 1213

Quintard v. Mor<;an (4 Deni. 168) 528

Quivey v. Hall (19 Cal. 97) 809, 844

Raab's Estate (16 Oh. St. 273) 1129, 1139,

118(;

Rabbitt v. Gaither (67 Md. 94) 248

Raber r. Giuid (110 111. 581) 195, 211

Kaborg v. Hammond (2 H. & G. 42) 332

Racouillat v. Sansevain (-32 Cal. 376) 803

Rader v. Yeargin (85 Tenn. 486) 653, 1140

Radford r. Radford (5 Dana. 156) 527

V. Westcott (1 Des. 596) 1048

Raffertv v. Mallorv (3 Biss. 362) 1087

Ragland v. Justices (10 Ga. 65) 774

V. King (37 Ala. 80) 395

Ragsdale v. Holmes (1 S. C. 91) 3-57

V. Parrish (74 Ind. 191) 208

V. Stuart (8 Ark. 268) 1131

Raiford V. Kaiford (0 Ired. Eq. 490) 1215

Railroad v. Deal (90 N. C. 110) 603

Railroad Co. v. Knajip (51 Tex. 592) 217

Railway Co. v. Richards (08 Tex. 375) 630

Raine, "Goods of (1 Sw. & Tr. 144) 57

Raines v. Barker (13 (irat. 128) 890

Rainey v. Biggart (4 Lea, 50]) 1074

Rains v. Haves (6 Lea, 303) 1218

Rainsford v'. Ta^'nton (7 Ves. 460) 405

Raleigh V. Rogers (25 N. J. Eq. 506) 1195

Ralston ■;;. Ralston (3 G. Green, 533) 230

V. Thornton (36 Ga. 546) 1239

V. Wood (15 111. 159) 800

Rambler v. Trvon (7 Serg. & R. 90) 42, 479,

490
Rambo v. Bell (3 Ga. 207) 2.56

V. Rumer (4 Del. Cli. 9) 989, 1023, 1094
V. Wvatt (32 A hi. 303) 395

Ramev r/Green (18 Ala. 771) 440

Ranufes v. Kent (2 Cal. 558) 22

Rammelsberg v. Mitchell (29 Oh. St. 22) 292,

290

Ramp V. McDaniel (12 Oreg. 108) 531

Ramsav v. Abrams (58 Iowa, 512) 1223

17. Ellis (3 Des. 78) 1164

V. Richardson (Kilev Ch. 271) 642

Ramsdell v. Ramsdell (21 Me. 288) 874

Ramsden v. Jackson (1 Atk. 292) 792

Ramsey's Appeal (2 Watts, 228) 307, 859

Appeal (4 Watts. 71) 770

Ramsey v. Fonts (67 Ind. 78) 339

V. "Ramsey (4 T. B. Mon. 151) 1105

V. Welby"'(63 Md. 584) 352

Ramsour v. Thompson (05 N. C. 628) 1237

Rand's Estate (61 Cal. 468) 79, 488

Pa<,'e
Rand r. Hubbard (4 Met. Mass 252) 384,

409, 410

V. Hubbell (115 Mass. 461) 1003

Randal v. Elder (12 Kan. 257) 200

Randall v. Beatty (31 N. J. I<:q. 643) 100

V. Kreiger (23 Wall. 137) 243

V. Marble (69 Me. 310) 963

V. Northwestern Co. (54 Wis. 140) 623

V. Shrader (17 Ala. 333) 518

Randebangh v. Shelley (6 Oh. St. 307) 70

Randfield v. Randtield (8 H. L. Cas. 225) 885

Randle r. Carter (62 Ala. 95) 570, 1079

Randolph's Appeal (5 Pa. St. 242) 1050

Randolph r. Randolph (40 N. J. Eq. 73) 995

V. Randolph (0 Rand. 194) 993

V. Ward (29 Ark. 238) 812

Rands V. Kendall (15 Oh. 071) 236, 244

Rank's Estate (12 Pliila. 67) 190

Rank v. Camp (3 Dem. 278) 959

V. Rank (13 Atl. R. 827) 277

Ranken r. Patton (65 Mo. 378) 50

Rankin's Appeal (95 Pa. St. 358) 350

Rankin r. Anderson (8 Baxt. 240) 1123

V. Hannan (38 Oh. St. 438) 8-35

V. Rankin (9 Ired. 156) 489

V. Rankin (61 Mo. 295) 46

Ranking v. Barnard (5 Madd. 32) 1236

Rannells v. (ierner (80 Mo. 474) 252

V. Gerner (9 Mo. App. 500) 252

Ransom, In re (17 Fed. R. 331) 236

t>. Quarles (16 Ala. 437) 850

Ransome v. Bearden (50 Tex. 119) 500

Rapalye v. Rapalve (27 Barb. 010) 1105

Rapp'y. Matthias"(35 Ind. 332) 370, 10.35

Rappelyea v. Russell (1 Daly, 214) 7.59

Rash v. Purnel (2 Harr. 448) 473

Ratcliff V. Davis (04 Iowa, 407) 213

Rattoon v. Overacker (8 John. 120) 412

Raubitschek v. Blank (80 N. Y. 478) 834

Rauchfuss v. Rauchfuss (2 Dem. 271) 882

Rausch, In re (35 Minn. 291 ) 235

t". Moore (48 Iowa, 611) 254

Raverty r. Fridge (3 McLean. 230) 252

Rawlin"gs v. Adams (7 Md. 26) 276

Rawlins v. Buttel (1 Houst. 224) 227

V. Rawlins (2 Cox, 425) 1009

Rawson v. Copland (3 Barb. Ch. 166) 828

V. Knight (71 Me. 99) 803

V. Pennsvlvama R. R. Co. (2 Abb.

P. R"; N. s. 220) 611,613

Ray, Ex parte (20 S. C. 246) 196

"■ V. Doughty (4 Blackf. 115) 558, 048, 738

r. 11111(3 Strobh. L. 297) 52

V. Lister (Andrews, 351) 3-36

V. Loper (05 Mo. 470) 1214, 1218, 1221,

1223

V. Ray (Coop. Ch. Cas. 264) 389

V. Rav (98 N. C. 566) 480

V. Walton (2 A. K. Marsh. 71) 70

Raymond v. Sellick (10 Conn. 480) 121

Ra'vnor v. Capehart (2 H.iwks, 375) 271

■ V. Lee (20 Mich 384) 2.54

V. Robinson (36 Barb. 128) 825

Rea V. Englesing (56 Miss. 463) 525

V. McEachfon (13 Wend. 405) 1059

V. Rhodes (5 Ired. Eq. 148) 992, 993

Read's Case (5 Co. 34) 415, 420

Read v. Bostick (0 Humph. 321) 1070

V. Hatch (19 Pick. 47) 625

V. Hodgens (7 Ir. F:q. 17) 909

V. Howe (13 Iowa, 50) 528

ex

TABLE OF CASES.

Read «. Howe (39 Iowa. 553) 329, 1023, 1089
r. Watkiiis(ll Lea, 158) 948

Reade v. Livingston (3 John. Ch. 481) GOi)
Reading v. Wiir (29 Kan. 429) 730, 1151

Readv v. Stc'iihcnson (7 J.J. Marsh. 351) 1272
V. 'riKinii.son (4 St. & 1'. 452) 826

Reagan r. Long (21 Ind. 204) 424

r. Stanley (11 Lea, 310) 62,488

Reaves v. (larrett (34 Ala. 558) 2(i9

Reavis, Kx parte (50 Ala. 210) 187

Reblum V. Mueller (114 HI. 343) 406

Reek's Estate (Mvr. 59) 11()6

Record i\ Howard (58 Me. 225) 329, 451,

508, 1089, 1091
Reetor v. Langham (1 Mo. 568) 307

Redd r. Dure (40 Ga. 389) 1198

Redell v. Dobell (10 Sim. 244) 123

Redford v. Peggv (0 Rand. 316) 488

Redmond v. Burroughs (f)3 N. C. 242) 904

Reed's Appeal (118 Pa. St. 215) 942

Estate (82 I'a. St. 428) 1232

Will (2 B. Mon. 79) 42

Reed (7. Ash (30 Ark. 775) 254

V. Bueklev (5 Watts & S. 517) 941

c. Colbv (89 111. 104) 1025

V. Crocker (12 La. An. 445) 581

V. Cruikshank (40 Hun. 219) 038

V. Diekerman (12 Pick. 146) 271

V. Gilbert (32 Me. 519) 609

V. Hazleton (37 Kan. 321) 61, 02

r. Reed (3 Head, 491) 277

V. Reed (44 Ind. 42D) 1130

«;. Reed (52N. Y.051) 1140

■17. Reed (56 Vt. 492) 1241

V. Union Bank (29 Grat. 719) 212

V. Whitney (7 Gray, 533) 235

V. Wilev (5 Sm. &"M. 394) 811

r. Woodward (11 Phila. 541) 62

Reel r. Reel (1 Hawks, 248) 491

Rees V. Morgan (5 B. & Ad. 1035) 792

Reese's Apjieal (110 Pa. St. 272) 669

Reese v. Hawthorn (10 Grat. 548) 84

V. Probate Court (9 R. I. 434) 95

Reeves v. Brooks (80 Ala. 26) 255, 257, 275
V, Craig (1 Winst. 209) 953

V. Patty (43 Miss. 338) 1182

t7. Petty (44 Tex. 249) 210

V. Reeves (5 Lea. 653) 946

V. Tappen (21 S. C. 1) 513, 741

V. Ward (2 Scott, 390) 763

Refeld v. Bellette (14 Ark. 148) 990

Reform Soc. v. Case (3 Dem. 15) 1102, 1103
Regan r. Stone (7 Sm. & M. 104) 811

Regina v. Chad wick (11 Ad. & Ell. n. s.
2U5) 224

V. Stewart (12 Ad. & Ell. 773) 759

Register r. Henslev (70 Mo. 189) 172, 201
Reich V. Berdel (120 111. 499) 260

Reichard's Appeal (110 Pa. St. 2-32) 96

Reicke v. Saunders (3 Mo. App. 566) 686

Reid V. Borland (14 Mass. 208) 96

V. Butt (25 Ga. 28) 672

i;. Kellv (1 Dev. L. 313) 336

V. State (74 Ind. 252) 300

Reiff V. Horst (55 Mich. 42) 2.53

V. Reiff (64 Pa. St. 134) 598

Reifsnyder r. Hunter (19 Pa. St. 41) 954

Reihl V. Martin (29 La. An. 15) 795

Reillev v. Duffv (4 Dem. ■Mid) 1120

Reinders v. Koppelmann (68 Mo. 482) 140,

729, 878

Page
Reinders r. Koppelman (94 Mo. 338) 871, 873
Iteinhardt r. Evans (48 Jliss. 230) 834

r. (iartrell (33 Ark. 727) 1133

r. Reinhardt (21 W. Va. 70) 202, 210
Reinig v. Ilartnian (69 Wis. 28) 8(il

Reinstein v. Smith (Ii5 Tex. 247) 689

Reist V. Helll)renner (II Serg. & R. 131) 020
Reitz V. Bennett (6 W. Va. 417) 1138

Reitzell v. Miller (25 III. 07) 085. 812

Remick v. Butterfield (31 N. II. 70)^ 1087
Remington v. Amer. Bible Soc. (44 Conn.
512) 712

r. Walker (21 Hun, 322) 1121

Renimler v. Shenuit (15 Mo- App. 192) 676
Penan r. Banks (83 N. C. 483) 1271

Renfrow t'. Pearce (68 111. 125) 284

Renneberg's Succession (15 La. An. 661) 1033
Renner r. Ross (111 Ind. 269) 1035

Renshaw v. Stafford (30 La. An. 853) 810
Rentschler i\ Jamison (6 Mo. App. 135) 301
Reppy r. Reppv (40 Mo. 571) 828

Resoi- V. Resor (9 Ind. 347) 611

Reuff V Coleman (30 W. Va. 175) 951

Rex V. Bettesworth (2 Str. 1111) 517

V. Creel (22 W. Va. 373) 1271

V. Portington (1 Salk. 102) 907

r. Haines (1 Ld. Ravm. 301) 509

Rexroad r. McQuain (24"W.Va. 32) 1230, 1246
V. Wells (13 W. Va. 812) 354

Reynolds, In re (L. R. 3 Pr. & D. 35) 101
" Matter of (4 Dem. 08) 472

V. Adams (90 111. i:i4) 490, 491

V. Bond (83 I.id. 30) 1099

i: Canal Co. (30 Ark. 520) 1142. 1 148.
1105, 1106
V. Kortwright (18 Beav. 417) 60

». Lansford (10 Tex. 286) 609

V. McCurry (100 111. 356) 254

V. McGreg'or (16 Vt. 191) 854

V. McMullen (55 Mich. 568) 300, 366, :iU8
V. May (4 Greene, 283) 1205

r. Miller (6 Iowa, 459) 1200

V. People (55 III. 328) 1120

V. Reynolds (1 1 Ala. 1023) 1145

r. Re'vnolds (1 Speers, 253) 52. 08

V. Robinson (82 N. Y. 103) 892. 976 981
V. Rogers (5 Oh. 169) 552

V Root (02 Barb. 250) 43, 48

r. Schmidt (20 Wis. 374) 3036

■K. Wilson (15 111. 3i)4) 1048. 10.50

V. Zink (27 Grat. 29) 5T0

Rhame v. Lewis (13 Rich. Er| 209) 094

Rhea v. Meredith (6 Lea, 005) 200

Rhem v. Tull (13 Ired. 57) 652

Rhett V. Cotton Co. (84 Ga. 521) 10T3

V. Mason (18 Grat. 541) 1134

Rhoades v. Davis (51 Mich. 300) 265

Rhoads's Appeal (39 Pa St. 180 1 1124

Rhode Island Trust Co. r. Bank (14 R I.

025) 949

Rhodes's Estate (11 Phila. 103) 271

Rhodes r. Childs (04 Pa. St 18) 120. 121

r. Pray (36 Mimi. 392) 835

V. Rhodes (137 Mass. 343) 878

V. Sevmour (36 Conn. 1) 7'J5

V. Vinson (9 Gill, 109) 89, 484

Rhorer v. Brockhage (86 Mo. 544) 200. 202.

208

V. Brockhage (13 Mo. App 397) 202, 208

Rhymer's Appeal (93 Pa. St 142) 911

Ricard v. Smith (37 Miss. 644 1 1200

TABLE OF CASES.

CXI

Ricard r. Williams (7 Wheat. 59) 1025

Kieaud's Estate (57 Cal. 4'2J) VIM

Estate (70 Cal. G'J) 3 Hiti

Rice's Estate (Mvr. 183) ^'M

Succession (U La. An. 317) 700, 1104
Rice V. Boston I'ost (56 N. H. lUl) 'J70, 971
V- Cannon (r>ai. Eq. 172) 774

V. Harbeson (0;5 N. Y. 49.0 11*»7

V. llarbcson (2 Th. & C. 4) 1112

r. Jones (4 Call. 89) 495

V. MiMartui (39 Conn. 573) 289

V. M( Reynolds (8 Lea, 3G) tj39, 041, 1014
V. Nelson (27 Iowa, 148) 274

V. Rice (50 Mich. 488) 38, 41

V. Rice (53 Mich. 432) 31, 34

V. Satterwlute (1 D & B. Eq. 09) 915
V. Smith (14 Mass, 431) 1153, 1245

V. Thompson (14 B. Mon. 377) 042

Rich, Matter of (3 Redf. 177) 1181

V Bowker (25 Kan. 7) 30

V. Cockell (9 Ves. .308) 20

V. Eldiedi^e (42 N. H. 246) 854

»■ Gilkev'(73 Me. 595) 89

V. Rich (7 Bush, 53) 202

V. Tubbs (41 Cal. 34) 198, 215

Richards v. Adamsou (43 Iowa, 2)8) 1055

V. Browne (3 Binjj. N. Cas. 493) 991

r. Dutch (8 Mass. 500) 375

V. Humphreys (15 Pick. 133) 973, 977,980
V. 'SUUer (62 III. 417) 494, 902, 903

V. :Moore (5 Redf. 278) 504

V. Richards (11 Humph. 429) 1217

Richardson, Ex parte (Buck's Cas. in
Bankr. 202) 282

i: Hall (124 Mass. 228) 988

«. Harrison (30 Mo. 90) . 840,847

V. Hildreth (8 Cush. 225) 731

V. Horton (7 Beay. 112) 059

V. Judah (2 Bradf. 157) 1032

V. Keel (9 Lea, 74) 1237. 12:!8

». Lewis (21 Mo. App. 531) 184

V. McLemore (GO Miss. 315) 711

V. Martin (55 N H. 45) 902

V. Merrill (32 Vt. 27) 164, 611, 660

V. New York Central R. R. Co. (98

Mass 85) 630

V. Pai£?e (.54 Vt. 373) 949

V. Palmer (24 Mo. App. 480) 757

I'. Ranj,diley (1 Houst. 501) 8r)6

. V. Richardson (75 Me. 574) 1004

• ». Richardson (9 Pa. St. 428) 1132

r. Richardson (35 Vt. 238) 70

r. Stansbury (4 Har. & .J. 275) 1170

V. Wheatland (7 Met. 169) 942

f. Wyatt (2Des. 471) 289

r. Wymau (62 Me. 280) 240

Richmond's Succession (35 La. An. 858) 810

Riciimoiid v. Foote (3 Lans. 244) 330, 1030,

1089
Richter e. Poppenliusen (39 How. Pr. 82) 285
Richwine v. Heim (1 Pa. Rep. 373) 040

Rick V. Gilson (1 Pa. St. 54) 734

Rickards v. Hutchinson (18 Nev. 215) 800
Rickeubacker v. Zimniermann (10 S. C.

110) 1214,1219,1221,1222

Ricketson v. Richardson (19 Cal. 330) 807
Ricketts V. Hicketts (4 Lea, 103) 7".t5

Ricks V Ililliard (45 Miss. 359) 433, 1240

Riddle's Estate (19 Pa. St. 431) 1219, 1222
Riddle V. Mandeville (5 Cr. .322) 1271

V. Murphv (7 S. & R. 230) 1088

Pnpe
Riddle r. Roll (24 Oh. St. 572) 1087

RideiibauHh v. Bunies (14 Fed. R. 93) 1131,

1132

RidL^'ly V. Bennett (13 Lea, 210) 1031, 1032,

' ' 1034, 1090

V. Bond (18 Md. 4:]2) 883

Ridfjeway v. Underwood (67 111. 419) 728, 889

Ridgway v. Darwin (8 Ves. 05) 32

t: lilcAlpine (31 Ala. 458) 273

V. Manifold (39 Lid. 58) 1016

V. Masting (23 Oh. St. 294) 237

Ridley r. Coleman (1 Sliced, 616) 81

Rife V. Geyer (.59 Pa. St. 393) 956

Rigden r.'Vallier (2 Ves. Sr. 252) 125

Riggs V. Cragg (26 Hun, 89) 1004

V. Cragg" (89 N. Y. 479) 323, 352, 1249

V. Myers (20 IMo. 239) 893

V. Riggs (135 Mass. 238) 08

V. Sterling (51 Mich. 157) 216

Right V. Price (1 Dougl. 241) 67

Riley v. Albany Bank (30 Hun, 513') 687

'v. Kepler (94 Iiid. 308) 1050, 1077

V. McCord (24 Mo. 205) 508

V. jMo>elev (44 Miss. 37) 359

V. Norman (39 Ark. 158) 1132

r. Riley (25 Conn. 154) 607,608

V. Smith (5 S. W. R. 809)

Rinard v. West (92 Ind. 359) 1204, 1205

Riudge V. Oliphint (02 Tex. 682) 1003

Hinehart v. Rinehart (15 N. J. Eq 44) 739

V. Rinehart (27 N. J. Eq. 475) 530

Ringgold V. Malott (1 H. & J. 299) 304

'V'. Stone (20 Ark. 520) 1132, 1137

Ringhouse v. Keeyer (49 III. 470) 445, 440

Riiitch V. Cunningham (4 Bibb, 462) 259

Ripley V. Sampson (10 Pick. 371) 691

Riser's. Snoddy (7 lud. 442) 1033

Risk's Appeal (110 l'=>- St- 1"1) '^^^^

Ritch V. Bellamy (14 Fla. 537) 340, 356

V. Morns (78 N. C. 377) 999

Ritchey V. W^ithers (72 Mo. 556) 177, 180, 191,

192, 1125
Ritchie V. McAuslin (1 Hayw. 220) 405, 532
Ritteiihouse v. Levering (0 Watts & S.

190) 1153

Ritter's Appeal (23 Pa. St. 95) 843, 11.56

Estate (11 Phila. 12) 1189

Rivenett v. Bonrquin (53 Mich. 10) 930

Rivers v. Rivers (3 Desaus. 190) 58, 204

Rix V. Nevins (20 Vt. 384) G:.8

V. Smith (8 Vt 305) 1159

Rizer's Estate (15 Phila. .547) 190

Rizer V. Perrv (58 Md. 112) 728, 928, 943,

944, 946
Roach V. Ames (80 Kv. 6) 087

Roanoke Nav. Co. i: Green (3 Dev 434) 513,

741,743

Ro Bards v. Lamb (76 Mo. 192) 1 196

V. Lamb (89 Mo. 303) 401, 1183

Robards v. Wortham (2 Dev. Eq 123) 1094,

1105

Robb's Appeal (41 Pa. St. 45) 1103

Robb r. Belt (12 B. Mon. 043) 882

V. Irwin (15 Oh. 089) 10-30, 1034

V. Mann (11 Pa. St. 300) 1067

Robbin's Case (Nov, 09) 415

Robbiiis V. Bates (4 Gush. 104) 1080

r. Brewer (48 Me. 481) 8.54

V. Gleason (47 Me. 2.59) 951

V. Robbins (8 Blackf. 174) 2-39

V. Mobbins (1 S. W. R. 152) 1147, 1149

cxu

TABLE OP CASES.

Paso

Robbins r'. Tafft (12 R. I. 07) ;i-K)

V. Wakott (27 Conn. 2;J4) 1147, 1188

Robert 1'. Hn.wn (U La. An. 597) til).j

V. West (15 Ga. 122) 607, 878

Roberts's Appeal (92 I'a. St. 407) liaS, 1202
Estate (07 Cal. 349) 192

Roberts, Matter of (3 John. Ch 42) 1173

V. Briscoe (44 Oh. St. 590) 835

V. Uurton (27 Vt. 390) 857

V. Colvm (3 Grat. 358) 652

V. Dale (7 B. Mon. 199) 1228, 1231

V. Elliott (3 T. B. Mon. 305) 887

V. Flanagan (21 Neb. 503) 4l)8

IJ. Johns (10 S. C. 171) 1127

V. Lisenbee (80 N. C. 136) 629

V. Loni;lev (41 Tex. 4.54) 507

V. Mar'tiii"(70 Ga. 196) 1089

17. Moselv(51 Mo. 282) 608

V. Ogbourne (37 Ala. 174) 902

V. Phillips (4 El. & Bl. 450) 69

V. Polgrean (1 H. Bl. 535) 594, 595

V. Roberts (2 Lee, 399) 1115

V. Roberts (34 Miss. 322) 1127

V. Roberts (05 N. C. 27) 1057, 1083

1-. Spencer (112 Ind. 81) 1127

V. Sfjencer (112 Ind. 85) 840, 1121

V. 'i'homas (32 Ga. 31) 738

V. Trawick (13 Ala. 68) 490

V. Ware (80 Mo. 303) 208

V. Watson (4 Jones L. 319) 871

V. Welch (40 Vt. 164) 70

Robertson v. Barbour (0 T. B. Mon. 523) 494
V. Bradford (73 Ala. 116) 1080

V. Gaines (2 Hnmph. 307) 411, 512, 718
V. Johnston (24 Ga. 102) 872, 881

V. McGeoch (11 Pai. 640) 512, 513

r. Paul (16 Tex. 472) 210

V. Pickrell (109 U. S. 608) 407, 481, 496

Robie's Estate (Mvr. 220) 532

Robie V. Flanders "(33 N. H. 524) 255, 274

Robins v. Arnold (42 N. J. Eq. 511) 805

V. McClure (100 N. Y. .32.^) 518, 642

Robinson's Appeal (62 Pa. St. 213) 1049, 1069
Case (2 South. L. R. n. s. 598) 446

Estate (6 Mich. 137) 1120

Estate (12 Phil. 14) 401

Estate (12 Phil. 170) 344,-348

Robin.son, Appellant (1 D. Chip. 357) 1234
V. Adams (62 Me. 369) 37, 478, 490

V. Allison (74 Ala. 254) 723

V. Baker (47 Mich. 619) 203

V. Bank of Darien (18 Ga. 65) 773

V. Bates (3 Met. Mass. 40) 246

V. Clark (76 Me 493) 609

V. Crandall (9 Wend. 425) 367

V. Fair (9 Sup. Ct. R. 30) 1243

V. Gallier (2 South. L. Rev 594) 935

V. Gholson (8 Sni. & M. 392) 1197

V. Glancv (69 Pa. St. 89) 1049

f. Greene (14 R. I. 181) 878,950

V. Hodge (117 Mass. 222) 866

V. Hutclnnson (26 Vt. 38) 37

V. Lakenan (28 Mo. App. 135) 276

V. Lowater (17 Beav. 592) 716

V. JIcAfee (59 Mich. 375) 823

V. Mclver (63 N. C. 645) 989, 1104

V. Millard (133 Ma.ss. 236) 560

V. Randolph (21 Fla. 629) 955, 957

V. Raynor (28 N. Y. 494) 1208

V. Robinson (3 Harr. 433) 774

V. Schly (6 Ga. 515) . 61

Pa^e
Robinson v. Simmons (15 N. East. 558) 285,

434
V. Ware (94 Mo. 678) 274

Robison v. Codnian (1 Sumn. 121) 276

Robnett v. Ashlock (49 Mo. 171) 55

Robson V. Robson (3 Del. Ch. 51) 120

Robxns V. Corvell (27 Barb. 55()) 66

Rochelle V. HaVrison (8 Port. 351) 6-32, 1070
Rochereau r. Maignan (32 La. An. 45) 1232
Rochester, Re City of (46 linn, 051) 1095,

1096

Rochon, In re (15 La. An. 0) 1199

Rock V. Haas (110 111. 528) 181, 182, 204, 205

». Leighton (1 Salk. 310) 769

Rocke V. Hart (11 Ves. .'';8) 1139

V. Rocke (9 Beav. 0(i) 995

Rock Hill College v. Jones (47 Md. 1) 308

Rockhold V. Blevius (0 Baxt. 115) 700

Rockport V. Walden (54 N. H. 167) 841

Rockwell's Appeal (54 Conn. 119) 47

Rockwell V. Young (60 Md. 563) 426, 427

Rockwood V. Wigiiin (16 Grav, 402) 116, 124

Rodenbach's Appeal (102 Pa." St. 572) 1140

Roderigas v. East River Sav. Inst. (63

N. Y. 460) 453, 454, 456, 459

». East River Sav. Inst. (76 N. Y.
316) 4.54, 4.56, 562

Rodman v. Rodman (54 Ind. 444) 599, 665,

1142

r. Smith (2 N. J. L. 2) 147

Roe r. Tavlor (45 111. 485) 41. 48

Roehl V. Pleasants (31 Tex. 45) 1043

Roethlesberger v. Caspari (12 Mo. App.

514) 826

Roff V. Johnson (40 Ga. 5.55) 195, 199, 215

lioffinac's Succession (21 La. An. 304) 359

Rogers, Appellant (11 Me. 303) 57, 58

Ex parte (03 N. C. 110) 190

V. Bumpass (4 Ired. Eq. 385) 639

V. Chandler (3 Munf. 65) 1116

V. Diamond (13 Ark. 474) 36, 47, 67,

69, 70
V. Divelv (51 Mo. 193) 402, 5-39

V. Fales"(5 Pa. St. 154) 611

V. Farrar (6 T. B. Mon. 421) 1262

V. French (19 G;i. 316) 980

V. Hand (39 N. J. Eq. 270) 1165

V. Hoberlein(ll Cal. 120) 396

17 Hosack (18Wend. 319) 646

V. Law (1 Black, 253) 960

V. Ludlow (3 Sandf. Ch. 104) 609

V. Marsh (73 Mo. 64) 210, 214, 215

V. Martin (47 Conn. 248) 1196

V. Maves (84 Mo. 520) 208

V. Mitchell (1 Met. Kv. 22) 803

V. Moor (1 Root, 472)" 740

V. Morrison (21 La. An. 455) 576

V. Pittis (1 Add. 30) 86

V. Ragland (42 Tex. 422) 199

V. Renshaw (37 Tex. 625) 212

V. Rogers (67 Me. 450) 854

V. Rogers (3 Wend. 503) 702

V. Ross (4 John. Ch. 608) 355

V. Traphagan (42 N. J. Eq. 421) 1012,

1232
V. Trevathan (67 Tex. 406) 1016

V. Weller (5 Biss. 166) 157

V. Wilson (13 Ark. 507) 329, 1030

V. Winton (2 Humph. 178) 472

V. Zook (86 Ind. 237) 387, 693

Rogerson, Goods of (2 Curt. 656) 531

TABLE OF CASES.

CXIU

Rolain r. Darbv (1 McC. Ch. 72) 774

Knlaiid i: MilK"r (100 I'a. St. 47) 72,"

Holfsoii V. (Salmon (:{ Utah. 2.-i-2) 11.J2

Kolliii V. WluppL-i- (17 S. ('. ■■i-2) 5;51

Rollins V. Kice (5!) N. H. 4U.!) 102:i

Koilwagon v. Koll wagon (-J Ilim, 121) i'J'J
Konialne v. liendrickson (24 N. J. Eq.

2;il) 715

Romero's Estate (17 Pac. R. 434) 209

Estate (38 La. An. 047) 810

Romii^o's Appeal (84 I'a. St. 2-35) 1187

Rona'iv Meier (47 Iowa, (!07) 1*48

Roney v. Stiltz (.5 Wliart. 381) 81)0

Roonie v. Phillips (24 x\. Y. 4G3) 881

Rooney, In re (3 Redf. 15) 7(14

Roorbach ». Lord (4 Conn. 347) 431

Roosevelt v. Fulton (7 Cow. 71) 057, 882

V. Thurman (1 John. Ch. 220) 955

Root, In re (1 Kedf. 257) 533

v. Tavlor (20 John. 137) 828

Roper f. Roper (L. R. 3 Ch. D. 714) 98 i

Rose's p:state (63 Cal. 346) 1047, 1090, 1187

liose V. Clark (8 Pai. 574) 1239

V. Dravton (4 Rich. Eq. 2G0) 86

u Guiin (79 Ala. 411) 286,287

V. Himelev (4 Cr. 241) 452

V. Lewis (3 Lans. 320) 1260

V. Newman (26 Tex. 131) 695

t). Porter (141 Mass. 309) 877

V. Quick (30 Pa. St. 225) 61

V. Rose (4 Abb. App. Dec. 108) 920

V. Sanderson (38 III 247) 277

r. Winn (51 Tex. 545) 5.52

Rose boom v. Roseboom (81 N. Y. 356) 957

Rosenberg v. Frank (58 Cal. 387) 3.52

Rosenthal «. Enevoldsen (61 Miss. 532) 839

V. Mavhugh (-33 Oh St. 155) 263

r. Prussing (108 III. 128) 400

V. Renick (44 111. 202) 361, 378, 442,

676. 1025

Roskelley v. Godolphin (T. Raym. 483) 787,

788
Ross, Matter of, 87 N. Y. 514) 42

v. Barclay (18 Pa. St. 179) 720

r. Diincaii (Freem. Ch. ,587) 19

V. Henderson (77 N. C. 170) 28 J

V. Hine (48 Ark. 304) 81)8

V. Julian (70 Mo. 209) 340, 1073

V. Mines (7 Sm. & M. 121) 547

V. Murpliv (55 Mo. 372) 1192

V. Ross (12 B. Mon. 437) 830

V. Ross (129 Mass. 243) 141, 157

V. Wharton (10 Yerg. 190) 789

Rotch V. Emerson (105 Mass. 431) 873,

884, 1005
Roth's Succession (31 La. An. 315) 72, 79
Rothmaler v. Mvers (4 Des. 215) 953

Rothscliild V. Itowe (44 Vt. 389) 610

Rottenberry v. Pipes (53 Ala. 447) 215, 216,

1077

Rottmann v. Schmncker (94 Mo. 139) 330, 333

Woulston V. Washington (79 Ala. 529) 297

Roundtree v. Sawver (4 Dev. 44) 798

V. Dennard (59 Ga. 629) 208

V. Talbot (89 111. 246) 8:)8

Rouse V. Morris (17 S. & R. 328) 765

Rowan v. Kirkpatrick (14 111. 1) 1182

Rowand r. Carroll (81 111. 224) 1047

Rowe V. Hamilton 3 Me. 63) 265

r. White (16 N. J. Eq 411) 994

Rowell V. Patterson (70 Me. 196) 846

VOL. I. — /(

Pa-re

Rowland, In re (5 Dem. 216) 1188

V. Rowland (2 Sneed, 543) 245

Rowlev V. Fair (104 lud. 189) 655

f.^Strav (32 Mich. 70) 154

Rowton V. kowton (1 Ile.i. & M. 91) 236

Rov V. R(jwzie (25 Grat. .599) 894

■ V. Rov (16 Grat. 418) 65

V. Segrist (19 Ala. 810) 497

Rovce V. Burrell (12 .Mass. 407) 522

Rover's Apjjeal (13 I'a. St. 569) 1149

RoVs V. Vilas (18 Wis. 169) 283, 290

llovston V. Rovston (21 (ia. 161) 244

Kozelle V. Harmon (29 Mo. App. 569) 414,429

Ro/.ier v. Fagan (46 III. 4i)4) 1036, 1038

i;ul)l)er Co. V. Goodyear (6 Wall. 153) 1196

Kul.cck V. Gardner (7 Watts. 455) 22, 306. 310

Kubdttom V. Morrow (24 Ind. 202) 691, 1151

Ruch V. Biery (110 Ind. 444) 1195, 1201, 1214,

1217, 1219. 1223

Rucker v. Dyer (44 Miss. 591) 1045

V. Lambdin (12 Sm. & M. 2-30) 72, 76

Rucks V. Tavlor (49 Miss. 502) 366

Rudd r. Rudd (4 Dem. 335) 346

Ruddon v. McDonald (1 Hradf. 352) 67

Rudisell V. Rodes (29 Grat. 147) 100, 101

V. Watson (2 Dev. Eq. 430) 607

Rudy V. Ulrich (09 Pa. St. 177) 48, 101)

Ruff V. Doyle (.56 Mo. .301) 682

('. Smith (31 Miss. .59) 7.52

Ruffin V. Harrison (81 N. C. 298) 551

V. Harrison (86 N. C. 190) 551, 1252

Rugg V. Rugg (83 N. Y. 592) 71, 475

Rugle V. Web><ter (55 Mo 246) 10.58

Rule V. Maupin (84 Mo. 587) 490

Rumph V. Truelove (66 (ia. 480) 1023

Rumrill v. First National Bank (28 Jlinn.

202) 583

Rundle v. Pegram (49 Miss. 751) 223

Runkle v. Gates (11 Ind. 95) 89, 90

Runnels v. Runnels (27 Tex. 515) 212, 215

Runyan's Appeal (27 Pa. St. 121) 177

Runvan v. Newark Co. (24 N. J. L. 467) 1048

\\ Price (15 Oh. St. 1) 42

Runvon's Estate (53 Cal. 196) 1125

Ruoff's Appeal (26 Pa. St. 219) 63

Rush V. Megee (30 Ind. 69) 39

V. Rush (40 Ind. 83) 9-52

V. Vought (55 Pa. St. 437) 611

Rasing v. Rusing (25 Ind. 63) 902

Rusling V. Rusling (36 N. J. Eq. 603) 490

Russ V. Russ (9 Fla 105) 949

Russell, In re (33 Hun, 271) 482

V. Allen (107 U. S. 103) 929

V. Clowes (2 Coll. 648) 98

V Erwin (41 Ala. 292) 395, 396, 022, 714

V. Eubanks (84 Mo. 82) 949

V. Hartt (87 N. Y. 19) 481, 534

V. Hoar (3 Met. Mass. 187) 635, 537

V. Hubbard (59 111. 335) 807, 849

V. Lane (1 Barb. 519) 807, 808

V. Lewis (3 Or. 380) 323

V. McDougall (3 Sm. & M. 234) 330

V. Madden (95 111 485) 360

V. Sunburv (37 Oh. St. 372) 627, 628

V. United States (15 Ct. of CI. 108) 336

Rust V. Billingslea (44 Ga. 306) 780

V. Witherington (17 Ark. 129) 428

Rustling V. Rustling (47 N. J. L. 1) 795

Ruston V. Ruston (2 Y'eates, 54) 1106

Ruth V. Oberbrunner (40 Wis. 238) 928, 932,

1230

CXIV

TABLE OF CASES.

Rutherford v. Clark (4 Biisli, 27)
V. Crawford (b'-i Ga. i;i8)
V. Mavo (7ti Va. 117)
v. Morris (77 111.3117)
V. I'ope (15 aid. 579)
V. Thompson (14 Or. 286)
V. Williams (G2 Mo. 252)

Rutledg-e, Ex parte (Harp. Cii. (i5)
V. McFarland (75 Ga. 774)

Rvan V. Allen (120 III. 048)
' V. Andrews (21 Mich. 229)
V. Flanagan (-id, N.J. L. IGl)
V. McLeod (.32 Grat. 307)
V. Rvan (2 Phillim. 332)
V. Texas & Fac. R. R. (64 Tex.

Rvden v. Jones (1 Hnwks, 497)
Hvder v. Wilson (41 N. J. Eq. 9)
Ryerson, In re (20 N. J. Eq. 43)
r. Hendrie (22 Iowa, 480)

Pace

362, 456

331

271

39, 43, 46

337

429

676, 805

0:!8

195

902. 1102

154

804

120G

520

464,

465, 460

702

840

1000

287

239)

Saam e. Saam (4 W^atts, 432)
Sabalot i\ Populus (31 La. An. 854)
Sacia i". Berthoud (17 Barb. 15)
Sacket v. Mead (1 Conn. 13)
Sackville V. Smith (L. R. 17 Eq. 153)
Saddington v. Hewitt (70 Wis. 24(1)
Saddler r. Kennedy (26 W. Va. 636)
Sadler v. Sadler (16 Ark. 628)
Saeger v. Wilson (4 W. & S. .501) 684,
Saffordi). Houghton (48 Vt. 2-36)
Sage V. Woodin (66 N. Y. 578)
SaL'er v. Galloway (113 Pa. St. 500)
Salder r. Signer (44 Barb 606)
Sale V. Dishman (3 Leigh, 548)

r. Thornsl>errv (5 S. W. R. 468)
Salisbury v. Aldrich (118 111. 199)

r. Morse (7 Lans. 359)
Sallee v. Waters (17 Ala. 482)
Salmon ?•. Hays (4 Hagg. 382)
Salsbury r. Ellison (7 Col. 167)
Salter r. Bhumt (2 Dev. & B. Eq. 2U

V- Cain (7 Ala. 478)

V. Neaville (1 Bradf 488)

V. Salter (6 Bush, 624)

V. Salter (98 Ind. -522)

V. Williamson (2 N. J. Eq. 481)
Saltmarsh v. Boene (4 Port. 283)

V. Smth (.32 Ala 404)
Saltonstall v. Sanders (11 Allen, 446)

926, 933, 9.34
Sammis v. Sammis (14 R. I. 123) 942, 950,

11(12
Sample v. Barr (25 Pa St. 457) 1030
Sampson r. Browning (22 Ga. 293)

V. Bryce (5 Munf. 175)

V. Graham (96 Pa. St. 405)

V. Randall-(72 Me. 109)

V. Sampson (03 Me. 328)
Samson v. Samson (64 Cal. 327)
Samuel v. Thomas (51 WMs. 549)
Saniwell v. Wake (1 Bro. Ch. 144)
Sanborn v. Goodhue (28 N. H..48)

424
214
693

P.57

nil

080

1029
508
702
157
200
942

1043

287

877

34

1103

182

03

280

1247
744
777
774
433

1123
702
255

922,

Pn?e
Sanders v. -Tones (8 Ired. Eq. 246) 35?', 303

V. I.ov (01 Ind. 298) 1182, 1254

V. Saliders (2 Dev. Kq. 202) 1039

V. Sinni.h (00 Cal. 1.5(1) 109

Sanderson's Estate (74 Cal. 199) 677,738,1186
Sanderson v. Bavlev (4 Mvl. & Cr. 56) 899

V. Pearson (45 Md. 483) 1175

V. Sanderson (17 Fla. 820) 821, 822, 1123,

1228

V. Sanderson (20 Fla. 292) 1135, 1146,
1165, 1108

V. White (18 Pick. 328) 919, 92-3, 929
Sandford v. McLean (3 i ai. 117) 244, 251
Sandoe's Appeal (65 Pa. St. 314) 273

Sands's Case (3 Salk. 22)

Case (Sid. 179)
Sands r. Lynliam (27 Grat. 201)
Sanford r.Atwood (44 Conn. 141)

r. Head (5 Cal. 297)

V. Sanford (61 Barb. 293)

V. Sanford (5 Lans. 480)
Sansrston v. Hack (52 Md. 173)
Sankev's Appeal (55 Pa. St. 491) 1051

103(!

81

993

603

1000

1267

499, 501

760, 702

1094

118, 126,

679

Sanchez v. Hart (17 Fla. .507) 622, 712, 713
Sanderlin v. Sanderlin (1 Swan, 441) 167, 1 81 ,

182

Sanders. In re (4 Pai. 293) 950

r. HIain (0 ,1 J. Marsh. 440) 734

V. Edwards (29 La. An. 096) 549

516, 574

510, 574

306

611

11-30

612

612

284

1059,

1060

1242

1231

12-31

537

526, 533

11-38

531

818

250

638, 995

505, 518

Sankev v. Elsberr\' (10 Ala. 455)

t?."Sankey (6 Ala. 607) 12-30

V. SankeV (8 Ala. 601)
San Roman r. Watson (54 Tex. 254)
Sargent's Estate (62 Wis. 130)
Sargent v. Davis (3 La. An. 353)

V. Fox (2 McCord, -309)

V. Kimball (37 Vt. 320)

V. Roberts (34 Me. 135)

r. Sargent (103 Mass. 297)
Sarkie's Appeal (2 Pa. St. 157)
Sarle v. Court of Probate (7 R. I. 270) 40 1 .

1205
Sarrazin's Succession (34 La. An. 1168) 522
Sartor v. Beatv (25 S. C. 293) 12-37, 1238

Sartoris, In re'(l Curt. 910) 404

Sarver v. Beal (36 Kan. 555) 131

Sasscer v. Walker (5 G. & J. 102) 647

Satcher v. Satcher (41 Ala. 20) 329

Satterfield v. Maves (11 Humph. .58) 896

Satterthwaitei'.Satterthwaite( 3 Phillim. 1)471
Satterwhite i'. Carson (3 Ired. L. 549) 401

Littlefield (13 Sm. & M. 302) 341, 1108

Saner r. Grittin (67 ^lo. 654)
Saunders's Appeal (54 Conn. 108)
Saunders v. Bell (56 Ga. 442)

V. Deuison (20 Conn. 521)

V. Ferrill (1 Ired. L. 97)

r. Haughton (8 Ired. Eq. 217)

V. Rudd (21 Ark. 519)

V. Saunders (2 Lit. 314)

V. Weston (74 Me. 85)

V. Wilder (2 Head, .577)
Saunderson v. Stearns (6 Mass. 37)
Sauter v. MuUer (4 Dem. -389)
Savage v. Benham (17 Ala. 119)

V. Gould (60 How. Pr. 217)

r. O'Neil (44 N. Y.298)
Savings Society v. Hutchinson (68 Cal

52)
Sawbridge v. Hill (L. R. 2 P. & D. 219)
Sawtelle's Appeal (84 Pa. St. 300)
Sawver v. Baldwin (20 Pick. -378) 355, 882

v. ConcoFd R. R. Co. (58 N. H. 517) 617,

620

r Dozier (5 Ired 97) 511

V Sawyer (7 Jones L. 134) 71

1202

48

1064

1194

610

1001

803, 808

■87. 1123

361, 6.50

287

383

950

3-57

11-35

613

845
529
816

TABLE OF CASES.

CXV

P,a;.'p

Sawyer v. Sawyer (28 Vt. 245) 103, Ififi, 180,
182, 181t, 7(iS
Sawvers v. Baker (77 Ala. 461) til 2

Saxon r. Cniu (19 Neb. 488) 108!)

V. WliiiMktT (:!0 Ala. 2;i7) :iU

Saxtoii ('. Clianibcrlaiii (G Tick. 422) 112(1

Saver v. IJeiii>ett 281

■ V Saver (2 Veni. 088) 908
Savles V Uaker (5 R. I. 457) 1220

■ r. 15rif,-s (4 Met. Ma<s. 421) 330
Savior r. I'owell (!)() N. i\ 202) :03
Savre v. Ilelme (01 Fa. St 2.)!)) 3.-)!)
SI)arboro's Kstate (Mvr. 2."')5) 4!l!)
Scales V. Scales (0 .Jones E.|. 103) 940
Scaniinell r. Wilkinson (2 Ivist, 5-52) 20
Scamnion r. Campbell (75 HI. 223) 261, 202
Scanlan v. Turner (1 Bai. L. 421) 2.r2

V. Writrht (13 Pick. 523) 22

ScarboroMiih v. State (24 Ark. 20) 112')

V. Watkins (9 H. Mon. 540) 077

Scarce v. Pat^e (12 B. Mon. 311 ) 390

Schaaber's Appeal (13 .\tl. R. 775) 48

Schad's Appeal (88 Pa. St. Ill) 61

Schadt r. Hcppe (45 Cal. 4-!3) 210

Sciia.fer v. Causev (8 Mo. App. 142) 1080
Schaeffer's Appeal (119 Pa. St. 040) 1228

Schaeffer v. Weed (8 111. 511) 239

Schneffuer's Appeal (41 Wis. 200) 3.51

Schafer v. Causev (76 Mo. 305) 1080

r. Kneu (54 Pa. St. 304) 141

Scliaffer's Succession (13 La. .An. 113) 1254
Schaffer r. Kettell (14 Allen, .528) 9.37

Sehaffner v. Grutzmacher (6 Iowa, 137) 183
Schafvotii i\ Ambs (46 Mo. 114) 607, 008

Schedel, In re (09 Cal. 241) 1204

In re (73 Cal.. 594) 8')7

Scbee v. Wiseman (79 Ind. 389) 593, 0 >1

Schenck r. Dart (22 N. Y. 420) 1 108

V. Yail (24 \. .1. V.q. ,538) 147, 151

SchenkI v. Dana (118 Mass. 230) 284

Scherer v. Ingerman (110 Ind. 428) 833,

1020, 1029
Schermerborn v. Ne.£:us (1 Denio, 448) 955
Schick V. Ci-ote (42 N. J. Eq. 3.52) 1208

Scliieffi'lin v. Stewart (1 .John. Ch. 620) 1138
Schiffer v. Pruden (04 N. Y. 47) 227

Schildknecht v. Hompf (4 S. W. R. 235) 34
Schmidt V. Heusner (4 Dem. 275) 003

Schmitt V. Willis (40 N. .T. Eri.515) 20-3. 1074
Schmittlcr v. Simon (101 N. Y. 554) 043. 757
Schmncker v. Reel (01 .Mo. ,502) 870, 877

Schneblv v. Schneblv (20 111. 110) 230

Schneider v. Brav (.59 Tex. 008) 199, 207

r. Hnffniann" (9 Mo. App. 280) 212

V. McKarland (2 X. Y. 45.1) 1054

V. Manninir (121 111.-370) 34

Schnell v. Chica<jo (38 III. 382) 10-32, 1037

V. Schroder (Bail. Eq. 334) 391, 054

Schoeneich v. Reed (8 Mo. App. 350) 172,

803, 1152, 115-5, 1170

Schofield V. Heap (27 Beav. 93) 978

V. Walker (-58 Mich. 90) 46. 47

Scholefield v. Eichelberger (7 Pet. 586) 281.

282
Sehoolfield V. Rudd (9 B. Mon. 291) 645

Schoppert v. Gillam (6 Rich. Eq. 83) 8 i2

Schott's Estate (78 Pa. St. 40) 87 ~, 878

Sclireiber v. Sharpless (110 U. S. 76) ()20

Schroeder's Estate (46 Cal 304) 7it3

Schroeder v. Superior Court (70 Cal. 343) 574,

577

Page

Schug's Appeal (14 W. N. C. 49) 10.57

Schull r. Mi.rrav (32 Md. 9) 27, 3,52, 408

Sehultz V. Pulver (11 Wend. 361) 359, 363,

365, 073, 677

V. Schnltz (10 Grat. .3-58) 498

V. Sehultz (35 N.Y.t)53) 481

Schuniaker r. Schmidt (44 Ala. 454) ,57

Scluirtz )•. Thomas (8 I'a. St. 359) 1006

Schutt V. Missionary Soc. (41 N. J. Eq

115)

59

Schuvler 1'. Hovle (5 .John. Ch. 196) 639

Schwallenbern- ?•. -lennings (43 Md. 552) 1003

Schwartz's Appeal (119 Pa. St. 337) 918

I'>tate (14 Pa. St. 42) 1142

Estate (12 I'hila. 11) 1058

Scofieid V. Adams (12 Hun, .366) 987, 988

V. Churchill (72 N. Y. 505} .547, -548

V. Olcott (120 111. 362) 883, 941, 942,

943

•Scofftjins r. Turner (98 X. C. 135) 92

Scogin V. Stacv (20 Ark 265) 609

Scott's Appeal (112 Pa. St. 427) 1131

Estate (15 Cal. 220) 440

Estate (9 Watts & S. 98) 1149, 11-50

Scott r. Bnrch (6 H. & .J. 07) 702

V. Cheatham (78 Va. 82) 205, 212

V. Crews (72 Mo. 201) 394, 749, 1 137,

1182

V. Dorsev (1 liar. & .T. 227) 1153

r. Dunn"(l D. v^t B. Eq. 425) 108)

r. Fink (45 Mich. 241) 100

r. F'ox (14 Md. -388) 342, -393

r. Governor (1 j\I .. 080) 600, 1 1 40

r. Hancock (13 Mass. 102) 843

V. Kennedv (12 B. Mon. 510) 1120

r. Kev (11 La. An. 232) 157

r. Liwson (10 La. An. 547) 576

r. Monell (1 Redf. 431) 11-53

r. Newsom (27 Ga. 125) 713

V. Patchin (-54 Vt. 2.53) 1100

r. Price (2 Seri,'. & R. -59) • 950

r. Pnrcell;7 Blackf. 66) 249

f. Ratcliffe (5 Pet. 81) 446

V. Searles (7 Sm. & M. 498) 693, 740

V. Spashett ^3 Mac. & G. 599) 1015

r. Sfehhins (91 N. Y. 605) 989

V Ware (04 Ala. 174) 843, 1022

V. West (63 W^is. 529) 383, 723, 815,

8!I6, 942, 1185

Scovil V. Scovil (45 Barb. 517) 842

Scoville's Estate (20 III. App. 426) 183, 18:)

Scoville V. Post (3 Edw. 303) 414

Scranton v. Demere (0 Ga. 92) 431

Scribner v. Williams (1 Pai. 5-50) 499, 1208,

1209
Seroggin v. Scroggin (1 .T. ,T. Marsh. 302) 3.30
Scroggs V. Stevenson (100 N. C. 354) 1107,

1108, 1173

V. Tutt (20 Kan. 271) 809, 820

Scrnggs V. Foot (19 S. C. 274) 215

Seabright v. Seabri<rht (28 W. Va. 412) 1190

Seabrook v. Freeman (3 MctJord, 371) 410

V. Seabrook (10 Rich. Eq. 495) 903

Seagrave v. Seatrrave (13 Ves. 439) 226

Seaman ?). Durvea (10 Barb. 523) 1250

V. Dnrvea"(ll N. Y. 324) 320, 1250

V. Whitehead (78 N. Y. 306) ^ 1146

Seaman's Friend Soc. v. Hopper (33 N. Y

619)

34

Search's Appeal (13 Pa. St. 108)

Search v. Search (27 N. J. Eq. 137) 357, 1124

CXVl

TABLE OF CASES.

Searcy v. Holmes (43 Ala. fi08) 1 128

Searing v. Searinct (9 Pai. 28'!) Oo!)

Searles v. Seott (22 Miss. !>■!) 1 182

Sears v. Dillingham (12 Mass. 358) 582. 12r,4

V. Giddev (41 Mich. 590) 7(!2

Sechrest v. E'dwanls (4 Met. Kv. 163) 1208 I
Secor V. Sentis (5 Redf. 570) 1174

Security Co. v. Bryant (52 Conn. 311) 1)85

?). Hardenbiirgh (53 Conn. 101)) t»'.)i)

Sedffwick v. Asiil)unier (1 Bradf. 105) 737

I', Minot (6 .\llen. 171) ]4(i, 149, 903

Seegar v. Betton (<> H. & J. 162) 551

Seek V. Haynes (08 Mo. 13) 205

Seeley's Appeal (14 Atl. K. 291) 266

Seelvr. Beck (42 Mo. 143) 534

Seibert's Appeal (19 Pa. St. 49) 356. 1007
Seibert v. Wise (70 Pa. St. 147) 872

Seider v. Seider (5 Whart. 20S) 3.50

Seighman r. Marshall (17 M<1. 550) 1116, 1125
Sei'tz, In re (6 Mo. App. 250) 1170

Selb V. Montague (102 111. 446) 1056

Selbv's Estate (Mvr 125) 865

SelbV V. Hollinijsworih (13 Lea, 145) 145

Selden v. Keen (27 Grat. .570) 962

Selectmen v. Bovlston (2 Mass. 384) 363,

374, 649
Selin V. Snyder (7 S. & E. 166) 331

Selleek r. French (1 Am. Lead. Cas.) 1137
Seller's Estate (82 Pa. St 153) 670

Sellew's Appeal (36 Conn. 180) 1129, 1131
Selling. Matter of (5 Dem. 225) 1228

Selma R. R. Co. r. Lacey (49 Ga. 106) 629
Selna's Estate (Myr. 233) 1136

Seloyer v. Coe (63 N. Y. 4-38) 1264, 1270

Semine v. Semine (2 Ley. 90) 587

Semmes v. Semmcs (7 Har. & J. 388) 91, 94

V. Young (10 Md. 242) 821, 822, 843

Semoice v. Semoice (35 Ala. 295) 1128

Senger r. Senger (81 Ya. 687) 892, 893, 8;)9
Sentell v. Armor (35 Ark. 49) 201

Sergeant v. Steinbertrer (2 Ohio. 305) 233

Serie v. St. Eloy (2 P. Wm«. 386) 1106

Sermon v. Black (79 Ala. 507) 1035

Sessions v. Moseley (4 Cush. 87) 122. 124
Sessoms v. Sessoms (2 Dey. & B. Eq. 453) 966
Seyerance v. Hammatt (28 Me. 511) 8.55

Seyerin v. Zack (55 Inwa. 28) 41

Seyier v. Gordon (21 La. An. 373) 796

V. Teal (16 Tex. 371) 342

Sewall V. Cargill (15 Me. 414) 924

V. Bobbins (139 Mass. 164) 95

V. Wilmer (132 Mass. 131) 496

Seward v. Clark (67 Ind. 28:1) 1196

Sewell V. Stingluff (62 Md. 592) 1125

Sexton V. Pickering (3 Rand. 468) 249

Seymour v. Seymour (22 Conn. 272) 1045,

1090

V. Seymour (4 John. Ch. 409) 357, 440,

1123
Shackelford v. Hall (19 111. 212) 963

V. Miller (91 N. C. 181) 272

V. Runyan (7 Humph. 141) 748

Shackleford v. Brown (89 Mo. .546) 116

Shaeffer v. Shaeffer (.^4 :\Id. 679) 763

Shafer ?;. Grimes (23 Iowa. 550) 624

Shaffer's Appeal (46 Pa. St. 131) 677

Shaffer r. Richardson (27 Ind. 122) 226

V. Shaffer (50 Pa. St. 394) 260

Shailer v. Bumstead (99 Mass. 112) 46, 48,

477, 490
Shakeley v. Taylor (1 Bond, 142) 1085

Paje

Shakespeare v. Fidelity Co. (97 Pa. St.

173) 441

r. Markham (lOHun, .311) .58

V. Markham (72 N. Y. 400) 349

Shale V. Schantz (35 Hun, 622) 624

Shallcross v. Finden (3 Ves. 738) 1099

V. Palmer (16 A. & E. 747) 490

Shalter's Appeal (43 Pa. St. 83) 553

Shanks v. Klein (104 Otto, 18) 289

V. Lancaster (5 (Irat. 110) 2.50

Shannon v. Shannon (111 ]\Iass. 331) 493

V. White (109 Mass. 140) 184

Shaper v. Enen (54 Pa. St. .304) 522

Share v. Andersen (7 S. & R. 43) 252

Sharkey's Estate (2 Phila. 276) 547

Siiarkey v. Bankst.w (30 La. An. 891) 1080

V. iMcDermott (91 Mo. 647) 140

V. McDermott (16 Mo. App 80) 140

Sharland v. Mildon (5 Hare. 468) 417

Sharp's Estate (11 Phila. 92) 1167

Sharp r. Caldwell (7 Humph. 415) 632

V. Sharp (35 Ala. 574) 857

V. Sharp (76 Ala. 312) 341, 1022, 1035

V. Sharp (2 Leigh, 249) 488

Sharpe v. Rockwood (78 Va. 24) 710, 1117

Shattnck v. Gragg (23 Pick. 88) 229, 2ri8

r. Young (2 Sni. & M. .30) 1231

Shauffler v. Stoeyer (4 S. & R. 202) 588. 1204

Shaver r. McCarthy (110 Pa. St. 339) 31. 42

Shaw r. Berrv (35 Me. 279) 733

V. Boyd (5 S. & R. 309) 251, 264

~ '■ " " — 699

828

681

421

392

1149

1201

684, 1045

249

1171

271

490

259. 748

041

486

2^)9

22

2)0

1247

897, 898

1125

Coble (63 N. C. 377)
V. Gookin (7 N. H. 16)
V. Groomer (60 Mo. 495)
V. Hallihan (46 Vr. 389)
V. IMcCamenni (11 S. & R. 252)
V. Moderwell (104 111. 64)
V. Newell (9 R. I. Ill)
V. Nicholay (-30 Mo. 99)
r. Ru.ss (14 Me. 4-32)
V. Shaw (3 Cent. R. .592)
V. Shaw (2 Dana, 341)
V. Shaw (1 Dem. 21)
Shawhan v. Loffor (24 Iowa, 217)
Shay V. Sessanian (10 Pa. St. 432)
Shea V. Boschctti (18 Beay. -321)
Sheafe v. Spring (9 INIass. 9)
Sheaffe v. O'Xeil (1 Mass. 2.56)
Shearer v. Paine (12 Allen, 289)
Shearin v. Eaton (2 Ired. Eq. 282)
Shearman v. Angel (Bai. Eq. 351)
V. Christian (9 Leicch, 571)
V. Pyke (3 Curt. 539)
Shee V. French (3 Drew. 716)

V. Hale (13 Ves. 404)
Sheedv v. Roach (124 Mass. 472)
Sheeh'an v. Kennellv (32 Ga. 145)
Sheetz's Appeal (100 Pa. St. 197)
Sheetz v. Kirtley (62 Mo. 417)

Shegogg V. Perkins (-34 Ark. 117)

Shelby'!;. S'-elby (1 B. Mnn. 2fi(i)

Sheldon v. Warner (59 ]Mich. 444)

Sheldon v. Bliss (8 N. Y. 31)

V. Court of Probate (5 R. I. 436)
V. Dow (1 Dem. 503)
V. Newton (3 Oh. St. 494) 330, 1034, 1089
V. Rice (30 Mich. 296) 3.59, 368, 442, 702
V. Woodbridge (2 Root, 473) 702

V. Wright (7 Barb. 39) 562, 564, 1034,
1049, 1136

657

956

118

740

1150

1126, 1131,

11-32

1123

1240

679

174

1201

43

TABLE OF CASES.

CXVll

Shelley's Case (1 Co. 93)
Shdlv's Case (1 Salk. 296)
Shelton v. Armor (13 Ala. 047)
V. Berry (19 Tex. 154)
V. Homer (5 Met. Mass. 462)
V. Hurst (16 Lea, 470)
V. Shelton (94 Ind. 113)

Page
900
760
250
812
722
208
254
Shepard r. National Bank (67 111. 292) 807
r. Parker (13 Ired. L. 103) 1166

V. Patterson (3 Uem. 183) 707

V. Shepard (19 Fla. 300) 677, 697, 1145,
1150, 1161
V. Spaulding (4 Met. Mass. 416) 606

V. Taylor (15 K. I. 204) 154

Shephard'r. Curriel (19 III. 313) 494

V. Rhodes (60 111. 301) 568, 1204

Shepherd v. Howard (2 N. H. 507) 249

V. Nabors (6 Mm. 631) 61, 902

Sheppard v. Bof,-i.-s (9 Neb. 257) 291. 292

V. Starke (3 Mimf. 2.)) 1230

Sheridan v. Hought-.n (6 Abb. N.C.234) 482
SSieriff V. Bnnvn (5 Mac key, 172) 871. 878
Sherlev v. Sherlev (81 Ky. 240) 31, 35

Sherman v. Angel (2 Hill Ch. 26) 1147

r. Chace (9 R. I. 166) 1125

V. Kreiil (42 Wis. 33) 287

V. Lanier (39 N. J. Eq. 249) 340, 709

V. Newton (6 Gray, 307) 270

V. Page (85 N. ¥."123) 359, 360, 364,
665,673, 1184
V. Sherman (36 N. J. Eq. 125) 1000

Sherry's Estate (7 Abb. N. Cas. 390) 326

Sherry v. Lozier (1 BradC. 437) 105, 106

Sherwood v. American Bible Soc. (4 Abb.
App. Dec. 227) 912

V. Hill (25 Mo. .391) 660

V. Johnson (1 Wend. 443) 776

V. Smith (23 Conn. 516) 1220

Shields V. Allen (77 N. C. 375) 1080

V. Alsup (5 Lea, 508) 822, 1125, 1190

V. Anderson (3 Leigh, 729) 420, 422

V. Ashley (16 Mo. 471) 1033, 1195

V. Batts"(5 J. .J. Marsh, 12) 259

V. Ingram (5 Redf. 346) 490

V. McDowell (82 N. C. 137) 1040

V. Odell (27 Oh. St. .398) 1140

V. Shields (60 Barb. 56) 544, 545, 578
V. Sullivan (3 Dem. 296) 766

Shiell V. Sloan (22 S. C. 151) 244

Shillaber v. Wyman (15 Mass. 322) 426

Shilton's Estate (Tuck. 73) 526

Shindel's Appeal (57 Pa. St. 43) 1124

f^hine v. Redwine (30 Ga. 780) 342

Shipley, Ex parte (4 Md. 493) 705

Shipman v. Buttertield (47 Mich. 487) 561, 563
V. Rollins (98 N. Y. 311) 912

Shipp V. Dayis (2 S. E. R. 549) 835

Shippen V. Burd (42 Pa. St. 461) 1176

Shirley v. Healds (34 N. H. 407) 384, 410
V. Shirley (9 Pal. 363) 607

V. Whitehead (1 Ired. Eq. 130) 116, 120
Shiyer v. Rousseau (68 Ala. 564) 855

Shiyers v. Goar (40 Ga. 676) 960

Shoemaker's Appeal (106 Pa. St. -392) 1002
Shoemaker i'. Brown (10 Kan. 383) 340, 356,

821. 1123

V. National Bank (2 Abb. U. S. 416) 858

V. Walker (2 S. & R. 554) 2-i6

Shoemate v. Lockridi-e (.53 III. .503) 1032

Shoenberger v. Lancaster (20 Pa. St.

459) 384, 385

Pns'p
Shofner v. Shofner (5 Sneed, 94) 5'j9

ShoUenberger's Appeal (21 Pa. St. 337) 340.

344

Shomo's Appeal (57 Pa. St. .356) 532, 533

Shontz r. Brown (27 Pa. St. 123) 1065

Shoolbred r. Dravton (2 Des. 246) 595

Shore v. Wilson (9 CI. & Fin. 355) 871

Shores v. Carlev (8 Alkn. 425) 276, 27^

Short V. .Johnson (25 111. 489) 749

V. Smith (4 East, 419) 93

Shortall V. Hinckley (31 111. 219) 277

Shortridge r. Easley (10 Ala. 450) 787

Shouse V. Krusor (24 Mo. App. 279) 6-36

Showers v. Robinson (43 Mich. 502) 200, 204,

205, 214, 215, 1075, 1076

V. Showers (27 Pa. St. 485) 63

Shreiuer's Appeal (53 Pa. St. 106) 873

Shreye v. Joyce (36 N. J. L. 44) 7-36

r. Shreve (10 N. J. Eq. 385) 968, 1094

V. Shreye (17 N. J. Eq. 487) 1094

Shriyer v. State (65 Md. 278) 155, 444, 1015,

1230, 1251

Shropshire v. Reno (5 J. J. Marsh. 91) 43

V. Withers (5 J. J. Marsh. 210) 528

Shroyer v. Richmond (16 Oh. St. 455) 325,

326. 330, 331, 1089

Shuler v. Millsaps (71 N. C. 297) 624

ShuU r. Johnson (2 Jones Eq. 202) 899

V. Kennon (12 Ind. -34) 342

Shultz V. Johnson (5 B. Mon. 497) 687

V. Pulver (3 Pai 182) 363, 677

V. Sanders (38 N. J. Eq. 154) 457

Shuman v. Reigart (7 \V. & S. 168) 640

Shumway v. Cooper (16 Barb. 556) 344, 518

V. Holbrook (1 Pick. 114) 467

Shupp V. Gaylord (103 Pa. St. 319) 1102

Shurbun v. Hooper (40 Mich. 503) 8o4

Shurtliff V. Witherspoon (1 Sni. & M. 613) 1167

Shute r. Shute (5 Dem. 1) 767

Sluittleworth v. Winter (55 N. Y. 624) 666

Sibley v. Cook (3 Atk. 572) 936

V. Snnonton (20 Fed. H. 784) 1265, 1272

V. Waffle (16 N. Y. 180) 323

Sibthorp v. Moxom (3 Atk. 580) 936

Sidall V. Harrison (15 Pac. R. 130) 354

Sidle V. Anderson (45 Pa. St. 464) 795

Sifford V. Morrison (63 Md. 14) 549

Siglar I'. Havwood (8 Wheat. 675) 792

Sigournev v. Munn (7 Conn. 11) 291

V. Sibley (21 Pick. 101) 571

V. Sibley (22 Pick. 507) 526, 571

V. Wetherell (6 Met. 553) 6-^

Sikes V. Parker (95 N. C. 232) 831

V. Truitt (4 Jones Eq. -361) 554

Silcox V. Nelson (24 Ga. 84) • 944

V. Nelson (1 Ga. Dec. 24) 173

Siler t: Gray (86 N. C. 566) 687

Sdl V. McKiiight (7 W. & S. 244) .508

r. >ill (31 Kan. 270) 268, 269

r. Sill (-39 Kan. 189) 1148

Silliiigs r. Baumgardener (9 Grat. 273) 1230

Silver ?'. Williams (17 S. & R- 292) 780

Silverbrandt v. Widmever (2 Dem. 263) OliG

Silverman v. Chase (90' 111. 37) 287

Silvers v. Canary (109 Ind. 267) 729

V. ( 'anarv (114 Ind. 129) 941, 1012, 12(i9

Silverthorn's Will (68 Wis. 372) 37

Silverthorn v. McKinster (12 Pa. St. 67) 1086

Silvev's Estate (42 Cal. 210) 266

Simar r. Canadav (53 N. Y. 298) 240

Simmermann v. isonger (29 Grat. 9)

46

CXVIU

TABLE OF CASES.

SiiiuiKiMs r. HiKK>- (!'!' >»'• (^- 2W) 047

V. Uhuiclianl (40 'IVx. 200) lOilO

V. Holhiiul (.i Meriv. 547) 7iii)

V. Bvnl (4U (iii. 28r>) 11 '.2

V. Glodell (03 N. H. 458) 1131, iV',2.

120!)

V. Heman (17 Mo. App. 444) 070

V. Heiuk'isdii (bveeui. Cli. 4'.).J) 341

V. Hendricks (8 lied. Eq 84) 354

V. Lvie (32 Grat. 752) 25G, 2.-.8

V. Price (18 Ala. 405) 1255

t'. KudalUl Siin. U. S. 115) U-t

V. Simmons (20 Barb. 08) 87, 97, 101

V. Sisson (20 N. Y. 204) 832

Sininis v. Garrot (1 Dev. & B. Eq. 393) 902

V. Kichard.son (32 Ark. 297) 800, 8til

Simon V. Albright (12 8. & K. 429) 733

Simonds v. Simonds (3 Met. Mass. 558) 9.55

Simonton v. Brown (72 N. C. 46) 1074

V. McLane (25 Ala. 353) 414, 417

Simpson's Appeal (109 I'a. St. 383) 1228

Simpson, In re (50 How. Pr. 125) 101

V. Cook (24 Minn. 180) 504, 721

V. Cureton (97 N. C. 112)' 178, 184

I'. Graves (Kiley Ch. 232) GIO

V. Jones (82 N. C. 323) 580

v. Leech (80 III. 280) 234,290

V. Mansfield Co. (38 Mich. 020) 1202

V. Moore (30 Barb. 037) 1004

V. Pearson (31 Ind. 1) 1049

V. Reily (31 Tex. 298) 800

V. Simpson (114 111. 003) 1216, 1220

V. Simpson (16 111. Ai)p. 170) 149

V. Snyder (54 Iowa, 557) 645

V. Speiice (5 Jones Ecj. 2* 8) 890

V. Wallace (83 N. C. 477) 207

V. Welcome (72 Me. 490) 922

Sims V. Aiifrhtery (4 Strobh. Eq. 103) 1247

V. Eerrill (45 Ga. 585) 1072

t: Grav (00 Mo. 613) 1000

V. Rickets (35 Ind. 181) 609

V. Sims (30 Miss. 333) 1155

V. Sims (10 N. J. Eq. 158) 980

V. Stilwell (3 How. Miss. 176) 795

V. Thompson (39 Ark. 301) 201

Sinclair's Will (5 Oh. St. 290) 481

Sinclair v. Hone (6 Ves. 607) 55

Singerly's Estate (14 Phila. 313) 955

Singleton v. Bremar (4 McCord, 12) 61

V. Singleton (8 B. Mon. 340) 469

v. Singleton (5 Dana, 87) 599, 1182

Singree r. Welch (32 Oh. St. 320) 242

Sip V. Lawback (17 N. J L. 442) 1075

Sipperlv v. Baucus (24 N. Y. 40) 323. 1131

Siron r'. Knleman (32 Grat. 215) 1098

Sisk V. Smith (6 III. 603) 230

Sisters of Visitation v. Glass (45 Iowa,

154) 1208

Siter's Case (4 Rawle, 468) 640

Sitzman v. Pacquette (13 Wis. 291) 323, 583,

1034. 1255
Sivelev v. Summers (.57 Md. 712) 538. 1062
Sixtv-Seventh Street, Matter of (00 How.

Pi". 264) 730

Sizemore v. Wedge (20 La. An. 124) 329

Skeggs V. Hortoii (82 Ala. 3.52) 481, 484

Skeilenger v. Skellenger (32 N. J. Eq.

6.59) 236, 1233

Skerrett, In re (67Cal.585) 61

Skidmore r. Davies (10 I'ai. 306) 571

Skiles V. Houston (110 Pa. St. 254) 827

P.lfTB

Skillern v. Mav (6 Cr. 267) 325

Skillmaii V. Slullniaii (13 X. J. Eq. 403) 611

Skinner v. Eriersen (8 Ala. SUo) 793

V. Wvniie (2 Jones E<|. 41) 1210

SkipwithV. Cabell (19 Giat 758) 55, 8<I2

Skouten v. Wood (57 Mo. 38:)) 197. 215

Skrine *;. Simmons (11 (in. 401) 0!)6

Slack V. Emery (30 N. J. E(i. 458) 1105

Slade V. Eooks (9 Sim. 380) 8i»9

V. Patten (08 Me. 380) 917

V. Slade (10 Vt. 192) 1137

V. Street (27 Ga. 17) 497

V. Washb;;rn (3 Ired. L. 557) 402, ,509

Slagle V. Entrekin (44 Oh. St. 037) 540, 547,

583, 589, 748

Slater v. Mav (2 Ld. Ravm. 1071) 405

V. Nason (15 Pick. 345) 22, 306

Slatler v. Slatter (1 Y. & C. 28) 520

Slaughter r. Eroman (5 T. B. Mon. 19) 744

V. McBride (69 Ala. 510) 201

V. Stephens (81 Ala. 418) 491

Slauler v. Chenowith (7 Ind. 211) 301

Sleech V. Thoringlon (2 Ves. Sr. 500) 1015

Sleight .;. Lawson (3 Kav & J. 392) 798

Sliiiger V. Calverlv (37 N. W. K. 2:i0) 38,440

Slingerland, Matter of (30 Hun, 575) 680, 682

' -^ ' -"• 881

743

41,43

370

180

1028

650

214, 1076

546,

552

1202

232

40

477

24

881

601)

209

693

223

509

432

1129

93

1131

609

1120

883

973

608

216, 1037

400

Sloan c. Hanse (2 Rawle. 28)

V. Johnson (14 Sin.& M.47)

V. Maxwell (3 N, J. Eq. 563)

V. Sloan (21 Ma. 589)

V. Webb (26 Tex. 189)
Slocum V. English (02 N. Y. 494)

V. Sanford (2 Conn. 533)
Sluder v. Rogers (04 X. C. 289)
Small V. Commonwealth (8 Pa. St. 101)

V. Haskins (26 Vt. 209)
V. Proctor (15 Mass. 495)
r. Small (4 Me. 220)

Smalley v Smalley (70 Me. 54^)

Smallvvood v. Brickhouse (2 ^lod. 315)

Smart v. Clark (3 Russ. C. ('- 3ii5)
V Easley (5 J. J Marsh. 214)
V. Waterhose (10 Yerg. 94)
V. Watterhouse (0 Humph 158)
V. Whaley (6 Sm.&M. 308)

Smethurst r Toinlin (2 S\v. & Tr, 143)

Sniilev V Bell (M. & Y 378)
•(•: Cockrell (92 Mo. 105)
i: Gambill (2 Head, 164)
V. Smilev (80 Mo 44)
V. Smilev (18 Oh. St 543)

Smihe?;. Siler (35 Ala. 88)

Smith's Appeal (23 Pa. St 9)
Appeal (103 Pa. St. 559)
Appeal (115 Pa. St. 319)
Estate 1 51 Cal 563)
Succession (3 So. R. 539)
Will (6 Phila. 104) »5

Will (52 Wis. 543) 34, 68

Smith, Ex parte (53 Cal. 204) 1249

Matter of (95 N. Y. 516) 835

V. Allen (5 Allen, 4.54) 610

V. Anderson (31 Oh. St. 144) 1045

V. Ashurst (34 Ala, 208) 895

V. Axtell (1 N. J. Eq. 494) 1033

V. Aver (101 U. S. 320) 282, 693

V. Bavlis (3 Dem. 567) 1230

V. Bell (6 Pet. 68) 874, 878. 947, 948

V. Blackwell (31 Grat. 291) 774

V. Bland (7 B. Man. 21) 636

648

TABLE OF CASES.

CXIX

Siuitli I'. Bone (7 Bush, 367) 2(>8

V. B(.iij.all (o Itawle, 80) &l)l

V. Brittoii (Vo How. Pr. •428) 070

V. Britton (2 I'att. & H. 12-i) llufi

V. Browu (99 N. C. 377) 8-13, 1041

V. Brj'ant (GO Ala. 235) 787

V. Burnet (35 N. J. Eq. 314) 835

V. Callovvav (7 Blackf. 80) 1247

V. Carrere U Rich. Eq. 123) 745, 1182

V. Carroll (4 Green, Iowa, 14G) 004

V. Carroll (112 Pa. St. 390) 093, 1099

V. Chenault (48 Tex. 455) 200

v. Chenev (I Robins. 98) 1107

V. Chew "(35 Miss. 153) 695, 1002

V. Clav (Amb.645) 1110

V. CoUamer (2 Dem. 147) 078

V. Crater (43 N. J. Eq. 036) 859, 801

V. Cunninyhain (1 Add. 448) 101

V. Curtis (2 J N. J. L. 345) 946

V. Uenman (48 Ind. 05) 808

V. Uensou (2 Sm. & M. 320) 1059

V. Dolbv (4 Harr. 350) 70

V. Dowiiev (3 Ired. Eq. 268) 125, 780
V. Drake (23 N. J. Eq. 302) 702, 703, 1087

V. Du Bose (3 S. E. R. 309) 4i)

V. Dutton (16 Me. 308) 1023

V. Dver (10 Mass. 18) 5)3

V. Eiirington (8 Cr. 60) 887

V. Edwards (1 Houst. 427) 82 S

v. Ellnigton (14 Ga. 379) 774

V. Eustis (7 Me. 41) 237

V. Evans (1 VVils. 313) 03
V. Fellows (131 xMass. 20) 988. 1098, 110:!

V. Fenner (1 Gall. C. C. 170) 51, 92, 4.J0

V. Fenjuson (90 Ind. 229) 122

V. Field (0 Dana, 361) 1005

■ V. Fox (82 Va. 763) 8)7

V. Gaines (36 N. J. Eq. 297) 151

V. Garev (2 D. & B. Eq. 42) 650

V. GentVv (16 Ga. 31) 307

t?. Gill (37 Minn. 455) 1208

i;. GiUain (80 Ala.290) 800

V. Gilmore (13 Mo. App. 155) 347

V. Gregory (26 Grat. 248) 391

V. Goggans (Harp. 52) 793

V Gradv (08 Wis. 215) 841

V. Gregory (75 Mo. 121) 1180

V. Grove (12 Mo. 51) 620

V. Guerant (55 Mo. 372) 1192
V. Guild (34 Me. 443) 359, 500, 1016

V. Handv (16 Oh. 191) 248

V. Harrison (2 Heisk. 2-30) 500

■ V. Hastings (29 Vt. 240) 901

V. Henning (10 W. Va. 596) 720

V. His Creditors (59 Cal. 267) 336

V. Hurd (7 How. 180) 1255

V. Hutchinson (108 111. 662) 731

V. Hutchinson (61 Mo. 83) 890

V. .lackson (2 Edw. Ch. 28) 235

V. James (34 N. W. R. -309) 43

V. Jewett (40 N. H. 513) • 952, 1130

V. Johnson (21 Ga. 380) 901

V. Kearnev (2 Barb. Clh. 533) 150, 1237

r. Kellv (23 Miss. 167) 157

V. Keniiard (38 Ala. 695) 1103

V. King (22 Ala. 558) 1141

V. Kmnev (.30 La. An. 3.32) 1004

V. Kittridge (21 Vt. 238) 117

V. Knnphel (82 III. -392) 1080

■y. Knowlton (11 N. H. 191) 445

V. Lambert (30 Me. 137) 1129

Page

Smith r. Lampton (8 Dana, 69) 90j

V. Lawrence (11 Pai. 200) 740

tj. Lidiard (3 K. & J. 2.J2) 899

V. Lorillard (10 John. 3o8) 200

v. McCarty (119 Mass. 519) 2:^8

1-. McChesnev (15 N.J. Eq. 359) 90

v. McConnell (17 111. 135) 715

r. McCrary (3 Irud. Eq. 204) 722

V. McRitterick (51 Iowa, 548) 1000

V. McLaughlin (77 III. 590) 762

V. fiercer (3 Pa. L. J. 529) 367, 635

V. Milles (1 r. R. 475) 409

V. Monks (55 Mo. 100) 307

V. Mo. ire (37 Ala. 327) 957

V. Moore (25 Vt. 127) 1007, 1008

V. Munroe (1 Ired. 345) 532

I'. M vers (19 Mo. 4.33) 824

I'. Neilson (13 Lea, 401) 494

V. Oliver (11 Beav. 481) 910

V. Oliver (Dudlev, 190) 1258

V. Park (31 Minn. 70) 606, 714

V. Pattie (81 Va. 654) 795, 843, 840

V. Pavne (2 Bush, 583) 1242

I'. Phillips (.54 Ala. 8.1 543

V. Porter (35 Me. 287) 419

V. Presbyterian Church (26 N. J. Eq.

132)

Rice (11 Mass. 507)
Rix (9 Vt. 240)
Robertson (24 Hun, 210)
Seaton (117 Pa. St. 382)
Sherman (4 Cush. 408)

893
1230, 1245
1131
1240
1045
523, 624, 1194

Smith (13 Ala. 329) 257, 362, 650, 1125
, Smith (1 Allen, 12J)

Smith (2 Bush, .520)
. Smith (12 Cal. 210)

Smith (5 Dana, 179)

Smith (1 Dr. & Sm. 384)

Smith (23 Ga. 21)
. Smith (17 Grat. 268)
, Smith (14 Grav, 532)
. Smith (76 Ind. 230)
. Smith (4 John. Ch. 281)
, Smith (5 .Jones Eq. 305)
. Smith (.59 Me. 214)
. Smith (13 N. J. Eq. 104)
. Smith (27 N. J. Eq. 445)
. Smith (03 N. C. 637)
. Smith (5 Oh. St. 32)
. Smith (4 Paige, 271)
. Smith (12 R. I. 4-50)
. Smith (24 S. C. 304)
. Smith (Str. 955)
. Smith (1 Tex. 621)
. Smith (5 Ves. 189)
. State (5 Gill, 45)
. Tateham (2 Exch. 205)
. Tebbitt (L. R. 1 P. & D. 398)
. Tiffany (16 Hun. .552)
. Union Bank (5 Pet. 518)
'. United States (2 Wall. 219)
. Uzzell (61 Tex. 220)
. Van Ostrand (64 N. Y. 278)

975
145

200

202

790

966, 980

808

.500, 1010

171, 1229

707

940

1210

1071

1036

82

223

8.»3

260

897

123

223, 518, 519

234

773

794

909

307

374

94

210

949, 998,

1000

Wait (4 Barb. 28) 89

Watkins (8 Humph. 331) 789

Wert (64 Ala. 34) 1059, 1060

Whiting (9 Mass. 334) 734

Wilmington Co. (83 111. 498) 686, 087
Wingo (1 Rice. 287) 535

Woodworth (4 Dill. 584) 227

exx

TABLE OF CASES.

Piige

Smiili 1'. Wvckoff (11 Paiye, 49) 110;i

r. Vouiig (5 Gill, 1!»7) 527

Sinitlui r. Kloiinu.v (47 Ala. 345) 10:i7

Smitlior V. Siiiithfr ('J Bush, 2:i0) '2li!)

Siiiitliers v. Hooper (23 Md. 273) 1137

Smock v. Siiioi'k (11 N. J. Kq. 150) 8'.*

Siiiyley 0. Keese (53 Ala. 8'J) 1149

bueacl v. Coleman (7 Grat. 300) 795

Siiedecor v. l-'i-eemau (71 Ala. 140) 201

Suedeker v. Ailea (2 N. J. L. 35) 470

Sneed v. Ewiug (5 J. J. Marsh. 400) 494

hiielgrove v. Siielgrove (4 Des. 274) 1215

Siiell V. Eewell (04 Miss. 055) 833

V. Snell (123 111. 403) 207

Snider v. Coleman (72 'Slo. 508) 1081

•r. Crov (2 John. 22,") 020

V. Newsoii (24 Ga. 139) 901

V. Snider (3 W. Va 200) 1080

Snively v. Stover (78 Pa. St. 484) 873, 878

Snodgrass's Appeal (90 Pa. St. 420) 1197

Siiodgrass v. Andrews (30 Miss. 472) 000

Snook V. Snook (43 N. J. Kq. 132) 209

Snow r. Benton (28 111. 300) 39

V. Calluni (1 Des. 542) 1108, 1170

V. I'olev (119 Mass. 102) 972

V. Perkins (00 N. H. 493) 603, 604

Snowhill V. SnowhJll (2 N. J. Eq. 30) 040

•(,•. Snowhill (23 N. ,1. L. 447) 87

Snvder's Appeal (30 Pa. St, 100) 323, 324, 340

Snvder v. Ball (17 Pa. St. 54) 03

' V. Snvder (90 N. Y. 88)
Sohjer v. Burr (127 Mass. 221) 354

V. l-.ldredge (103 Mass. 345) 038

V. Massachusetts Hospital (3 Ciish.
483) 930

Soldnii V. Hvams (15 La. An. 551) 553, 648
Solliday v. Bissey (12 Pa. St. 347) 1108

Solonian w Wixon, 27 Conn. 520) 512

Solomons v. Kursheedt (3 Dem. 307) 1134
Soltan V. Soltan (93 Mo. 307) 277

Soniers's Estate (14 Phila.201) 190

Scmierset, Goods of (L. K. 1 P & D. 350) 400
Sontag V. Schmisseur (70 111. 541) 203

Sorin V. dinger (12 Ind. 29) 708, 1153

Sorrell v. Ham (9 Ga. 55) 622, 712

Sorrelle ». Sorrelle (5 Ala. 245) 970

Sorrels v. Trantham (48 Ark. 380) 844, 1153,

1183
Sossman v. Powell (21 Tex. 604) 198, 214

Soubiran v. Rivollet (4 La. An. 328) 436

Sonhegan Bank v. Wallace (00 N. H.

354) 854

South V. Carr (7 T. B. Mon. 419) 794

V. Hov (3 T. B. Mon. 88) 1213

Southall V. Tavlor (14 Grat. 209) 677, 698

Southerland «;.Southerland (5 Bu3h, .591) 118,

123, 608

Southgate v. Annan (31 Md. 113) 158

Southmead, Goods of (3 Curt. 28) 400, 531

South Western Railroad «". Paulk (24 Ga.

350) 308

V. Thomason (40 Ga. 408) 1246

Southwick V. IMonell (121 Mass. 520) 1024

Southworth v, Adams (11 Biss. 250) !i8

Soutter's Estate (105 N. Y. 514) 1129

Soverhill v. Suvdam (.59 N. Y. 140) 654, 1141

Soward v. Soward (1 Duv. 120) 62

Sowards v, Pritohett (37 III. 517) 1052

Sowell V. Sowell (40 Ala. 243) 469, 497

V, Sowell (41 Ala. 359) 579

Sowers v. Cyreaius (39 Ob. St. 29) 922

Sowles, In re (57 Vt. 384) 1198

Sove V. Maverick (18 Tex. 100) 1043

Spackman v. Timbrell (8 Sim. 2.53) 659, 1090
Spain V. Adams (3 I'enn. Ch. 319) 260

Spangler's Estate (9 VV. iSc G. 135) 1007

Spanglcr v. Stanler (1 Md. Ch. 36) 231

V. York Co. (13 Pa. St. 322) 1002

Sparhawk v. Buell (9 Vt. 41) 738, 8.57, 1011,
1013, 1129, 1240, 1254
Sparks v. White (7 Humph. 80) 303, 650

Sparrow's Succession (39 La. An. 690) 579,

055, 089
Spaulding's Appeal (-33 N. H. 479) 1202

Spaulding v. Gibbons (5 Hedf. 316) 08

V. Suss (4 Mo. App. 541) 781, 804, 800
V. Waketield (53 Vt. 000) 710

Speaknian's Appeal (71 Pa. Si. 25) 061, 600
Spear v. Tinkhani (2 Barb. Ch.211) 1138

Spears's Succession (28 La. An. 804) 1031
Speck V. Wohlien (22 Mo. 310) 1060

Speckles «. Public Administrator (1 Dem.

475) 400

Speed V. Kellv (59 Miss. 47) 379, 440, 442

V. Nelson (8 B. Mon. 499) 1130

Speelmari r. Culbertson (15 Ind. 441) 693

Speer v. Miller (37 N. J. ) (|. 492) 153

V. Kichmond (3 Mo. App. 5'i2) 547

V. Speer (07 Ga. 748) 207, 208

Speidel's Appeal (107 Pa. St. 18) 175, 184

Speidel v. Schlosser (13 W. \h. 080) 210

Speiice V. Robins (6 G. & .]. 507) 941

Spencer, Ex parte (95 N. C. 271) 12. 6

In re (12 All. U. 124) 989, 994, 1005

V. Hank of the State (Bai. Eq. 408) 731

r. Boardman (118 111. 553) 831

r. Cahoon (4 Dev. 225) 546, 568

V. Dennis (8 Gill, 314) 957

V. Higgins (22 Conn. 521) 893

V. Moore (4 Call, 423) 469

V. Sheehan (19 Minn. 338) 1031

V. Strait (40 Hun, 403) 1140, 1147

V. Trafford (42 Md. 1) 836

Sperber v. Balster (06 Ga. 317) 60

Sperrv's Estate (1 Ashm. 347) 658

Speverer v. Bennett (79 Pa. St. 445) 836

Spier's Appeal (26 Pa. St. 233) 184

Spinning's Will (Tuck. 78) 535

Spinning r. Spinning (43 N. J. Eq. 215) 256,

258
Spire V. Lovell (17 111. App. 559) 702, 1144
Sjionsler's Appeal (107 Pa. St. 95) 904, 971
Si)Oor V. Wells (3 Barb. Ch. 199) 274

Spoors V. Coen (44 Oh. St. 497) 6-32, 1044

Spraddling v. Pipkin (15 Mo. 118) 300, 371,

375, 1182
Spragins v. Tavlor (48 Ala. 520) 1030

Sprague v. West (127 Mass 471) 354, 1034
Spraker v. Van Alstvne (18 Wend. 200) 1104
Spratt V. Baldwin (33 Miss. 581) 1165

Spravberrv v. Culberson (32 Ga. 299) 440
Sjireiikle's Appeal (15 Atl. R. 773) 979

Spring r. Parkman (12 Me. 127) 493

Springer's Appenl (29 Pa. St. 208) 1213,1238
Appeal (111 Pa. St. 274) 1098

Springs v. Irwin (0 Ired. 27) 512, 572

Springsteen v. Samson (32 N. Y. 703) 764
Sprinkle r. Hutchinson (66 N. C. 450) 1123
Sprott V. Baldwin (34 Miss. .327) 1173

Sproul's Appeal (105 Pa. St. 4-38) 1102, 1237
Sproull V. Seav (74 Ga. 676) 1064

Spruill V. Cannon (2 Dev, & B. Eq. 400) 1168

TABLE OF CASES.

CXXl

Spun- V. Trimble (1 A. K. Marsh. 278) 444
S(iuier v. Mavor (2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 430) UOL
v. Squief (30 N. J. Eq. G27) 1171

Stackable v. Stackpole (32 N. \V. R. 808) 834
Stackhouse v. Norton (15 N.J. Eq. 202) 34, 40
Stacv V. Thrasher (6 How. 44) 3G0, 301, 752
Stag «;. Punter (3 Atk. 110) 703

Stagg V. Green (47 Mo. 500) 384, 410

V. Jackson (2 Barb. Ch. 86) 1060

V. Jackson (1 N. Y. 200) 1141

S-aggs V. Ferguson (4 Heisk. 690) 020

8tahl V. Brown (72 Iowa. 720) 385

t'. Stahl (114 111. 375) 204,228

Stahlschmidt v. Lett (1 Sm. & Giff. 415) 788
Staiggt'. .\tkinson (144 Mass. 564) 361

IStair V. York Bank (55 Pa. St. 364) 744

Stair lev v. Itabe (McNull. Eq. 22) 580

Stairs V. Peaslee (18 How. 521) 6 TO

Stallings V. Foreman (2 Hill Cli.401) 701, 702
r. Ivev (4;» Ga. 274) 1072

Stallwortirt'. Stalhvorth (29 Ala. 76) 153

S'linibaiigh v. Smith (23 Oh. St. 584) 804

Stamm v. Stamm (11 Mo. App. 598) 200, 204
Stamper c. Garnett (31 Grat. 550) 118 J

Stamjis {•. Bell (2 Baxt. 170) 857

Stanbrough's Succession (37 La. An.

275) 1083

Stancil r. Kenan (35 Ga. 102) 468

Standifer v. Hubbard (39 Tex. 417) 847

Stanlev V. Hemes (1 Hagg. 221) 402

f. "Morse (26 lovs'a, 454) 493

V. Noble (59 Iowa. 666) 1089

V. Potter (2 Uox Ch. 180) 973, 980

V. Vogel (9 Mo. App. 98) 615, 622

Stannard v. Barnum (51 Md. 440) 8.)2

V. Case (40 Oh. St. 211) 153

Stanton v. Kvan (41 Mo. 510) 830

V. VVetherwax (16 Barb. 259) 34

Stan wood v Owen (14 Grav, 195) 283

Staples's Appeal (52 Conn. 421) 712, 762,

1144, 1243

Staples V. Staples (24 Grat. 225) 700, 702, 1083

V. Wellnigton (58 Me. 453) 39

Staring v. Bowen (6 Barb. 109) 472

Stark V. Hunton (1 N. J. Eq. 216) 271

v. Hunton (3 N. J. Eq. 300) 677

V. Parker (56 N. H. 481) 495

V. Smilev (25 Me. 201) 952

V. Stark'(55 Pa. St. 62) 144

Starke v. Keenan (5 Ala. 590) 750

Starkey v. Hammer (1 Baxt. 438) 1036

Starkweather v. American Bible Soc. (72

111. 50) 913, 931

Starr v. Brewer (58 Vt. 24) 1067

V. Case (59 Iowa, 491) 284

V. McEwan (09 Me. 334) 1000

State ?;. Allen (92 :Mo 20) 1193

V. Ames (23 L;i. .\n. 09) 309

V. Bank of Maryland (6 G. & J. 205) 773
V. Belin (5 Harf. 400) 738

V. Berning (74 Mo. 87) 549, 1163

V. Berning (6 Mo. .\pp. 105) 549, 1242
V. Bidlingmaier (26 Mo. 483) 525, 584,

821
V. Blackwell (20 Mo. 97) 1247

t?. Boring (15 Oh. 507) 553

V. Bowen (45 Miss. 347) 810

V. Brown (6-1 Md. 97) 9!t9

V. Brutch (12 Ind 381) 1122, 1124

V. Campbell (10 Mo. 324) 747

V. Central Pac. R. R. Co. (lONev.47) 337

Pape
State V. Cheston (51 Md. 352) 391, 1179, 12;;2
V. Chrisman (2 Ind. 126) 559

V. Clarke (3 Harr. Del. 557) 25

V. Claudius (3 Mo. Apji. 561) 815

V. Coffey (5 Mo. Ap|i. 577) 1182

r. Collins (16 Ark. 32) 8i)J

V. Connowav (2 Hou^t. 206) 823

V. Conover (9 N. J. L. 338) 1021, 1040
V. Craddock (7 Ilarr. & John. 40) 401
V. Crosslev (09 Ind. 203) 978

V. Dickson (38 Ga. 171) 773

ij. Dillev (64Md. 314) 1123

V. Donaldson (28 Mo. App. 190) 772

V. Donegan (94 iMo. 66) 829

V. Drurv (36 Mo. 281) 548

V. Elliot (11 N. H. 540) 606

V. Engelhard (70 N. C. 377) 710

■c. Farmer (54 Mo. 439) 394, 559, 748, 8(J6
V. Fields (Peck, 140)
V. Fields (53 Mo. 474)
V. Find ley (10 Oh. 51)
V. Ful;on (35 Mo. 323)
V. Green (65 Mo. 528)
r. Gregory (88 Ind. 110)
V. Griffith (2 Del. Ch. 3!l2)
V. Grigsbv (IJ2 \lo. 419)
V. Hailett (8 Ala. 15i))
V. Hanner (64 N. C. 668)
V. Harris (2 Bailey, 598)
V. Hart (57 Md.2i4)
V. Heinrichs i82 Mo. 542)
V. Hirons(l Hoiist. 252)
V. Huether (4 Mo. App 575)
V. .lohnson (7 Blackf. 529)
V. Jones (89 Mo. 470)
». Joyce (48 Ind. 310)
V. Judge (17 La. An. 189)
V. Knox (10 .41a. 608)
V. Leckie(14 La. An. 641)
V. Lewellyn (25 Tex. 797)
V. McAleer (5 Ired. L. 632)
V. McGlynn (20 Cal. 233)

124

772,

336
548
552
748
3i)5
677
921

1248
443
6H9
773
749
748, 1 183
715
548
707

1125

880

465. 502

lliJl

437

434, 1264

1229
468. 4^17

V. Matson (44 .Mo. 305) 749, 1182, 1248

V. Matthews (10 Oh. St. 431) 741

V. Maulsbv (53 Mo. 500) 866

V. Maxwell (64 N. C. 313) 8 i2

V. Meagher (44 Mo. .-556) 11-58

V. Medary (17 Oh. 5.54) 552

V. Megown (89 Mo. 156) 1193

V. Jlenard (8 Mo. 286) 1247

V. ileyer (63 Ind. 33) ,307

V. Miller (18 Mo. App. 41) 1262

V. Mitchell (3 Brev. 520) 1193

V. Moore (18 Mo. App. 406) 432

V. Morton (18 Mo. 53) 747

V. Newlin (69 Ind. 108) 41

V. Osborn (71 Mo. 86) 6.50

V. Pace (9 Rich. 355) 464
i\ Parish Court (30 La. An. 183) 1124

V. Parker (9 N. J. L. 242) 346

V. Parrish (4 Himiph. 285) 1119

f. Paul (21 Mo. 51) 815

V. Piatt (4 Harr. 154) 1163

V. Pohl (30 Mo. Ai.p. 321) 1262, 12(i6

V. Porter (9 Ind. 342) 748

V. Preble (18 Nev. 251) 23

V. Price (15 Mo. 375) .553

V. Price (21 Mo. 434) 566
V. Probate Court (33 Minn. 94) 331, 1062

r. Ramsey Probate Court (25 Minn.

22) 854, 1045

cxxu

TABLE OF CASES.

State V. KeeJer (5 Ntb. 203)
V. Keij^ait (1 Gill, 1)
V. Kuiiiliiiidi (•;! Mo. !)5)
V. Kobcrt.^oii (5 lliiiT. 201)
V. Kobiiisciii (1)7 Md. 480)
V. Koepur (82 Mo. 57)
V. lioepei- (0 Mo. Aii|). 21)
V. Kogers (2 11. & M^l. i'J8)
V. Rogers (1 Houst. uOO)
i;. Koth (47 Ark. 222)
V. KuckLT (5!) Mo. 24)
V. Scott (1 liai. 2^4)
V. Smit (20 Mo. App. 50)
V. Smith (70 Cal. lo^i)

Pago
308
]()15
525, 821
G3'J, 041
99a
1125
1125
773
503
984, 1230
31)5
328
611
23, 310
V. Smith (52 Comi. 557) 061, 749, 883, 948
V. Smith (16 Lea, 662) 950

V. Stafford (73 Mo. 658) 863

V. Taygart (88 Iiid. 269) 1251

V. Thuniton (56 Mo. 325) 749, 1182

V. Uelaud (30 Minn. 277) 271, 351

V. \\'atson (2 Speeis, 97) 503

V. Watts (23 Ark. 304) 390

V. We.st (2 Harr. 151) 914

V. White (7 Ired. L. 116) 4.50

V. Williams (9 Gill, 172) 588, 1204

V. Wilson (51 Ind. 96) 1125

V. Wiltbank (2 Harr. 18) 914

V. Woltt (10 Mo. App. 95) 549

r. Woods (36 Mo. 73) 299

1?. Wright (4 H. & J. 148) 743

V. Wvani (67 Ind. 2 ,) 558. 5.59

V. WVgall (51 Tex. 621) 1251

v. Yoimts (89 L.d. 313) 1058

State Bank v. Hinton (21 Oh. St. 5fi9) 237
V Tiitt (44 Mo. 368) 775, 781

V. Walker (14 Ark. 234) 826, 842

f. Williams (6 Ark. 156) 1186

State Nalioiiai Bank v. Evans (32 La. An.

464) 499

Staunton v. Parker (19 Hun, .55) 513

Stayner's Case (33 Oh. St. 431) 1125

Sleacv V- Hice (27 I'a. St. 75) 817

Steadnian v. Powell (1 Add. 58) 20

Stearns v. Barnham (5 Me. 261) 368

V. Brown (1 Pick. 530) 11.37

V. Fiske (18 Pick. 24) 521, 524

V. Stearns (1 Pick. 157) 1217

V. Stearns (30 Vt. 213) 827

V. Swift (8 Pick. 532) 251

v. Wrinht (51 N. H. 600) 441

Stebbins r ' Field (43 Mich. 333) 1057

V. Lathrop(4 Pick. 33) 464, 512

V. Palmer (1 Pick. 71) 523, 624

Steed I'. Cruise (70 Ga. 168) 387

Steele v. Atkinson (14 S. C. 154) 746

V. Frierson (85 Tenu. 4.30) 1218, 1221,

1222

V. Graves (68 Ala. 17) 5.50

V. Lineberger (.59 Pa. St. 308) 1029

V. Morrison (4 Dana, 617) 1187

V. Price (5 B. Mon. 58) 98, 484

V. Steele (64 Ala. 438) 270, 272, 1090

V. Steele (89 111. 51) 1051

V. Tutwiler (68 Ala. 107) 554

Steen v. Bennett (24 Vt. 302) 395

V. Steen (25 Miss. 513) 1123, 1127, 12-30

Steere v. Wood (15 Pt. I. 199) 1228

Steffv's Appeal (76 Pa. St. 94) 731

Steijall V. Stegall (2 Rrock. 2.56) 227

Steger e. Bush (1 Sm. & M. Ch. 172) 697

Steib V. Whitehead (111 HI. 247) 956

Page

Stein I'. Burden (.30 Ala. 270) 1133

V. Huesman (38 N. .1. Kq. 405) 1167

Steinmanu v. Sauuderson (14 S.& li. 357) 740

Stell's Appeal (10 I'a. St. 149) 737

Stent 1". Kobiiison (12 Ves. 461) 1008

Stephens's Appeal (56 Pa. St. 409) 1147

Stephens v. Barnett (7 Dana, 257) 415, 422

V. Beal (4 Ga. 319) 039

V. Cotterell (99 Pa. St. 188) 832

V. Crawford (3 Ga. 499) 553

i;. Gibbes (14 Fla. 331) 270

V. Harris (6 Ired. Fq. 57) 782

V. Tavlor (02 Ala.269) 55;i

V. Van Buren (1 Paige, 479) 1010

V. Venables (30 Beav. 625) 1015

Stephenson v. Axson (Bai. Eq. 274) 995,

996, 1005, 1010

V. Donahue (40 Oh. St. 184) 610

V. Heathcote (1 Eden, 38) 873

V. King (81 Kv. 425) 118, 119, 123

V. Ontario Asvlum (27 Hun, 380) 943

t;. Short (92 N Y. 433) 911

V. Stephenson (3 Hayw. 123) 1145

V. Stephenson (4 .Jones, 472) 524

V. Yandel (5 Hayw. 261) 1 187

Sterling v. Sims (72 Ga. 51) 039

Sterrett's Appeal (2 Pa. 419) 737, 1146 1188

Stetson r. Moulton (140 Mass. 597) 1243

Steuart v. Carr (0 (iill, 430) 805, 841

Stevens v. Fisher (144 Ma.^s. 114) 907

V. Gavlord (11 Mass 256) 364, 365, 375,

054
V. Gregg (10 G. & J. 143) 1095

V. Hope (52 Mich. 65) 100

V. McNaniara (36 Me. 170) 444

r. Sliippen (28 N. .J. Eq 487) 111

v. Smith (4 J. J. Marsh. 64) 2-34

?;. Stevens (3 Dana, 371) 262

V. Stevens (50 Iowa, 491) 20ii

V. Stevens (5 Th. & C. 87) 124

V. Vancleve (4 Wash. C C 262) 32, 42,
05, 06, 490
Stevenson's Appeal (.32 Pa. St. 318) 1131

Stevenson, In re (72 Cal. 164) 532

V. Martin (11 Bush, 485) 1216, 1218. 1221
V. Polk (71 Iowa, 278) 595, 731

V. Schriver (9 G. & J. 324) 1193

V. Superior Court (62 Cal. GO) 451

V. Wilcox (16 S. C. 432) 401

Steward v. Hinkel (72 Cal. 187) 812

Stewart's Appeal (56 Me. 300) 5i»7

Appeal (56 Pa. St 241) 1244

Appeal (110 Pa. St. 410) 669, 702, 710
Stewart v. Barclav (2 Bush, 550) 276, 277
y. Barrow (7 "Bush, ,368) 955

V. Blease (4 S. C .37) 200

V. Bradv (3 Bush, 023) 955

V. Cave"(l Mo. 752) 5(i0

V. Chambers (2 Sandf. Ch. 382) 988

V. Conner (9 Ala. 803) 737

V. Elliott (2 Mackev, .307) 31, 46

«. Glenn (3 Heisk 581) 1236

v. Glenn (58 Mo. 481) 681

V. Harriman (56 N. H. 25) 72, 76, 4(i8.

499
V. Kearnev (6 Watts, 453) 631

V. Lispenard (26 Wend. 255) 32

r. Pattison (8 Gill. 46) 1213

• V. Pearson (4 S. C. 46) 262

r. Pettus (10 Mo. 755) 490

V. Phenice (65 Iowa, 475) 748

TABLE OF CASES.

CXXUl

Stewart v. Richev (17 N. J. L. 164) G4;i

V. Siiiilfv (ih Ark. :}7-") 0;JG, 712, 714

V. Stewart (5 (Joiiii. ■ill) 247

V. Stewart (7 John. Cli. 229) 042

V. Stewart (3 J. J. Marsh. 48) 245

V. Stewart (L. R. 15 Gh. D. 53t)) 1215,

1222

V. Stewart (13 T.a An. 3!)8) I'.Mi

Sticknev v. Davis (17 Pick. Kill) 331, 075

V. Hammond (138 Mass. 110) 05

Sticknoth's Estate (7 Nev.233) 4:i9

Sfici"er v. Evans (04 Iowa. 91) 241

Stiles v. Smith (55 Mo. 303) 829, 84i, 843

Stiller y.Fol-er (14 Oh. 610) 204

Stillnian v. Younj; (16 111. 318) 1«69

Stillwell V. Doii£?hty (3 Bradf. 359) 637

Stilwell y Carpenter (59 N. Y. 414) 340

V. Knapper (09 Ind. 558) 964

V. Melrose (15 Hun, 376) 115!

Stimson V. Vroman (99 N. Y. 74) 874, 878

Stiiiehtield v. Emerson (52 Me. 465) 444

Stinson v. Stinson (38 Me. 593) 636

Stirling: V. Stirlint; (64 Md. 138) 50

V. Winter (80 Mo- 141) 757. 7. '5

Stiver's Appeal (.56 Pa. St. 9) l()(i2

Stiver t'. Stiver (8 Oh. 217) 1141

Stockbridge. Petitioner (145 Mass. 517) 939

Stockton's Appeal (64 Pa. St. 58) 339

Stockton i: Wilson (3 Pa. 129) 421

Stoddard r. (Jalcompt (41 Iowa, 329) 271

V. Maulthrop (H Conn. 502) 854

Stoeckman v. Terre Haute R. R. (15 Mo.

App. 503) fi29

Stoever v. Ludwiff (4 S. & R. 201) 571

Stokelv's Estate (19 Pa. St. 476) 375

Stokes" i-. Dale (1 Dem. 260) 348

V. McAllister (2 Mo. 163) 257

V. Paviie (58 Miss. 614) 732

V. Porter (Dver, 166 b) 415

V. Sticknev (96 N. Y. 323) 626

V. Tillv (9"N. J. L. 130) 872

V. Van Wvck (83 Va. 724) 872, 900

Stoltz's Succession (28 La. An. 175) 1048

Stone's Succession (31 La. An. 311) 678

Stone V. Brown (16 Tex. 425) 465

V. Clarke (40 III. 411) 849

V. Cook (79 111. 424) 837

t>. Damon (12 Mass. 487) 38

V. Gazzam(46 Ala.269) 609

V. Green (30 Ga. 340) 468

■y. Hallev (1 Dana, 197) 1213

V. Huxford (8 Blackf. 452) 464

V. Kaufman (25 Ark. 186) 8)9

V. Massev (2 Yeates, 263) 942

v. Morgan (10 Pai. 615) 1127

V. Scripture (4 Lans. 186) 305

V. Stillwell (23 Ark. 444) 1136

V. Sione (18 Mo 389) 127, 248

V. Todd (49 N. .1. L. 274) 59, 1268

V. Union Bank (13 R. I. 25) 737

V. Wilson (4 :McCord, 203) 553

V. Wood (16 III. 177) 1029

Stoner v. Zimmerman (21 Pa. St. 394) 1142

Stonestreet i'. Dovle (75 Va. 356) 944

Stong V. Wilkson (14 Mo. 116) 1131, 1137

Storer's Will (28 Minn. 9) 48, 490

Storer v. Hinklv (1 Root, 182) 1152

V. WheatleV (1 Pa. St. 506) 517, 904

Storev's Appeal (83 Pa St. 89) 1217, 1218

Will (120 111. 244) 469, 1193, 1202. 1208

Will (20 111. App. 183) 34, 42, 469

Storm, Matter of (28 Hun, 499) 737

Storms V. (,)uackeiil)ush (34 X..J. Eq. 201) 737

Storrs f. Whitnev (54 Conn. 342; HM, 921, 923

Stose V. Penple ('l5 111. 600) 749

Stott's Estate (Mvr. 168) 1148

Stout V. Baker (32 Kan. 113) 287

V. Hart (7 N.. I. L. 414) 973

V. Stout (15 Atl. R 843) 1007

Sfoutenbmf^h r. Ho])kins (43 N. J. Eq.

577: s. c. 12 Atl. R. 689) 31, 46

V. Moore (37 N .J. Eq. 63) 719

Stover V. Kendall (1 Coldw. 557) 86

Stow r. Kimball (28 III. 93) 1034, 10.59

V. Stow (1 Redf. 305) 474, 475

V. Tifft (15 John. 458) 238

Stowe r. Steele (114 111. 382) 246. 274

Stowell V. Hastings (59 Vt. 494) 948, 949

Straat v. O'Neil (84 Mo. 68) 128

Stracev, Goods of (Dea. & Sw. 6) 57

Stradlev r. King (84 N. C 635) 1047, 1062

Straiii;e v. Harris 3 Bro. C. C 365) 799

Stratton's Estate (46 Md. 551 ) 1125. 1167

Stratton v. McCandliss (32 Kan. 512j 1.^5, 326

Straub v. Dimm (27 Pa St. 36) 309

Strawn v. Strawn (53 111. 263) 167. 170, 182

Street, Ex parte (1 Bland Ch. 532, n.) 1039

V. Saunders (27 Ark. 554) 230

Streeter v. Baton (7 Mich. 341) 712, 713

Stretch V. Pynn (1 Lee, 30) 519

Strieker v. Oldenburgh (39 Iowa, 653) 80

Strickland r. Aldrich (9 Ves. 516) 910

V. Hudson (55 Miss. 235) 836

V. Strickland (10 Sim. 374) 1094

v. Wvnn (51 Ga. 600) 830

Stringer's Estate (L. R. 6 Ch. Div. 1) 948

Strobel, Ex parte (2 S. C 309) 216

Strodes i'. Patton (1 Brock. 228) 685, 1043

Strong r. Bass (.35 Pa. St. 333) 1236

V. Clem (12 Ind. 37) 243, 255

V. Smith (1 Met. Mass. 476) 641

V. Strong (8 Conn. 408) 346

V. Strong (3 Redf. 477) 1131

V. Williams (12 Mass. 391) 975

Strother v. Hull (23 Grat. 6.52) 1045

v. Mitchell (80 Va. 149) 783, 1216

Stronghill v. Anstev (1 DeG. M. & G.

635) ' "32

Strouse V. Drennan (41 Mo. ?89) 1060

Strvker v. Vaiiderbilt (27 N. J. L. 68) 10(i7
Stuart V. Allen (16 Cal. 473) 1055

v. Kissam (2 Barb. 493) 1118

r. Walker (72 Me. 145) 729, 949

Stubbletield v. McRaren (5 Sm. & ^I.

130) . 589, 749

Stubbs V. Houston (33 Ala. 555) 31, 36

Stiickey i'. Mathes (24 Hun, 461) 224

Studebaker v. Montgomery (74 Mo. 101) 757
Studlev V. Josselvn (5 Allen, 118) 1033

Stukes «. Collins' (4 Des. 207) 697

Stulz V. SchaefHe (18 Eng. L. & E. 576) 46
Sturdivant v. Davis (9 Ired. L. 365) 417

Sturdy V. Jacoway (19 Ark. 499) 329, 10.58,

10-.9
Sturges V. Tufts (R. M. Charlt. 17) 522

Stur'gis V. Paine (146 Mass. 354) 877

Sturtevant v. Sturtevant (4 Allen, 122) 820
V. Tallman (27 Me. 78) 1122

Stuttmeister's Estate (17 Pac. R. 223) 1148
Stuvvesant r. Hall (2 Barb. Ch 151) 734

St. Andrae i\ Rachal (7 La. An. 69) 1138

St. Clair v. Morris (9 Ohio, 15) 1075

CXXIV

TABLE OF CASES.

St. .Tames Church v. Walker (1 Del. Cli.

284) 489, 494

St. .lohirs Succession (6 La. An. 192) 308
St. Jolm V. McKee (2 Uem. 2-30) 114G

St. .)<ilm Assoc. V. Buchly (5 Mackev,

40IJ) ■ 87.3

St. Jurjo r. Diinscomb (2 Brndf. 105) 374

St. Leber's Will (34 ( <.ini. 334) 49

St. Marv's Church D. Wallace (10 N. J. L.

311 ' 1-208

St. Train's Estate (1 Mo. App 294) 1213, 1214
Siiarez, Matter of (3 Dem. 104) 584

Sublett i: Nelson (38 Mo. 48;) 3.J9

Succession of. For ca.ses uni^er " Suc-
cession of," see names of the parties.
Sujrden v. St. Leonards (L. K. 1 Pr. D.

154) 483

Sugo-ett V Kitchell (0 Yerg. 425) 473, 488

Suggitt's Trust (L. K. 3 Ch. App. 215) 1015

Suggs V. Sapp (20 Ga. 100) 990, 991

Suisse t'. Lowtlier (2 Hare, 424) 909

Sullice V. Gradenigo (15 La. An. .582) 631

SuUings V Richmond (5 AiU-n, 187) 173

V. Sullings (9 Allen, 234) 204

Sullivan's Will (Tuck. 94) 543

Sullivan v. Burnett (105 U. S. 334) 159

V. Deadnian (23 Ark. 14) 1218

V. l-V)sdick (10 Hun, 173) 441

V. Holker (15 Mass. 374) 7-30

V. Horner (41 N J. Eq. 299) 759, 762 763

V. Sullivan (100 Mass. 474) 72, 75

V. Sullivan (1 Piiillim. 343) 107

V. Tioga K. K. (44 Hun, 304) 546

V. Winthrop (1 Sumn. 1) 994, 1007, 1009

Sulzberger v. Sulzberger (50 Cal. 385) 212

Sumnierfield v. Howie (2 Redf. 149) 347

Sumnierford r. Gilbert (37 Ga. 59) 187

Sunnners v. Reynolds (95 N. C. 404) 704

Sununersett v. Sunimersett (40 Ala 596) 330

Sunnnerville ?•. Hollidav (1 Watts, 507) 1247

Sumner v. Child (2 Conn. 607) 1025

V. Conant (10 Vt. 9) 2.50

V. Hampson (8 Oh. 328) 289

V. Parker (7 Mass. 79) 1244

V. Williams (8 Mass. 162) 795, 1066

Sunderland's Estate (60 Iowa, 732) 140, 141

Sunderland v. Hood (84 Mo. 293) 48

V. Hood (13 Mo. App. 282) 46, 48

Surber r. Kent (5 W. Va. 96) 1155, 11.57

Susz v F<)r>t (4 Deni. 340) 581

Sutherland v. Brush (7. John. Ch. 17) 387, 738

V. Harrison (80 111. 363) 1105

Suttle V. Turner (8 .Jones, 403) 535

Sutton's Succession (20 La. An. 150) 437

Sutton r. Craddock (1 Ired. Eq. 134) 1000

V. Public Adm'r (4 Dem. .33) 400, 533

V. Sutton (8 S. W. R. .337) 156

V. Warren (10 Met. 451) 224

V. Weeks (5 Redf. .353) 555

Suvdam v. Barber (18 N. Y. 468) 496

" V. Bastedo (40 N. J. Eq. 4.33) 737, 1180

V Broadnax (14 Pet. 07) 1208

Swackhamer r. Klin^ (25 N. J. Eq. 503) 1195

Swails V. Swails (!)8 Ind. 511) 103, 978, 979

Swain, In re (07 Cal. 0.37) 808, 817

V. Hardin (04 Ind. 85) 202

V. Naglee (19 Cal. 127) 336

V. Spruill (4 Jones Eq. .304) 1000

Swaine v. Periue (5 .lohn. Ch. 482) 245. 205

Swan V. Hammond (138 Mass. 45) 108, 109

V. House (50 Tex. 650) 810

Page

Swan V. Ligan (1 McCord Ch. 227) 1002

i\ Picquet (3 Piik. 443) 1195

V. Wheeler (4 Day, 137) 1058, 1134

Swancv v. Seott (9 Humph. 327) 441

Swandale v. Swandale (25 S. C. 389) 211

Svvanu v. Garrett (71 Ga. .500) 728. 1017

Swasej' V. American Bible Soc. (57 Me.

52.3) 923. 924, 926, 934, 987, f88

V. Ames (79 Me. 483) 8;i2

I'. Jaques (144 Mass. 1.35) 353, 904, 905

Swatzell V. Arnold (1 Woolw. 383) .-^OO

Swavze v. Wade (25 Kan. 551) 1198

Svveaney v. Mallory ((i2 Mo. 4815) 275

Sweariugen v. Pendleton (4 S. & R. 389) 363,

374, 649

Sweenev v. Damron (47 111. 450) 609

i: Muldoon (139 Mass. 304) 762

Sweet 1-. Sweet (1 Redf. 451) 92

Sweet land r. Sweet land (4 Sw. & Tr. 6) 64

Swectser v. Hav (2 Grav, 49) 553

Sweezev v. Willis (1 liradf. 495) 516, 528, .596

Sweezvt'. Tliaver (1 Duer, 280) 12-33

Sweigart r. Bei-k (8 S. & R. 299) 638

Swett V. Boardmau (1 Mass. 2-'''8) 61

Swift r. Martin (19 Mo. App. 488) 416

V. Miles (2 Rich. Eq. 147) 1230

V. Swift (1 Russ. & Mvl 575) 1012

V. Wiley (1 B. Mon. 114) _< 8

Swink V. Snodgrass (17 Ala. 653) 740

Swinton v. Legare (2 McC'ord ( li. 440) 8. '6

Swires r. Parsons (5 W. & S. 357) 824

Switzer v. Hank (89 Ind. 73) 1075

Swoope's Appeal (27 Pa. St. ."8) 978

Svkes V. Chadwick (18 AVall. 141) 242

Svme r. Badger (92 N. C. 706) 711, 11.1-8

" r. Riddle (88 N. C. 463) 10S2

Symmes v. Arnold (10 Ga. 506) 61

Tabb r. Cabell (17 Grat. 160) 1002

r. Collier (08 Ga. 041) 187

Taber r. Pack wood (I Dav, 150) 431

Tabler r. Tablcr '02 Md. 001) 485

V. Wiseman (2 Oh. St. 207) 2-32

Taft V. Morse (4 Met. Mass. 523) 1097

V. Stevens (3 Grav, 504) 595

Taggard v. Piper (118 Mass. 315) 999

Tainter v. Clark (13 Met. 220) -393, 593

Talberfs Succession (10 La. An. 2-30) 531

Talbot V. Talbot (1 Hagi,'. 705) 106

V. Talbot (14 R. I. 57) 244

V. Whipple (14 Allen, 177) 606

Taliaferro v. Burwell (4 Call, 321) 232

V. Minor (2 Call, 190) 11-34

Tallmadge v. Sill (21 Barb. 34) 6.56

Tallv I'. Butterworth 10 Yerg. .501) 83, 489

Talmadge v. Talmadge (66 Ala. ]!i9) 199

Talmage J). Chapel (16 Mass. 71) 301. 366, 676

Tankerslv v. Pettis (61 Ala. 3,54) 1128

Tanner v. Bennett (33 Grat. 251) 678

V. Mills (50 Ala. 356) 560

f. Thonus (71 Ala. 233) 216

Tapp v. Cox (50 Ala 553) 1207

Taiwan's Appeal (.52 Conn. 412) 923, 933, 951

Tappan v. Bruen (5 Mass. 193) 791

V. Chm-ch (3 Dem. 187) 352

V Deblois (45 Me. 122) 929

V. Tappan (.30 N. H. 50) 384, 4-32, 4.36

Tappen v. l)avids<m (27 N. J. Eq. 459) 71

V. Kain (12 .John. 120) 1069

Tarbell v. Jewett (129 Mass. 457) 653

TABLE OF CASES.

cxxv

VsVrCP

Tarbell r. Parker (100 Mass. 347) 102G, l();jf)

V. Wliitinf,'(5 N. H. M) 4.i5

Tarbox y. Kislier (01) Me. 2;J(;) 178, I2();i

Tarrant v. Swain (15 Kan. 14(i) 201

Tarsey'.s Trust (L. H. 1 Kq. Ml) 1014

Tarviir r. llaine.'^ (5."j Ala. bO'.i) 721

V. Tankerslev (51 Ala. WJ) 1254

V. Tarver (9'lVt. 174) 54, 4!i7

Tasker v. Slieplierd (G Hurls. & Norm.

088

125, 127

12.j4

691,714

244

228

'J4-i

61(8

34, 47

353. .'554

277

880

897, 942, 943

83

787, 821

11.58

575)
Tate r Hilbert (2 Ves. .Ir 111) 11
Tate (;. Hunter (3 .Stnibli. Kq. 130)

V. Norton (94 U. S. 740)

V. Tate (1 D.'v. & B. Kq. 22)

V. Tate (11 Hunipli. 4(;5)
Tatroy. Tatro (18 Xt-b. 395)
Tatuiu V. McLellan (50 Miss. 1)
Taveau v. Hall (1 MeCord Ch. 456)
Tawney v. \jnvr (70 Pa St. 108)
Tavloe )\ Bond (Bush. Kq. 5)
" V. Gould (10 Barb. 388)

V. .lohnson (63 N. C. .381)

V. Mosher (29 Md 443)
Taylor's Appeal (47 Pa. St. 31)

Estate (10 (Jal. 482)

Rotate (52Cal. 477)
Taylor v. Adann (2 Sersj. & R. 534) 718

V. Barron (35 N. H. 484) 359, 360, .301,
404, 440, 5.i6. 753

V. B>nhain (5 How. 233) 7.52

V. Biddle (71 N. C. 1) 570. 570

V. Brav (32 N. J. L. 182) 147, 151

V. Brodhead (5 Redf. 624) 71

V. Brooks (4 L). & B. 149) 394

V. Brvn Collesre (34 X. .J. Eq. 101) 929

V. Burk (91 Iiid. 252)

V. Conner (7 Fnd. 115)

V. Cre.<sweil (45 Md. 422)

V. Elder (39 Oh. St. .535)

V. Gallowav (1 Oh. 232)

V. Haygarth (14 Sim. 8)

V. Highl)erger (05 Iowa, 134)

V. Hutchison (25 Grat. 536)

V. Johnson (2 P. Wins. 504)

V. Kellv (31 Ala. 59)

V. Lanier (3 Mtirph. 98)

V. MeCraekin (2 Blaekf. 260)

V. McElrath (35 Ala. 330)

V. Maris (90 N. C. 619)

V. Martindalft (12 Sim. 158)

V. Mason (9 Wheat. 325)

V. Mitchell (87 Pa. St. 518)

V. Moore (47 Conn. 278)

1). Penn. R. Co. (78 Ivv. 348)

V. Phillips (3iJ Vt. 238)

V. Reese (4 Ala. 121)

V. Richardson (2 Drew. 16)

V. Sample (51 End. 423)

V. Savage (1 How. 282)

V. Shait'(4 Dem. 528)

V. Tavlor (53 Ala. 135)

V. Tavlor (8 B. Mon. 419)

V. Tavlor (3 Bradf . 54)

V. TaVlor (145 Mass. 2-39)

V. Tavlor (93 N. C. 418)

V. TaVlor (2 Nott & McCord, 482)

I'. TaVlor (03 Pa. St. 481)

v. Thorn (29 Oh. St. 569)

V. Tibbats (13 B. Mon. 177)

1196

882

36

1097

718

97

241

285, 2!)1

1008

47

980

257

1207

727. 892

633

953, 900

58

419

630

434

1214

480

221, 201

752, 12.50

738

201

1110

687

1222

228

100

903

196, 214

498, 513

1220

Tolen (38 N. J. Eq. 91) 893, 971, 974,

1099

Page

Tavlor r. Walker (1 Heisk. 734) 1031

V. Wendel (4 Bradf. .•i24) 1112

V. Wiiiburii (20 Mo. ;i()0) 40

r. Wright (93 Ii;d. 121) 767, 1162

Teague v. Corbitt (57 Ala. 529) 1156, 1109,

1179
V. Downs (69 N. C. 280) 012

Teasdale v. Reaboriie (2 Bav, 540) (ii)9

Teat V. Lee (8 Port. 507) " 1232

Tebbets v. I ilton (24 N. H. 120) 320

V. Tilton (31 N. H. 273) ll;il

Tedeiall v. Boukiiight (25 S. C. 275) 1244,

1245

'I'eets V. Weise (47 N. ,T. L. 154) 8.)0

i Telford v. Boggs (63 111. 498) 192

V. Morrison (2 Add .319) 1116

Tell FurnitureCo.r. Stiles (00 Miss. 849) 090,

1155, 1158

Temple r. Sammis (97 N Y. 520) 873, 878

Templenian v. Fontlerov (3 Rand. 434) 042

Temples ?•. Cain (00 Mi'ss. 478) 1087

Teiibrook v. Brown (17 Ind. 410) 124

Ten Eyck v. Runk (31 N. J. L. 428) 621

»."Vaiiderpool (8 .John. 120) 795

Tennell v. Ford (30 Ga. 707) 881

Tennent v. Pattnns (0 Leigh, 190) 1022

Tenney v. Poor (14 Gray, 500) 1036

Tennison r. Teiinison (40 Mo. 77) 641

Tennv v. Laslev (80 Mo. 604) 819

Terhune r. Oldis (14 Atl. R., N. J. 6-?8) 829

V. White (34 N.J F:q. 98) 840

Territorv v. Redding (1 Fla. 242) 283

Terrv's Appeal (55 Pa. St. 344) 190

Estate (13 Phi^. 298) 1072

Terrv v. Bale (1 Dem. 452) 1142

V. Dayton (31 Barb. 519) 1187, 1214

V. Edininster (9 Pick. 355, note) 103

V. Ferguson (8 Port. 500) 648, 1142

V. Robins (5 Sm. & M. 291) 602

V. Smith (42 N. J. Eq. .504) 884, 952

V. Vest (11 Ired. L. 05) 793, 794

r. Wilson (63 Mo. 493) 641

Tertrou v. Comeau (28 La. An 633) 1031

Terwillinger v. Brown (44 N. Y. 237) 702,

1084
Teschemacher v. Thompson (18 Cal. 11) 577
Teverbaugh v. Hawkins (82 Mo. 180) 1031,

1047

Tevis V Tevis (23 Mo. 256) 782, 805

Thacher v. Dunham (5 Grav, 20) 1140

Thackara r. Miutzer (K'O Pa. St 151) 9,56

Thatcher v. Phinnev (7 Allen, 146) 609

Thayer v. Boston (15 Grav, 347) 893

r. Finnegan (134 Ma.ss. 62) 1098

r. Homer (11 Met. 104) 584

V. Lane (Harr. Jlich. 247) 1034

V. Spear (58 Vt. .327) 958

V. Thaver (7 Pick. 209) 1245

r. Tha'ver (14 Vt. 107) 247

V. Wellington (9 Allen, 283) 968, 1018

r. AVinchester (133 Mass. 447) 330

The Euphrates (8 Cr. 385) 1208

Theller r. Such (57 Cal. 447) 296, .323. 344

Thellupon r. Woodford (4 Ves. 227) 884, 917

Thellusson v. Woodford (13 Ves. 209) 500

Thelusson v. Smith (2 Wheat. 396) 771

Theological Societv v. Attornev General

(135 Mass. 285) " ' 920, 931

The Pizarro (2 Wheat. 227) 1208

The Protector (9 Wall 087) 8 '7

The St. Lawrence (8 Cr. 4.34) 1208

CXXVl

TABLE OF CASES.

rago
Thibnfleaux's Succession (-38 La. An.

7Jti) 1207

Thiuliaut V. Sebastian (10 Ind. 454) 4!i-2

'Ihinies i'. Stunipttt-W Kan. M) i^l"-^

Ihomas V. Adams (10 III. iil'J)^ ^1*'

V. AttoiMifV General (2 Y. & Col.

525) " 1^"^

V. Benlon (4 Dedans. 17) '.'01

V. Bonnie ((Ki Tex. 635) 12tJ4

V. Biulei- (Venir. 217) 404, 510

r. Cameron (10 Wend. 579) 410

V. Conns (5 Unsli, 273) 0T8. !»80

1'. Chamberlain (30 Oil. St. 112) 840, 803
i: Uavis (76 Mo. 72) 002

I,. Dnnias (07 Ala. 271) 1131

V. KUmaker (1 Pars. Lq. 98) 928

r. Frederick (9 Gill & J. 115) 1103

V. (iannnel (0 Leigh, 9) 251

V. Hanson (44 Iowa, 051) 237

V. Harkness (13 Bush, 23) 008

V. Hesse (34 Mo. 13) 243, 201

V. Hiec;ins (47 Md. 439) 900

r. Kni'i;hton (23 Md. 318) 538

V. Le Baron (8 Met. 3.55) 1067

V. IMcElwee (3 Strobh . L. 131) 777

V. Morrisett (76 Ga. 384) 493

f. I'eonle (107 111. 517) 4.52

r. Rector (23 VV.Va. 26) 989

V. Scruciis (10 Yerp. 400) 738

V. Simpson (3 Pa. St. 00) 3.50

V. Stanlev (4 Snepd,411) 745

r Stevens (4 .lohn. Ch. 007) 893

V. Stump (02 Mo. 275) 4-3

V. Tanner (6 T. B. Mon. 52) 441

V. Thomas (15 B. Mon. 178) 803

r. Thomas (108 Ind. 576) 8^2

V. Thomas (3 Lit. 8) '80

r. Thomas (17 N. J. Kq. 356) 110-5, 1110
r. Thomas (35 N. W 693) 271

V. White (3 Lit. 177) ^79

V. Wood (1 Md. Ch. 296) 272

Thomason v. Blackwell (5 St. &' P. 181) 582
Thomasson v. Priskell (13 Ga 253) 7!t4

Thompson's Estate (33 Barb. 3.34) 509, 535
Thompson, Ex parte (4 Bradf. 154) 84, 85
V Allen (103 Pa. St. 44) 610

n. Branch (.35 Tex. 21) 804

V. Brown (4 John. Ch. 619) 281, 282,

679, 708, 798, 1272
V. Brown (16 Mass. 172^ 435, 451, 1090
V. Canterburv (2 McCrary, 332) 757

V. Carmichael (3 Sandf. Ch. 120) 12L5,

V. Central R. R. (60 Ga. 120) 020

r. Conner (3 BradL 366) 54

V. Corbv (27 Beav. 649) 920

«. Cox (8 Jones L. 311) 1062

V. Crockett (19 Nev. 242) 040

V. Davitte (.59 Ga. 472) 71

V. Doe (8 Blackf. 330) 1034, 1035, 1037
V. Duncan (1 Tex. 485) 712

V. Gant (14 Lea, 310) 8^8, 960

, V. Heffernan (4 Drurv & W. 285) 49, 129
V. Hoop (6 Oh. St. 480) 271, 9.50

V. Huckett (2 Hill, S. C 347) 535, 571
V. ,To^•ner (71 N. C. 369) 1040

V. Knight (23 Ga. 399) 588

V. Kvner (05 Pa. St. 368) 40, 42. 47

V. McDonald (2 Dcv. & B. Eq. 4;3) 898
V, McGaw(2 Watts. 101) 1217

V. Mills (30 Ind. 528) CU

Page
Thompson v. Morgan '5 S. & R. 289) 261

V. Munger (15 Tex. 523) 1077

V. Onlev (90 N. C 9) 831

r. I'nhwr (2 Rich. Eq. 32) 632

V. Pincludl (II Mod. 177) 387

V. Reno liann (9 I'ac. 121) 848

r. Samson (04 Cal. 33(1) 501. 5(i8

V. Sandtord (13 (ia, 238) 1044

V. Schmidt (3 Hill S. C. 156) 991

V. Smith (13 Atl. 639) 758

V. Swoope (24 Pa. St. 474) 913

V. Tavlor(71 N. Y. 217) 804

V. Thomas (.30 Miss. 152) 1239

V. Thompson (51 Ala. 493) 180, 215

V. Thompson (1 Coll. 388) 889

V. Thompson (3 Dem. 409) 908, 989

V. Thompson (I Jones L. 430) 2-32

V. Thompson (0 Munf. 514) 599

V. Thompson (4 Oh. St. 3: 3) 1105

V. Thompson (12 Tex. 327) 120, 125

r. Tolmie (2 Pet. 157) 32-3

V. Tracv (60 N. Y. 174) 1203

V. White (45 Me. 445) 645, 6-56

V. Whitman (18 Wall. 4.57) 452

V. WHiitmarsh (100 N. Y. 35) 828

V. Wi'son(2N. H. 291) 368,4.40

r Winnebago Co. (48 Iowa, 155) 648
V. Young (25 Md. 450) 906

Thomps(ms r. jNIeek (7 Leigh, 419) 512, 534
Thomson's Appeal (89 Pa. St. 36) 879

Estate (12 Phila. 36) 1230

Thomson v. Norris (20 N. J. Eq. 489) 933
V. Thomson (1 Bradf. 24) 663

Thorn's Appeal (3.5 Pa. St. 47) 1046

Thorn v. Garner (42 Hun, 507) 1007, 1137,

1 1 -!8

V. Ingram (25 Ark. 52) 1059

Thornbnrg r. Thornbnrg ( 18 W. Va. 522) 227

Thorndike v. Barrett (2 INIe. 312) 1044

r. Boston (1 Met. 242) 442

Thome's Case (4 Sw. & Tr. 36) 55

Thornton r. Burch (20 Ga. 791) 598

V. Howe (31 Beav. 14) 909

r. Mehring(117 111. 55) 593

V. ]\loore (61 Ala. 347) 52()

r. ]\rulquinne (12 Iowa, 549) 1030, 1046

V. Thornton (45 Ala. 274) 2<>3, 205

V. Winston (4 Leigh, 152) 511, 514, 516

Thorp V. Munro (47 Hun, 246) 1097

Thrasher v. Ingram (32 Ala. 045) 8,8, 992

Throckmorton v. Hobbv (1 P.iownl. 51) 585

Thrupp V. Collett (26 Beav. 125) 907

Thrustout V. Croppin (2 W^ Bl 801) 507

Thumb V. Gresham (2 Met. Ky. 300) 44()

Thurber v. Chambers (66 N. V. 42) 8/4

Thursby v. Myers (57 Ga. 155) 991

Thurston v. Doane (47 Me. 79) 645

V. Lowder (40 Me. 197) 64o

V. Maddocks (0 Allen, 427) 201

V. Sinclair (79 Ya. 101) 1012

Thweattv. Redd(.50(ia. 181) 8^2

Thvrne v. Glengall (2 H. L. Cas. 131) 9<5

Tibbats V. Berry (10 1!. Mon. 473) 469

Tichborne r. Tichbornc (L. R 2 P. lV D. 41) 402

Tickle V. Quinn (1 Dem. 425) 720, 727, 98 >

Ticknor's Estate (13 Mich. 44) 9 2

Ticknor v. Harris (14 N. H. 272) 1232, 12 .4

Tiddr. Quinn (.52 N.H. 341) 212

Tiebout V. IMillican (61 Tex. 514) 191, 196

Ticmann r. Molliter (71 Mo. 512) 674

r. Ticmann (34 Tex. 522) 204

TABLE OF CASES,

CXXVll

Tier v. Pennell (1 Edw. Ch. .'io-t) WV-i

Tiuniiiii r. Ik'iiiu (2 Oh. ;i8;i) 1048

Tiei-s r. Tifi-s (1)8 N. V. oG8) 88-t

Tift r. CoUior (2 S. K. II. !)«) 12G4. 12(;7

TitYt r. I'urttM- (8 N. Y. 5lti) '.»ti4

'J'ifiiiei- r. McGclice (GO .^li>s. 185) I0u8

Tilliv V Tilbv (2 Dem. 514) 959

Tilden, III re" (98 N. Y. 4;J4) ll.'K)

Mait.Tof (5 Dem. 2;U)) 12:J4

V. Dows (2 Deiii. 489) ;i45

V. Dows (.5 Dem. 240) 345, 1235, 12:iti

V. Tildeii (13 (Jrav, 103) 86, 472, 972

Tilshmaii v. Steiiart 4 Harr. & J. 156) 02

Tiliett v. Avillett (90 N. C. 551) 1047

Tillev V Bi-idf,a's (105 III. 336) 1077

Tillinghast i' Bradford (5 K. I. 205) 956

V Wheatou (8 K I. 536) 119

Tillman v. Bowman (08 Ir)wa, 450) 814

V. Davis (95 N. Y. 17) 903

Tillotson V Race (22 N. Y 122) 981

V. Tillotson (34 Conn. 335) 283

Tillson r. .Small (80 Me 90) 345, 1194, 1235

Tillv r. Tillv (2 Bl. Ch. 436) 444, 445

Tilton V. Society (60 N. H. 377) 893, 1250

V. Tilton (32 N. H.257) 873

V. Tilton (41 N. H. 479) 1040, 1194

Timherlake v. Parish (5 Dana, 345) 273

Timbers c. Katz (6 \V. & S. 290) 641

Tiniinons v. Timmoiis (6 Ind. 8) 1034, 1038

Timothv V. Farr (42 Vt. 43) 1196

TiiulaU" ('. Tindall (24 N. .T. Eq. 512) 944

Tiner v. Christian (27 Ark. .306) 263, 1164

Tinkham v. Smith (56 Vt. 187) 1237

Tiniien v. Mebane (10 Tex. 246) 1247

Tirrel v. Kenney (137 Mass. 30) 205

Tisdale v. Conn. Life Ins. Co. (26 Iowa,

170) 445

V. Jones (38 Barb. 523) 608

Titcomb's Estate (Mvr. 55) 198

Titlow V. Titlow (51 Ba. St. 216) 42

Titmaii V. Moore (43 111. 169) 200

Titreriiii;toii i-. Hooker (58 Mo. 593) 340, 356,

658, 659,731,850, 1027, 1028, 10.J9,1107, 12fi3

Tittm;m c. lul wards (27 Mo. A pp. 492) .581

Titus V. Titus (26 N. .J. Eq. Ill) 987, 988

Tobelman v. Hildebrandt (72 Cal. 31-3) 1126

Tobev V. Miller (54 Me. 480) 424, 425

Tobii'is V. Francis (3 Vt. 425) 603

V. Ketchum (32 N Y. 319) 268

Toby V. .\lL-n (3 Kan. 399) 842

Todd's Will (2 Watts & S. 145) 55

Todd 11. Bradford (17 Mass. 567) 856

I'. Davenport (22 S. C. 147) 391, 6J5

V. Moore (I l.ei^-h, 457) 702

i\ Terry (26 Mo. .App 598) 817

V. Will"is (66 Tex. 704) 407, 748. 749

V. \Vn'j;ht (12 Heisk. 442) 402

Toebbe v. Williams (80 Ivv. (i61) 62, 488

Toledo. P. & W. It. Co. r Curtenius (65

III. 120) 263

T.)ler v. Toler (2 Patt. cK: H. 71) 1083

Tol.son V Tolson (10 (Jill & .1. 1.59) 905

Toman v. Dunlop (18 Pa. St. 72) 915

Tome's Appeal (50 Pa. St 285) 326

Tomkins's Estate (12 Cal. 114) 214, 1075

Tomkins v. Tomkins (1 Bail. 92) 44

r. Tomkins (18 S. C. 1) 282, 1158

Tomlin V. Beck (1 Turn. & R. 438) 420

V. .lavne (14 B. ^Mon. 160) 270

Tomlinsoh v. Bury (145 Mass 346) 964, 968,

986, 1110

Pac;e

Tompkins's Estate (12 Cal. 114) 214, 1075

Tonijikiiis v. Fonda (4 Pai. 4i8) 255

V. Tompkins (18 S. C. 1) 7;;8

V. Tompkins (1 Sto. 547) 326

V. Weeks (26 Cal. 50) 865

Tomppert r. Tumppert (Li Bush, 326) 2^4

Toms I'. Williams (41 Mich. .552, 883, 884, 942

Toney v. Spragiiis (80 Ala. 541) 1016

Tongue v. Nut well (13 Md. 415) 943

Tooke V. Hardeman (7 Ga. 20) 267, 269

V. Hartley (2 Dick. 785) 859

Toome's Estate (54 Cal. 509) 42

Tootle I'. Coldwell (30 Kan. 125) 6o9

Torrance v. McDougald (12 Ga. 526) 531, .564

Torrence v. Davidson (92 N. C. 437) 678, 708

Torre V v. Bank (9 I'ai. 649) 702

V. Minor (I Sin. ^. M. Ch 489) 274

Touzanne's Succession (36 La. An. 420) 1137,

1164

Tower's Appropriation (9 W. & S. 103) 951

Towers v. Hagner (3 Whart. 48) 611

Towle V. Swasev (106 xMass. 100) 636, 964

965, 984, 985, 1007

V. Wood (60 N. H. 434) 57

Towne v. Ammidowii (20 Pick. 535) 558

Townsend's Appeal (106 Pa. St. 268) 1006

Succession (37 La. An. 408) 588

Succession (3 So. H. 488) 307

Towi'.send v. Boi^art (5 l!edt. 93) 31

V. Downer C32 Vt. 183) 492

V. Gordon (19 Cal. 188) 324, 562

r. Mavnard (45 Pa. St. 198) 610

r. Pell (3 I)ein.367) 571

r. Kadclitte (44 111. 446) 1246

V. Tallant (33 Cal. 45) 10-30, 1052

« Townseud (4 Coldw. 70) 466, 497

V. Townsend (2 Sandf. 711) 265

Townshend v. Brooke (9 Gill. 90) 348

V. Townshend (7 Gill, 10) 47D

Towiison r. Tickell (3 B. ^^c Aid. 31) 992

Tozer v. Tozer (2 Am. L. Reg. 510) 181

Trabue v. Harris (1 Met. Kv. 597) 8.)8

Tracev r. Shumate (22 W. Va. 474) 2 17

Tracy r. Card (2 Oli. St. 431) 653, 749, 1139

('. Murray (44 Mich. 109) 268. 272

V. Strong (2 Conn. 659) ii'iS

Trafford v. Young (3 Teim. Ch. 496) 1031

Trammel v Philleo (33 Tex. 395) 699, 1165,

1176

Trammell v. Neal (1 Tex. Unr. Cas. 51) 214

Trappes v. Harter (3 Tvrw. 603) 601

Trask r. Baxter (48 111.' 406) 257

V. Doiioghue (1 Aik. 370) 385, 410

Travis v. Iiislev (28 La. An. 784) 57G

Tiawick v. Trawick (67 Ala. 271) 1127, 1131

Travlor v. Cabanne (8 Mo. App. 131) 817

'v. Marshall (11 Ala. 4.58) 695

Treadwell r. Cordis (5 Grav, 341) 353

Treat's Appeal (30 (\)nn. 113) 923, 9.'i2

Treat v. Fortune (2 Bradf. 116) 821

V. Treat (13 Atl. 684) 11.53

Trecothick v. Austin (4 Mas. 16) 359, 365,

374, 643, 646, 665

Tredwell v. Graham (88 N. C. 208) 832

Tremble v. Jones (3 Murphv, 579) 1272

Treinmel r. Kleiboldt (75 Mo. 255) 276

V. Kleiboldt (6 Mo. App. 549) 276

Trenholm v. Morgan (5 S. E. 721) 121

Trent r. Trent (24 Mo 307) 10:3

Trescot V. Trescot (1 IMcC. Ch. 417) 112!

Trevelvan v Lofft (83 Va. 141) 1164

CXXVlll

TABLE OF CASES.

V. Bayne (7 Ves. 508)
Trimmier v. Trail (2 Bai. 480)

Pase

Trevelyan v. Trevelvan (1 Phillim. 140) 481

Triclie's Succes^^ioii (2'J La. An. 384) 10U4

Trigg V. Daniel (2 liibb, 301) 115.3

Trimble v. Uzieduzvilu (.57 How. Pr. 208) .Ha

V. Faris.s (78 Ala. 2G0) 788, 843

V. James (40 Ark. 393) 11-32, 1152, 1159

V. Marshall (GO Iowa, 233) 843

Trimmer v. Adams (18 N. J. Eq. 505) 1130,

1209
981

^ 550, 701

Triplett v. Wells (Litt. Cas. 49) 533

Tripner i\ Ai)ralianis (47 I'a. St. 220) 609

Triune v. Frazier (4 H. & .1. 440) 925. 935
Trish %: Newell (02 111. 190) 32, 38. 39

Trott V. West (9 Yerg. 433) 846

Trotter v. Trotter (40 Miss. 704) 844, 1187
V. White (10 Sni. & M. 007) 366

Trotters v. Winchester (1 Mo. 413) 72, 497
Trongh's Estate (75 Pa. St. 115) 119

Troup V. Kice (55 Miss. 278) 1138

V. Wood (4 .John. Ch. 228) 402

Trowbridge v. Cross (117 III. 109) 201

V. Hoiden (.58 Me. 117) 612

True V. Morrill (28 Vt. 672) 1198

Trueinan r. 'lilden (0 N H. 201) 700

Trnett v. Cnmmons (0 111. App. 73) 423

Trumble v. Williams (18 Neb. 144) 576, 583,

752

Trust V. Harned (4 Bradf. 213) 776

Trustees v. Calhoun (25 N. Y. 422) 475

V. Dickson (1 Freem. Ch. 474) 800

V. Fleming (10 Bush, 234) 12li4

r. King (12 Mass. 546) 913

V. Peaslee, (15 N. H. 317) 8J3

V. Wilkinson (36 N. J. Eq. 141) 922

Trj-on V. Farnsworth (30 Wis. 577) 1123

V. Trvon (16 Vt. 313) 3.30, 108 J

Tuck V. Boone (8 Gill, 187) 507

Tucker v. Bellamy (4 S. E. R. 34) ]58

V. Bishop (16'N. Y. 402) 896

V. Field (5 Redf. 1.39) 46

V. Harris (13 Ga. 1) -323, .325, .500

V. Henderson (03 Ala. 280) 190

V. Inman (4 M. & Gr. 1049) 26

V. Seaman's Aid Society (7 Met. 188) 892,

923

V. Stiles (.39 Miss. 196) 897

V. Thurstan (17 Yes. 131) 103

V. Tucker (5 Ired. L. 161) 76

V Tucker (4 Keyes, 136) 349

V. Tucker (29 ^lo. 350) 128, 248

V. Tucker (32 :\Io. 464) 128

V. Tucker (28 N J. Eq. 223) 1191

V. Tucker (33 N. .J. E(|. 235) 705, 709

r. Tucker (5 N. Y. 408) 915

V. Whalev (11 R. I 543) 411

V. Williams (Dudley, 329) 417

V. Yell (25 Ark. 420) 776

Tudor V. James (53 Ga. 302) 355

V. Terrel (2 Dana, 47) 893

Tuggle V. Gilbert (1 Duy. 340) 678

Tuller, In re (79 111. 99) 104

Tullett V. Armstroi g (1 Beav. 1) 816

Tullis V. Kidd (12 Ala. 648) 480

Tunison v. Tunison (4 Bradf. 138) 69

Tunno v. Trezeyant (2 Desaus. 264) 608

Tmistall V. Pollaid (11 Leigh, 1) 364, .371,

649, 1184
Turbeville v. Gibson (5 Heisk. 565) 237

Tureaud v. Gex (21 La. An. 253) 1072, 1073

P;ij;e

Turley v. Young (5 J. J. Marsh. 133) 1230

Tuniage v. Turnage (7 Ired. Eq. 127) 1229

TurnbuU v. Endicott (3 .Sm. & M. 302) 332

Turner's Appeal (52 Midi. 398) 979

Turner v. Amsdell (3 Dem. 19) 10-36

V. Bank of No. America (4 Dall. 8) 324

V. Bennett (70 111. 203) 203

V. Benoist (50 Mo. 145) 3.34

V. Cheesman (15 N. J. Eq. 243) -37, 40,

41, 42, 43, 44

V. Child (1 Dev. L. 331) 417, 422

V. Cook (36 Ind. 129) 30, 70

V. Ellis (24 Miss. 173) 660, 1040

V. Fisher (4 Sneed, 209) 170

V. Hallowell Institution (76 Me. 527) 895

V. Horner (29 Ark. 440) 861

V. Ivie (5 Heisk. 222) 898, 917

V. Johnson Co. (14 Bush, 411) 1197

V. Kelly (67 Ala. 173) 1221

V. Linam (55 Ga. 253) 358, 368

V. Malone (24 S. C 398) 324, 326, 330

V. Martin (7 DeG. M. & G. 429) 986

V Ogden (1 Cox Lh. 316) 927

v. Scott (51 Pa. St. 126) 60

r. Street (2 Rand. 404) 1017

r. Tapscott (30 Ark. 312) 1146

V. Turner (44 Ala. 437) 228

V. Turner (30 Miss. 428) 106, 170, 213

J7. Turner (57 Miss. 775) 1100

V. Whitten (40 Ala 530) 215

Turney v. Turney (24 III. 025) 1032, 1037

r.* VV illiams (7 Yerg. 172 ) 1 125, 1 128

Turnipseed v. Fitzpatrick (75 Ala. 297) 216,

254, 259

Turpin v. Thompson (2 Met. Ky. 420) 119

V. Turinn (88 Mo. 337) ' 1215

Turvies's Case (2 Rnlle Abr. 678) 1117

Tuttle V. Robinson (33 N. H. 104) 002, 6.51,

691, 761, 764

V. Tuttle (2 Dem. 48) 940

V. Willson (10 Oh. 24) 274

Tuxbury's Appeal (67 Me. 267) 1194

Tweedy v. Bennett (31 (Jonn. 276) 766

Twitchell v Smith (.35 N. H. 48) 1207

Twitty V. Camp (1 Phill. Eq. 61) 955

V. Houser (7 S. C 153) 711

V. Martin (90 N. C. 643) 938, 941

Tylden v. Hyde (2 Sim. & St. 2.38) 716

Tyler v. Burrington (39 Wis 376) 823

V. Fleming (35 N. W. 902) 1209

V. Gardiner (35 N. Y. 5.59) 48

i\ Jewett (82 Ala. 93) 201, 210

V. Tyler (19 HI. 151) 107

r. Whitney (8 Vt. 26) 675

Tynan v. Paschall (27 Tex. 286) 90

Tyrrell v. JMorris (1 D. & B. Eq 559) 693

Tyson v. Blake (22 N. Y. 558) 874

Udny V. Udny (L. R. 1 H. L. Sc. 461) 443
Uhler V. Semple (20 N. J. Eq 288) 234

Uldrick V. Simpson (1 S. C. 283) 411, 512, 545
Ulp r. Campbell (19 Pa. St. 301) 249

Ulrich V. LitchHekl (2 Atk. 372) 895

Underbill v. Newburger (4 Redf. 499) 1188

V. Saratoga Co. (20 Barb. 455) 951

Underwood v Dismukes (Meigs. 299) 942

V. Underwood (22 W. Va. 303) 1037

Unger v. Leiter (.32 Oh. St. 210) 238, 262

Union Bank v. Hicks (67 Wis. 189) 828

IV Jolly (18 How. 503) 374, 1269

TABLE OF CASES.

CXXIX

Pase
Union Bank v. Powell (3 Fla. 175) 1057

V. Smith (4 Cr. C. C. 5()i)) 704, 11^8

Union Life Ins. Co. v. Stuveas (19 Fed.

Kep. 071) 647

United States v. Backus (G McLean, 443) 771
V. Clark (1 I'aine, (i2!J) 772

V. Cutts (1 Sumn. 133) 655

V. Duncan (4 McLean, !)!)) 267, 209

V. Duncan (4 McLean, 007) 771, 772

V. EL'Klcston (4 Sawy. 199) 7G6, 770, 772,

1140
V. Fisher (2 Cr. 358) 771, 772

V. Fox (104 U. S. 315) 378, 912

V. Hack t8 Pet. 271) 771

V. Hodson (10 Wall. 395) 554

V. Hooe (3 Cr. 73) 771

V. Hunter (5 Mas. 229) 772

V. Mav (4 Mackev, 4) 391, 551, 1252

V. Pavne (4 Dillon, 387) 443, 451, 455
V. Rickett (2 Cr. C. C. 553) 772

V. 10 Packages (2 Mason, 48) 670

V. Tappan (11 Wheat. 419) 070

V. Walker (109 U. S. 2o8) 744, 745

V. Wilev (11 Wall. 508) 847

Universalist Soc. v. Kimball (34 Me. 424) 924
Universalists V. Mever (30 Ind. 375) 1205

University's Appeal (97 Pa. St. 187) 984. 985,

987. 988
University v. Hughes (90 X. C. 537) 394, 749
University of North Carolina v. Fov (1

Murphy, 58) ' 308

Unknown Heirs v. Baker (23 111. 484) 383,

397, 501
Upchurch v. Upchurch (10 B. Mon. 102) 70
Updegraff v. Trask (18 Cal. 458) 713

Updegraph v. Commonwealth (II S. & R.

394) 908

Updike V. Tompkins (100 III. 406) 889

UpHll V. Marshall (3 Curt. Ec. 630) 101

Upham V. Emerson (119 Mass. 509) 268

Upper Appomattox Co. v. Hardings (11

Grat. 1) 621

Upshaw V. Upshaw (2 Hen. & M. 381) 209
Urev V. Urev (5 S. W. R. 8-59) 355

Urich's App'eal (86 Pa. St. 380) 874

Urmev v. W.ioden (1 Oh. St. 100) 923

Urnuhart v. Oliver (56 Ga. 344) 28

Uslier V. Richardson (29 Me. 415) 251

Usticke V. Bawden (2 Add. 116) 99

Utica Ins. Co. v. Lynch (11 Pai. 520) 705

Utlev V. Rawlins (2 D. & B. Eq. 438) 679
V. Titcomb (63 N. H. 129) 971, 972

Utterton v. Robins (1 Ad. & EI. 423) 86

Utz's Estate (43 Cal. 200) 110

Vaehell v. Jeffereys (Prec. Ch. 170) 1215

Vail's Appeal (37'Conn. 185) 340, 814. 855

Vail V. Givan (.55 Ind. 59) 574. 580

V. Male (37 N. J. Eq. .521) 584, 12.59

V. Rinehart (105 Ind. 6) 1073

Valcourt V. Sessions (.30 Ark. 515) 549

Valencia v. Bernal (20 Cal. 328) 428

Valentine v. Durvea (37 Hun, 427) 1085

V. Norton (30 Me. 194) 620

V. Kuste (93 111. .585) 1008

V. Strong (20 Md. 522) 1136

V. Valentine (2 Barb. Ch. 4-30) 1170, 1175

V. Valentine (4 Hedf. 205) 1125, 1189

Valle r. Brvan (19 Mo. 423) 1033, 1043

r. Fleming (19 Mo. 454) 1031

VOL. I. — (■

Page
Van Alst v. Hunter (5 .Johns. Ch. 148) 43
Van Alstyne v. Van Alstyne (28 N. Y,

375) 888

Vanarsdall v. Faunfleroy (7 B. Mon. 401) 277
Van Bibber v. Julian (8i xMo. 618) 748, 1041,

1183
Van Blarcom v. Dager (31 N. J. Eq.

783) 1006

Van Branier v Hoffman (2 John. Cas.

200) 1007

Vance's Succes.sion (.36 La. An. 559) 932

Succession (39 La. An. 371) 923

Vance v. Anderson (39 Iowa, 426) 493

V. Campbell (1 Dana, 229) 902

V. Crawford (4 Ga. 445) 500

V. Fisher (10 Humph. 211) 715

V. Maroney (4 Col. 47) 330, 1021, 1090

V. Nagle (70 Pa. St. 176) 611

V. Upson (04 Tex. 2G(i) 298

V. Upson (00 Tex. 470) 34

V. Vance (21 Me. 364) 265

Vancil v. Evans (4 Coldw. 340) 873

Van Cleaf y. Burns (43 Hun, 461) 228

Van Cortland v. Kip (1 Hill, 590) 113

Vanderford's Appeal (12 Atl. R.) 491 1167

Vanderhevden v. Reid (Hopk. 408) 1209

V. Vanderhevden (2 Paige, 287) 1168,

1170, 1176

Van Dermoor, In re (42 Hun, 326) 647

Vanderveer v. Alston (16 Ala. 494) 425. 4;32

Vander Volgen i-. Yates (3 Barb. Ch. 242) 933

Vandervooft, In re (1 Redf. 270) 1142

Vanderzee v. Slingerland (103 N. Y. 47) 949

Van Deusen v. Havward (17 Wend. 67) 554

Van Deuzer v. Gordon (39 Vt. Ill) 85

Vandever v. Baker (13 Pa. St. 121) 10.58

V. Freeman (20 Tex. 333) 804

Vandewalker v. Rollins (63 N. H. 400) 944,

1018
Vandigrift v. Potts (72 Ga. 665) 183

Vandiver v. Vandiver (20 Kan. 501) 195

Vandor i-. Roach (73 Cal. 614) 116

Van Doren r. Olden (19 N. J. Eq. 176) 1004
Vandruff v. Rinehart (29 Pa. St. 2-32) 65

Van Duseu's Appeal (102 Pa. St. 224) 999
Van Duyne v. Van DuA-ne (14 N. J. Eq.

49) ' " 500

Vanduzer v. McMillan (-37 Ga. 299) 284

Vandyke v. Chandler (10 N. J. L. 49) 857
Van Dyke v. Vanderpool (14 N. J. Eq.

198) " 942

Van F>pps v. Van Deusen (4 Pai. 64) 640

Van Gieson v. Howard (7 X. J. Kq. 462) 938
Van Gorder v. Smith (99 Ind. 404) 877

Van Guilder v. Justice (56 Iowa. 669) 268
Van Guvsling v. Van Kuren (-35 N. Y. 70) 31
Van Hariswvck v. Wiese (44 Barb. 494) 65
Van Hook r. Letchford (35 Tex. 598) 807
Vanhook V. Vanhook (1 D. & B. Eq. 589) 942
Van Horn v. Ford (16 Iowa, 578) 1002

V. Keenan (28 111. 445) 41

V. Teasdale (9 N. J. L. 379) 797

Vanhorn v. Walker (27 Mo. App. 78) 345,

1235
Van Home v. Campbell (100 X. Y. 287) 947,

948

V. Fonda (5 .John. Ch. 388) 512

Van Houten v. Post (32 N. J. Eq. 709) 978,

980, 11.39

V. Post (.39 N. J. Eq. 51) 972

Van Huss v. Rainbolt (2 Coldw. 139) 42, 43

cxxx

TABLE OF CASES.

Van Kleeck v. Dutch Church (20 Wend.

457 88-t, 944

V. Reformed Church (6 Pai. 600) 882

Vnnleer v. Vaiileer (3 Tenii. Ch. 23) 232, 247

Vanmeter v. Jones (3 N. J. Eq. 520) G«8, 1131

V. Lore (33 111. 200) 1206

Van Nest's Estate (Tuck. 130) 1171

Van Nest v. Van Nest (43 N. J. Eq. 126) 908,

987
Van Nostrand v. Moore (52 N. Y. 12) 873
V. Wripht (Hill & Den. 260) 1035

Vanpelt v. Veglite (14 N. J. L. 207) 738

Van Kensselaer v. Kearnev (11 How. 297) 203
Van Saun v. Farlev (4 Daly, 165) 812

Van Slyke v. Schmeck (10 Pai. 301) 1199
Van Steenwvck v. Washburn (59 Wis.

483) ' 208, 270, 271

Van Tuvl v. Van Tuvl (57 Barb. 235) 260
Van Vechten v. Keator (63 N. Y. 52) 873
V. Pearson (5 Pai. 512) 949

Van Vliet's Appeal (102 Pa. St. 574) 1099
Van Voorhis v. Brintnall (86 N. Y. 18) 157
Van Vronker v. Eastman (7 Met. 157) 239
Van Wert r. Benedict (1 Bradf. 114) 27

Van Wickle v. Landry (29 La. An. 330) 210
Van Winkel v. Van Houten (3 N. J. Eq.

172) 1099

Van Winkle v. Schoonmaker (15 N. J.

En. 381) 26

Van Wvck v. Bloodgood (1 Bradf. 155) 942

Vanzandt v. Vanzandt (23 III. 536) 204

Vanzant v. Bigham (76 Ga. 759) 991

V. Morris (25 Ala. 285) 432, 898

Varnell v. Loague (9 Lea, 158) 399

Varner v. Bevil (17 Ala. 286) 442, 494, 495

Varnnm v. Meserve (8 Allen, 156) 596

Varrell r. Wendell (20 N. H. 431) 904

Vastine v. Dinan (42 Mo. 269) 749

Vaughan v. Browne (2 Str. 1106) 420

V. Dickes (20 Pa. St. 509) 915, 949

V. Farmer (90 N. C. 607) 720

V. Holmes (22 Ala. 593) 1043

V. Northup (15 Pet. 1) 358, 363, 651

V. Vaughan (30 Ala. 329) 953

Vaughn v. Barrett (5 Vt. 333) 359, 440

V. Deloatch (65 N. C. 378) 648, 715, 1142

V. Lovejov (34 Ala. 437) 963

r. Suggs '(82 Ala. 357) 356

Vawter v. Missouri R. R. Co. (84 Mo.

679) 630

Veal V. Fortson (57 Tex. 482) 434

Veazey ». Whitehouse (10 N. H. 409) 1097
Veazie Bank v. Young (53 Md. 555) 1195
Vedder v. Saxton (40 Barb. 188) 171

Venable v. Mitchell (29 Ga. 500) 393

Ventress v. Smith (10 Pet. 161) 695, 1021
Verdier ». Verdier (8 Rich. 135) 70, 1094
Vermilvea v. Beattv (0 Barb. 429) 369, 050
Verner's Estate (6 "Watts, 250) 737, 1138

Vernet v. Williams (3 Dem. 349) 1005

Vernon v. Curtis (2 H. B1.18) 422

V. Egmont (1 Bligh, n. s. 554) 790

V. Kirk (30 Pa. St. 218) 475

V. Manvers (31 Beav. 023) 1104

V. Valk (2 Hill Ch. 257) 1022

Vernor v. Coville (54 Mich. 281) 722

Verplanck, In re (91 N. Y. 439) 323,351. 352
Verrv v. McClellan (6 Gray, 535) 1047

Vezey v. .Jamson (1 Sim. & St. 69) 934

Tick V. Vicksburg (1 How. Miss. 379) 534,

561

Page

Vickers v. Cowell (1 Beav. 529) 592

V. Pound (0 H. L. Cas. 885) 968

V. Vickers (L. R. 37 Ch. Div. 525) 978

Victory v. Krauss (41 Ilun, 533) 623

Vidal V. Comniagcre (13 La. An. 510) 140, 141

V. Girard (2 How. 127) 908, 920, 927, 958

Villard v. Robert (1 Strobh. Eq. 393) 746,

1147, 1182

Vincent v. Martin (79 Ala. 540) 283, 296, 1132

V. Piatt (5 Harr. 104) 596

V. Spooner (2 Cash. 467) 204

V. Vincent (1 Heisk. 333) 182, 220

Vining V. Hall (40 Miss. 83) 96

Virgin V. Gaither (42 111. 39) 121

Vittum V. Gilnian (48 N. H. 416) 617, 625

Voelcknert). Hudson (1 Sandf. 215) 257

Vogel's Succession (16 La. An. 139) 445

Succession (20 La. An. 81) 384, 409, 576

Vogel V. Vogel (22 Mo. 161) 608

Von Arx v. Wemple (43 N. J. L. 154) 841

Von Kettler v. Johnson (57 111. 109) 1249

Voorhees v. Bank of U. S. (10 Pet. 449) 1046

V. McGinnis (48 N.Y. 278) 603

V. Stoothoff (11 N. J. L. 145) 1137

V. Voorhees (6 N. J. I':q. 511) 913

V. Voorhees (18 N. J. Eq. 223) 1124

V. Voorhees (39 N. Y. 463) 480

Voorhies v. Baxter (1 Abb. Pr. 43) 283

Voorhis v. Childs (17 N. Y. 354) 287

Voting Laws, In re (12 R. I. 586) 277

Vowinckel v. Patterson (114 Pa. St. 21) 1244

Vreedenburgh v. Calf (9 Pai. 128) 332, 571,

1203

Vreeland v. Jacobus (19 N. J. Eq. 231) 237

V. Rvno (26 N. J. Eq. 160) 28

V. VVeeland (16 N. J. Eq. 512) 855, 1154

V. Vreeland (13 N. J. L. 512) 697

Vroom V. Van Home (10 Pai. 549) 365, 426

Vulhamy v. Noble (3 Mer. 593) 288

Waddill V. Martin (3 Ired Eq. 562) 1170

Wade's Appeal (29 Pa. St. 328) 776

Wade V. Amer. Soc. (4 Sm & M. 670) 1201

V. American Colonization Society

(7 Sm. & U. 003) 927, 929

V. Bridges (24 Ark. 509) 407

V. Hardy (75 Mo 394) 832

V. Jones (20 Mo. 75) 181

V. Kalbfleisch (58 N. Y. 282) 624

V. Labdell (4 Cush. 510) 3.50

V. Nazer (1 Rob. Ec. 627) 101

V. Odeneal (3 Dev. L. 423) 336

V. Pritchard (69 111. 279) 680, 681, 682
V. Rus.sell (17 Ga. 425) 1014

V. Wade (1 Wa.sh. C. C 477) 1138

Wadsworth's Succession (2 La. An. 966) 1053
Wadsworth v. Chick (55 Tex. 241) 346

V. Henderson (16 Fed. R. 447) 1264

Wager ?'. Barbour (4 S. E. K. 842) 833

V. Wager (89 N Y. 161) 354, 719, 1117.

1123

V. Wager (96 N. Y. 164) 937

Wagner's Appeal (43 Pa. St. 102) 893

Wacrner v. McDonald (2 Harr. & J 346) 55,

61
V. Varner (50 Iowa, 532) 140

Wagstaff V. Lowerre (23 Barb. 209) 1175
Wahrmund v. Merritt (60 Tex. 24) 210

Wainford v. Barker (1 Ld. Ravm. 2-32) 1115
Wainwright's Appeal (89 Pa. St. 220) 48

TABLE OF CASES.

CXXXl

Wait, Appellant (7 Pick. 100) (;45

V. Holt (58 N. H. 4C7) G13, 7r,7

V. Huntington (40 (jonn. !)) 925

Waitc i\ Breeze (18 Hun, Wi) 4fi

Waitedeld r. ('ainpl)ell (20 Me. 3<M) 105(;

r. I'hclps (.■i7 N. H. 21t(j) 885

M'akenian r. Hazleton (:{ Harb. Ch. 148) 678

WalJen r. Ciianibers (7 Oil. St. 30)
V. (ii-iiilfv (;JG III. ■52;i)
V. riiillips (5 S. \V. U 757)

Waldniii r. Simmons (28 Alii. 029)
V. Walilron (4 Hiadf. 114)

Wales II. Newboiild (0 Midi. 40)
V. Willard (2 Mass. 120)

Walker's Appeal (110 I'a. St. 419)
Estate (3 Kawle, 229)
Estate (9 Serg. & K. 22.'5)

0.59

1077

145

287

1105

G80

448

1142

1108

11 G3, 1170.
1172

Walker v. Bradlev (3 Pick. 201) 8.V2

r. Brooks (99' N. C. 207) 121!)
V. Bvers (14 Ark. 246) 429, 809, 817, 842,
1207, 1208

V. Cheever (35 N. H. 339) 798

V. Cheever (39 N. H. 420) 845

V. Covar(2 S. C. 10) 8-59

r. Craig (18 HI. 110) 093

V. Crosland (3 Rich. Eq. 23) 552

V. Deaver (79 Mo. 064) 1200

V. Deaver (5 Mo. App. 139) 242
V. Diehl (79 111. 473) 810, 1036, 1038, 1 155

r. Doughertv (14 Ga. 653) 401

V. Drew (20'Ela. 908) 817

V. Galbreath (3 Head, 315) 383

V. Hall (1 Pick. 19) 667

r. Hill (17 Mass. 380) 852

V. Hunter (17 Ga. 304) 473

V. Johnson (82 Ala. 347) 997

V. Johnston (70 X. C. 576) 896

V. Lvman (0 Pick. 458) 857, 1199

V. Mav (2 Hill Ch. 22) 426

I'. Morris (14 Ga. 323) 570

V. Murphv (34 Ala. 591) 593

V. Patter.-<on (.36 Me. 273) 795

V. Perrvnvm (23 Ga. 3i)9) 500

V. Pritcliard (121 111. 221) 948, 999

V. Schuvlcr { 10 Wend. 480) 230

V. Sherman (20 Wend. 636) 603

V. SUeene (3 Head, 1) 74

V. Torrance (12 Ga. 604) 505, 576

V. Walker (17 Ala. 390) 873, 1007

V. Walker (2 Curt. 854) 106

V. Walker (14 Ga. 242) 41

V. Walker (25 Ga. 420) 913, 923

V. Walker (2 111. App. 418) 262

V. Walker (14 Oh. St 157) 56,58

V. Walker (1 Mo. App. 404) 443

V. Walker (25 Mo. 367) 641

V. Wetherell (6 Ves. 473) 1013

t'. Wigginton (50 Ala. 579) 808

V. Williamson (25 Ga. 549) 895

v. Wootten (18 CJa. 119) 11.32

V. Young (37 Te.x. 519) 198

AVall f. Hinds (4 Grav, 256) 605
Wallace r. Dubois (0.5 Md. 153) 940, 978, 980

V. Gatchell (100 III. 315) 803, 825

V. Hall (19 Ala. 307) 257, 10.59

V. Hawes (79 Me. 177) 884

V. Long (105 Ind. 522) 59

V. Nichols (56 Ala. 321) 1065, 1081

V. Owen (71 Ga. 544) 1220, 1223

V. Pomfret (11 Ves. 542) 981

P.ifre

Wallace r. Keddick (119 111. 151) 1214, 1226

V. Walker (.37 (ia. 205) .-,7()

V. Wallace (23 N. H. 148) 964, 967, 984,

1104
V. Wallace (3 N. .F. Eq. 616)
Wallahan c. IngersoU (117 111. 123)

r. I'eo|)le (40 III. 103)
AValler r. Logan (5 15. xMoii. 515)
I'. .Mardns(2l) Mo. 25)
r Kav (48 Ala. 4(i8)
Wallis r. IL.dson (2 Atk. 116)
r. Wallis (114 .Mass. 510)
V. Wallis (1 Winst. 78)
Walls V. Stewart (16 Pa. St. 275)

V. Walker (37 Cal. 424)
Wallv V. Wallv (41 Miss. 657)
Wal|)ole r. Ai>tliorp (L. K. 4 Eq. 37)

r. Oxford (3 Ves. 402)
Walsh's Will (1 Tuck. 132)
Walsh (-•. Kdmonson (19 Mo. 142)
V. Kelly (34 Pa. St. 84)
V. Ketchum (84 Mo. 427)
V. Lailin (2 Dem. 498)
V. Mathews (11 Mo. 131)
V. Reis (50 III. 477)
V. Reis (60 111. 277)
V. Sexton (55 Harb. 251)
Walston V. White (5 Md. 297)
Walter's Will (64 Wis. 487)
Walter )i. Ford (74 Mo. 195)
V. Radcliffe (2 Des. 577)
Walters v. Hill (27 Grat. 388)
V. Jordan (13 lied. L. 361)
V. Nettleton (5 Cush. 544)
V. Prestidge {30 Tex. 65)
r. Ratlift(5 Hush. 575)
Walton's Estate (8 DeG. M. & G. 173)
Walton V. Avery (2 Dev. & B. Eq. 405)

495
306
336
593
255
1182
1.55
484
404
966
864, 1126
180
968
56
472
1208
250, 265
609
70
961
205, 262
205
120
891
60
122
843
570
227
024
808
469, 4!t7
882
1166.
1168
631
334
1077
955
887, 890
102, 965,

V. Bonham (24 Ala. 513)
I'. Pearson (85 N. C. 34)
V. Reager (20 Tex. 103)
V. Torrev (1 Harr. Ch. 259)
V. Walton (7 J. J. Marsh. 58)
V. Walton (7 John. Ch. 258)

967, 973, 974
Walworth v. Abel (52 Pa. St. 370) 434

V. Ballard (12 La. An. 245) 429

Wampler v. Wampler (9 Md. 540) 52

Wainsloy v. Wamslev (26 W. Va. 45) 685, 811
Wankford v. Wankford (1 Salk. 299) 383,
507, 513, 789
Wanzer v. Eldridge (33 N. J. Eq. 511) 1057,

1064

Waples r. l\Iarsh (19 Iowa, 381) 1022

r. Waples (1 Harr. 392) 1010

Warbass v. Armstrong (10 N. J Eq. 263) 1163

Ward's Will (35 N. W. R. 731) 109

Ward, In re (1 Hradf. 254) 534

V. Barrows (■?. Oh. St. 241) 881

V. Hevill (10 Ala 197) 419

V. Blackwood (41 Ark. 295) 623

V. Cameron (37 Ala. 691) 581

V Dodd (41 N. J. Eq. 414) 944

t\ Ford (4 Redf. 34) 1164,1176

V. Kilpatrick (85 N. Y. 413) 604

V. Mavfield (41 Ark. 94) 201

V. Oates (43 Ala. 515) 492, 493

V. Thompson (6 Gill & J. 349) 517

r. Tinkham (.32 N. W. Rep. 901) 690

V. Turner (7 Ired. Eq. 73) 093

cxxxii

TABLE OF CASES.

Page

Ward V. Turner (2 Ves. Sr. «1) 121 123 125
V. War.! (120 111.11 1) HO, 980, l^J

Page
722

8;i<j

718, 873

1081)

171

1146

724

930

829

553

242, 202

979

231

1109
6
109
900
396
288
417
85
10.32
110. 267, 272,
985, 986, 989
103
1000

«. Ward (37 Mich. 2ij3)
D.Ward (105 N. Y. 68)
V. Williams (45 lex. 617)

„. Wolf (56 Iowa, 465)
Warden v. Hurts (2 '^\ff>\\^\^^.^
Wardwell v. McDowel (31 111. 364)
Ware v. Fisher (2^\'^ate^, 578)

1). Howlev (e8 Iowa, 633)

V Jackson (24 Me. 106)

V. Owens (42 Ala. 212)

r. People (19 111. App. 196)

V. St. Louis Bagfiing Co. (47 Ala. 067) .93

V. Wave (8 Me. 42) *'

V. Washington ((! hm.Ji M- V37)
Wareham «. Sellers (9 G.ll & J. 98

Warley t>. Warley (Bai. Eq. 397) 908, 989,

Warner V. Bates (98 Mass. 274)

V. Beach (4 Gray, 162)
«. Sprigs (02 Md. 14)
Warren i'. Carter (92 Mo^288)
V. Farmer (100 Ind. 593)
V. Hall (0 Dana, 450)
V. Harding (2 K. I. 133)
■y. Hearne (82 Ala. .554)
i-. Morris (4 Del. Ch. 289)

V. Tavlor (56 Iowa, 182)

V. Webb (68 Me 133)

«. Williams (25 Mo. App. 22) 2-^i

Wartnaby, Goods of (4 Notes of C 4<6) 486

Warwick V. Grevdle (1 mull. 122) 5.J

^,. State (5 Ind. 350) 1"J5

Washburn v. Goodman (17 Pick. 519) 284

V. Gould (3 Story, 122) J^-J*

«. Hale (10 Pick. 429) 666, 708, ll&.i

V. Sewall (9 Met. 280) a--^

.. VaaSteenwyk (32 Mmn. 336)^^^2-2.

V. Washburn (10 Pick. 374) 164 165, 169

V. Emery (4 Jones Eq. 32)

V. McCaughan (34 Miss. 304)

V Sasser (6 Ired. Eq. 336)
Wass V. Bucknam (38 Me. 356)
Wassell V. Armstrong (35 Ark. 247)

V. Tunnah (25 Ark. 101) .
Waterbury .. Netherland (0 Hejsk. 512) 270

AVaterhouse v. Bo^^'^e O^^l/'i.,'^"- ^°' i? o
Waterman v. Alden (115 111. 83) 1^-

„. Rail (04 How. Pr. 368)
r. Bigham (2 Hill, S. C. 512)
V. Dockray (78 Me. 139)
V. Dockrav (79 Me. 149)
r. Hawkins (63 Me. 156)
Waters v. Collins (.3 Dem. 3<4)
V. Crossen (41 Iowa, 261)
V. Cnllen (2 Bradf. 354)
V. Davis (2 S. W. R. 695)
r. Engle (53 Md. 179)
V. Howard (1 Md. Ch. 112)

Waters r. Margerum (60 Pa. St. 39)

r. Ogden (2 Doug. 45) '""

f.Sticknev (12 Allen, 1) 451 4J7

,-. Tazewell (9Md.291)

V.Williams (38 Ala. 680)

Watherell r. Howells (1 ('ami>. 227)

Watkiiis V. Adams (32 Miss. 333)

V. Bevans (ti Md. 489)

V. Davis (61 Tex. 414)

V. Donnellv (88 Mo. 322)

V. Dorsett (1 Bland Ch. 5.30)

V. Romine (106 Ind. 378)

V. Stewart (78 Va. Ill) •

V. Young (31 (irat. 84) 1217, 1218, 1222

,,, I Watriss V. Bank (124 Mass. 571) 0%

61 Watrous v. Chalker (7 Conn. 224) 816

1214 Watson's Appeal (6 Pa. bt. 505) 1158

Watson I'. Blaine (12 Serg. & R. 131)

607, 962

257

598

395, 440

11.58

207

339

1039

761, 1170

692, 708

621

V. Bvrd (53 Miss. 480)

V. Child (9 Rich. Eq. 129)

V. Glover (77 Ala. 323)

V. His Creditors (58 Cal. 556)

V. Hutto (27 Ala. 513)

V. Lyle (4 Leigh, 236)

i). McClenahan(13 Ala.57)

V. Martin (75 Ala. 506)

V. Mercer (8 Pet. 88)

V. Milward (2 Lee, 332)

r. Parker (6 Beav. 283)

V. Pipes (.32 Miss. 4.51)

V. Prestwood (79 Ala. 416)

V Riskamire (45 Iowa, 231)

r. Rose (51 Ala. 292)

V. Stone (40 Ala. 451)

V. Watson (33 Beav. 574)

T. Watson (10 Conn. 77)

V. Watson (13 Conn. 83)

V. Watson (58 Md. 442)

,;. Watson (2 B. Mon. 74)
Watson Soc. v. Johnson (.58 Me. i^JS)
Watt V. Watt (37 Ala. 543)

V. Watt (3 Ves. 244)

V. White (46 Tex. 338)
Watterson's Appeal (95 ^-a- St. 312)
Watterson v. Watterson (1 "ead 1)
Wattles r. Hyde (9 Conn 10) 10.55, lOoO, 1144

433, 1246

880, 887
571
198
326
311
11.54
723
202
662
782, 799
68
714
609
857
699
978
1067
276, 277
821
43
944
11.30
516
860
268
49

1165

1046

1204, 1272

277

1146

194

1202, 1208
549

406

855

195, 206

1271

1121

1005

2.59

700, 702,

1083

Wavmire v. Jetmore (22 Oh St 271) 22J
Wead V. Cantwell (36 Hun, 528) 354

Wea^i?:::^G;Se5? (O^a. 399) 1048, 1124
Weathevford v. Tate 2 Slrobh. Eq. 2( ) 901
WeSerhead ..Field (26 yt 665)

Watts, Goods of (1 Sw. & Tr. .5..8)
V. Gavle (20 Ala. 817)
V. Leggett(66 N. C. 197)
V. Tavlor (80 Va. 627)
V Watts (38 Oh. St. 480)

Wav V. I'riest (13 Mo. App. 555)
'v. Wav (42 Conn. 52)

Wavland v. Crank (79 Va. 602)

743, 745 Weatherly v. Kier (38 N. J. Eq. 87)

554

110, 1012

986, 987

1026

502

835

336

1016

Weaver v. Chace (5 R. I. 356)
V. Gregg (6 Oh. 547)
V. Low (29 Ind. 57)
V. Norwood (.59 Miss. 665)
V. Roth (105 Pa. St. 4(i8)
t,. Weaver (109 111.225)

Webb v. Burlington (28 Vt. 188)
V. Day (2 Dem. 459)

1226
1008
518
243
186
439
434
175, 183
1002
05

TABLE OF CASES.

CXXXUl

Webb V. Dc Beauvoisin (31 Beav. 573) 1104
V. Difti-iih (7 W. -S: 8. 401) 57!)

V. Uve (18 W. Va. 37ij) 470

V. KfeiiiiiiK (30 Ga. 808) C'J, 70

v. Gross (7'J Me. 224) IH'J

V. Hitcliius (105 I'a. St. 91) 8%, 8;t7

V. .loiies (3(5 N. J. Ivi- 103) 104, 108, 074
V. Keller (3'J La. An. 55) 108.)

V. Kellv (!) Sim. 40!)) 1008

V. Needham (1 Ad.l. 494) 521, 529

V. Russell (3 T. II. 31)3) 3:t0

V. Smii>soii (105 Ind. 327) 1200

V. Smith (40.\vk. 17) 203

V Stdlmaii (2ii Kan. 371) 11!)7
V. Townseud (1 Tick. 21) 220

V Webb (7 T. B. -Moil. 02(5) 48!)
Webber v. Sullivan (58 Iowa, 2G0) 3G, 47, 48

V Weblier (0 Me. 127) 595, 1207
V. Webber (1 Sim. & St. 311) OOtJ

Weber v. Noth (51 Iowa, 375) 800

r. Short (55 Ala. 311) 200

Webster v. Calden (50 Me. 204) 595

V. Campbell (1 Allen, 313) 238

1-. Cooper (14 How. 488) 900

V. Hale (8 Ves. 410) 1005

V. Lowell (139 Mass. 172) 021

V Jlerriam (9 Conn. 225) 1244
V. Morris (60 Wis. 360) 893, 902, !»17,

918, 922, 928, 932
V. Webster (105 Mass. 538) 103

V. Webster (10 Ves. 93) 421

V. Welton (53 Conn. 183) 872, 890

v. Willis (50 Tex. 408) 434. 1272

Wederstrand's Succession (19 La. An.

494) 1144

Weed V. Edmonds (4 Ind. 408) 1037, 1047

V. Lermond (33 Me. 492) 1130

v. Weed (25 Cnn. 337) 3.30

Weeks v. Cornwell (104 N. Y. 325) 808,

874, 884

V. Gibbs (9 Mass. 74) 386, 422

V. Gore (3 P. Wms. 184) 788

V. Hull (19 Conn. 376) 807

V. Jewett (45 N. H. 540) 133, 518

V. Love (19 Ala. 25) 751

V. Mcbeth (14 Ala. 474) 91

V. Patten (18 Me. 42) 500

V. Sowles (58 Vt. 696) 1248

V. Weeks (5 Ired. Eq. Ill) 639

Weems v. Brvan (21 Ala 302) 653. 605

V. Weem's (19 Md. 334) 41, 75

Weer v. Gand (88 III. 490) 1193

Wehr (.-. Brooks ^21 III. App. 115) 622

Wehrle v. Wehrle (39 Oh. St. 365) 1077,

1080, 1089

WeiEtand's Appeal (28 Pa. St. 471) 738

Weimar v Fath (43 X ,T. L. 1) 71!)

Weir V. Chidester (63 111. 453) 82

V. Fitzjrerald (2 Bradf. 42) 43, 52, 472

V. Humphries (4 Ired. Eq, 264) 239

V. Mosher (19 Wis. 311) 734

r. People (78 III. 19 i) 1228

V. Smith (02 Tex. 1) 949

r. Tate (4 Ired. Eq. 264) 699

V. Weir (3 B. Mon. 645) 825

Weise r. Moore (22 Mo. App. 530) 301

Weisne's Appeal (-39 Conn. 537) 1049

Welborn v. Coon (57 Ind. 270) 828

Welch's Succession (36 La. An. 702) 433

Welch V. Adams (63 N. H. 344) 68

V. Anderson (28 Mo. 293) 270

Page
Welch r. McGrath (59 Iowa, 519) 108C

Weld V. McClure (9 Watts. 4!)5) 748

Weldv's Appeal (102 Pa. St. 454) 737, 739
Well's Will (5Litt. 273) 498

Wellhorn v. Uof,'ers (24 Ga. 5.58) 1120

WcIIlt c. Weller (28 Barb. 588) 2-i.i

Welles t'. Cowles (4 Conn. 182) 640, 647

Welliny V. Welling- (3 Dem. 511) 1104, 117 1,

1176
Wellington v. Apthorp (145 Ma-s. 6!l) 58

WelUnau v. Lawrence (15 Mass. 320) 1050,

1053

Wellmever's Succession (34 La. An. 819) 196

Wells t-: Avers (5 S. E. K., Va. 21) 835

V. Child (49 III. 465) 504

V. Doane (3 Gray, 201) i»22

I'. Miller (45 III." 33) 805

V. Miller (45 III. 382) 3G2, 385

V. Mills (22 Tex. 302) 1056

V. Bohinson (13 Cal. 133) 1160

r. Smith (44 Miss. 296) 324, 341, 342. 814

V. Stearns (35 Hun. 323) 497

r. Thompson (13 Ala. 793) 276

V. Treadwell (28 Miss. 717) 611

V. Tucker (3 Binn. 366) 119, 121, 122,

125, 126

V. Wells (6 Ind 447) 25

V. Wells (L. K. 18 Eq. 504) 899

V. Wells (35 .Miss. 638) 360

V. Wells (4 T. B. Mon. 1.52) 93

Welsch V. Belleville Bank (94111. 191) 873, 999

Welsh, In re (1 Kedf. 238) 49, 51, 484

V. Brown (43 N. J. L. 37) 1005, 1006, 1007

V. Perkins (8 Oh. 52) 1040

r. Welsh (105 Mass. 229) 631, 632, 858

Weltv V. Weltv (8 Md. 15) 473

Wendell v. i-'reuch (19 N. H. 205) 1145,

1163, 1169
Wentz's Appeal (106 Pa. St. 301) 1002

Werkheiser v. Werkheiser (6 Watts & S.

184) 83

Wernick r. McMurdo (5 Rand. 51) 745, 750
Wernse v. McPike (70 Mo. 249) 825

Werts V. (Spearman i22 S. C. 200) 6-32

Wertz's Appeal (69 Pa. St. 173) 1097

West's Appeal (64 Pa. St. 180) 305, 311

West, Matter of, (40 Hun, 291) 576

V. Bank of Rutland (19 Vt. 403) 859

V. Cochran (104 Pa. St. 482) 330, 1033,

1037
V. Fitz (109 Til. 425) 718

V. :SIoore (8 East, 339) 599

V. Moore (37 Miss. 114) 953

V. Shuttleworth (2 M. & K, 684) 907

V. Sloan (3 Jones Eq. 102) 702

r. Smith (8 How. 402) 1165, 1168

V. Thornburj,'h (6 Blackf. 542) 34(i

V. Townsend (12 Ind. 434) 1072

V. Waddill (33 Ark. 575) 1085, 1086

V. West (89 Ind. 52!)) 938

V. West (75 Mo. 204) 1125

V. Willbv (3 Phillim.374) 404

V. Williams (15 Ark. 682) 937

V. Wright (98 Ind. 335) 10,56

Westcott V. Cadv (5 .John. Ch. 334) 1001

r. Campbell" (11 R. I. 378) 261

Westertield v. Kimmer (82 Ind. 365) 242

V. Westertield (1 Bradf. 198) 1168

Westerlo v. De Witt (36 N. Y. 340) 119, 120.

124
Westfall V. Dungan (14 Oh. St. 276) 1056

ex XXIV

TABLE OF CASES.

Weston, In re (91 N. Y. 502)
V. Hi^'ht (17 Me. 287)
V. Jiilinsoii (48 liul. 1)
V. Muriiau (4 Ind. 271)
V. Weston (102 Muss. 514)
V. Weston (125 ftlass. 208)

Wethei-bee v. Chase (57 Vt. 347)

rage

710

120

977, 979

734, 730

602

1011

1241

Wetherhead v. Baskerville (11 How. U S.

329)

Wetmore v. Parker (52 N. Y. 450) 469, 884

Wetter v. Haversham (60 Ga. 193) 37, 147

V. Walker (62 Ga. 142) 949

Wetzell V. Waters (18 Mo. 396) 397

Wliarrani v. \\ liarrani (3 Sw. & Tr. 301) 483

Wl.arton r. Legf^a-tt (30 N. C. 169) 169, 203

V. Marberrv (3 Siieed, 603) 822

V. Taylor (88 N. ('. 230) 203

Wheat V. 'Fuller (82 Ala. 572) 530, 508

Wlieatland v. Dodge (10 Met. 502) 897

Wheatlev r. Badger (7 I'a. St. 459) 504

V. Calhoun (12 Leigh, 264) 235, 236

V. Lane (1 Saund. 216) 618, 792, 796,

797
V. Martin (6 Leigh, 62) 685

Wheeler v. Addison (54 Me. 41) 1002

V. Alderson (3 Hagg. 574) 39

V. Arnold (30 Mich. 304) 831

t-. B. nt (7 Pick. 61) 9a

V. Bolton (66 Cal. 83) 1246

V. Breni (33 Miss. 126) 1010

V. Clutterbuck (52 N. Y. 67) 154

V. Durant (3 Kich. Eq. 352) 61

V. Flovd (24 S. C. 413) 1029, 1270

V. Gotte (24 Tex. 650) 337

V. Hathewav (54 Mich. 547) 990, 1005
r. Joslin(63N. H. 164) 820

V. Kirtland (27 N. J. Eq. 534) 240

V. Morris (2 Bosw. 524) 237

D. St. J. K. K. (31 Kan.640) 432

V. Smith (9 How. 55) 932

V. Smith (55 Mich. 355) 241

r, Wheeler (9 Cow. 34) 734

r. Wheeler (1 K. I. 364) 108

V. Wheeler (47 Vt. 637) 1220, 1223, 1226
Wheelhouse r. Bryant (13 Iowa, 100) 860
Wheelock v. Pierce (6 Cush. 288) 368

Wheelwright v. Depevster (1 John. 471) 452
Whelan v. Keilly (3 W. Va. 597) 905

Whistler v. Webster (2 Yes. Jr. 367) 500

Whit V. Rav (4 Ired. L. 14) 432

Whitaker v. (iroover (54 Ga. 174) 830

V. Whitaker (6 John. 112) 510

V. Whitaker (12 Lea, 393) 746, 748

Whitcomb v. Cook (38 Vt. 477) 623

V. Reid (31 Miss. 567) 18-^

White's Estate (53 Cal. 19) 547

Succession (2 La. An. 9G4) 1196

Will (25 N. J. Eq. 501 94

White, Goods of (22 L. Rep. 110) 85

V. Alexander (73 N. C. 444) 1157

V. Arndt (1 Whart. 91) 606

V. Beaman (96 N. C. 122) 834

V. Bettis (9 Heisk. 645) 610

V. Blake (74 Me. 489) 3.36

V. Brown (19 Conn. 577) 805

V. Bullock (4 Abb. Dec. 578) 1171

1). Bullock (20 Barb. 91) 1171

V. Casten (1 Jones L. 193) 93

V. Christoplierson (9 La. An. 232) 696, 702
V. Clarke (7 T. B. Mon. 640) 2.56

V. Cordwell (L. R. 20 Eq. 644) 1238

Page

774

213

229

1138

40

824, 932

829

929

827

912, 919

727, 912

842

l()i)8

518, 520

414, 415, 445

1219

White V. Corrico (2 Met. Ky. 232)
V. Curd (5 S. W. K. 553)
V. (,'utler(17 Pick. 2-18)
V. Ditson (140 Ma-s. 351)
r. Drjyer (1 PhiUim. 84)
V. Eisk (22 Conn. 31)
V. Fitzgerald (19 Wis. 480)
V. Hale (2 Coldw. 77)
V. Henlv (54 Mo. 592)
V. Howard (38 Conn. 342)
r. Howard (46 N. Y. 144)
V. Judson (2 Root, 301)
V. Kauflmann (06 Md. 89)
V. Lowe (1 Redf. 376)
f. Maim (26 Me. 361)
V. Moore (23 S. C. 456)
V. Palmer (4 Mass. 147)
V. Plummer (96 111. 394)
V. PuUev (27 Fed. R. 436)
V. Repto'n (3 Curt. 818)
V. Riggs (27 Me. 114)
V. Russell (79 111. 155)
1-. Spaulding(50Micb. 22)
V. Story (4.3 Barb. 124)
V. Swain (3 Pick. 365)
V. Thompson (79 Me. 207)
r. White (52 Conn. 518)
V. White (3 Dana, 374)
r. White (4 Dev. & B. 401)
V. White (30 Vt. 338)
V. AVillis (7 Pick. 143)
V. Winchester (0 Pick. 48)
Whiteaker r. Vanschoiack (5 Oreg. 113)
Wniteliall V. Squire (Carth. 103)

V. Squire (Holt, 45)
Whitehead v. Cade (1 How. Miss. 95)
V. Ccmklin (48 Iowa, 478)
V. Gibbons (10 N. J. Eq. 230)
V. McBride (73 Ga. 741)
Whitehurst r. Dey (90 N. C. 542)

V. Harker (2lred. Eq. 292)
Whiteman v. ^^wem (71 Ind. 530)
Whitenack v. Stryker (2 N. J. Eq. 8)

207

643

85

342

631

580

811

1129, 12.55

757

874

1137

992, 994

956

229

974

235

424

426

828

206

1103

768, 770

846

639

171

27,

38,41

444

344,

1123

1023

817

832

28

Whiteside's Appeal (23 Pa. St. 114)
Whiteside v. W hiteside (20 Pa. St. 473)

Whitesides v. Barber (24 S. C. 373),
V. Cannon (23 Mo. 457)

V. Green (04 N. C. 307)
Whitfield v. Hurst (3 [red. Eq. 242)
Whitford V. Panama R. Co. (23 N. Y. 465) 630
Whithed V. Mallorv (4 Cush. 138) 244

Whiting v. Whiting (64 Md. 157) 739, 740
Whitlev V. Alexander (73 N. C. 444) 1159

V. Stephenson (38 Miss. 113) 177, 178
Whitlock V. Whitlock (1 Dem. 160) 1014

Whitlow V. Echols (78 Ala. 206) 1245, 1246
Whitman v. Morey (63 N. H. 448) 48

V. Watson (16 Me. 461) 1242

Whitmire v. Wright (22 S. C 446) 231, 232
Whitmore v. Foose (1 Demo, 159)

V. Johnson (10 Humph. 610)

V. Oxborrow (2 Y. & Coll. 13)

QQg

330, 1090
799

v. San Francisco Union (50 Cal. 145) 861

Whitney v. Coapman (39 Barb. 482)
V. Munro (4 Edw. Ch. 5)
V. Peddicord (03 111. 249)
V. Porter (23 111. 445)
V. Twombly (136 Mass. 145)
r. Wheeler (116 Mass. 490)

739
1123

708

1034

44

118

TABLE OF CASES.

CXXXV

Page
Wliitnev v. Wliitnev (14 Mass. 88) G47

Whittakeri'. Whittaker(10Lea. 'j;J) 371, 1184
r. Wrij^ht (35 Ark. 511) 1144

Whitted V. Webb (2 Uev & 15. Ivi. 442) 1145
AVhitteinore v. Cutter (1 Gall. 42ii) 635

V. Uu.sseli (80 Me.) il'.tit

Whittier V. Wateiinuii (75 Me. 409) 1000

Whittle V. Samuels (54 Ga. 548) 20(i

Whittlesey v. Brohammer (31 Alo. 98) 12i;i,

12tl2

Whitworth V. Oliver (39 Ala. 28r)) 550, 584

Whorton V. Morajiiie (59 Ala. G41) 1124

V. Moragne (62 Ala. 201 ) 329, 992, 993

Whvte V. Rose .'3 (}. 15. 493) 365

WiJker V. Rav (118 111. 472) 878, 901

Wickersham's Appeal (64 i'a. St. G7) 1170

Wiekham V. Page (49 Mo. 526) 748

Wickwire v. Chapman (15 Barb. 302) 527, 529

Widger, (ioods of (3 Curt. 55) 531

Wiece V. Marbut (55 Ga. 613) 220

Wier V. Davis (4 Ala. 442) 695

Wiesner v. Zaun (39 Wis. 188) 145

Wiggin V. Buzzell (58 X. H. 329) 204

V. Plumer (31 N. H. 251) 589

V. Superior Court (68 Cal. 398) 1130

V. Svvett (6 Met. 194) 507, 6.38, 995,

1151, 1194

Wiggins V. Lovering (16 Mass. 429) 841

17. Lovering (9 Mo. 262) 843

Wightman r. Townroe (1 M. & Sel. 412) 283

Wiijle V. Wigle (6 Watts, 522) 125

Wiglev I'. Beauchamp (51 Mo. 544) 257

Wikofi's Appeal (15 Pa. St. 281) 65, 94, 101.

113, 469

Wilber's Application (.52 Wis. 295) 268

Wilber V. Wilber (52 Wis. 298) 268

Wilbourn v. Shell (.59 Miss. 205) 90, 481

V. Wilbourn (48 Miss. 38) 422

Wilbraham v. Ludlow (99 Mass. 587) 443

Wilbur r. Gilmore (21 Pick. 250) 618

V. Hutto (25 S. C. 246) 548

V. Maxam (133 Mass. 541) 354

Wilbv V. Phinnev (15 Mass. Ill) 286

Wdcix's Appeal" (54 Conn. 320) 1208

Wilcox V. Matteson (53 Wis. 23) 121

V. Powers (6 JIo. 145) 816

V. Randall (7 P.arb. 633) 233

V. Rootes (1 Wa«h. Va. 140) 105

V. Smith (26 P.arb. 316) 730, 1151, 1260

V. State (24 Tex. 544) 863

V. Wilcox (13 Allen, 252) 200, 966, 989,

1104

V. Wilcox (48 Barb. 327) 823

Wilcoxon V. Donellv (>J0 N. C. 245) 1243

V. Reese (03 Md. 542) 395, 725

Wild's Case (Co. pt. 6, *17) 897

Wild V. Brewer (2 Mass. 570) 110

V. Davenport (48 N.J. L. 129) 282, 283

Wilder v. Aldrich (2 R. L 518) 639

V. Rannev (95 N. Y. 7) 728

Wilderuian v, Baltimore (8 Md. 551) 925

■Wildridge v. Patterson (15 Mass. 148) 576

Wile V. Wright (32 Iowa, 451) 782

Wilev's Appeal (84 Pa. St. 270) 340

Wiley V. Brainerd (11 Vt. 107) 576

V. Grav (36 Miss. 510) 609

V. Wlute (3 Stew. & P. 355) 1050

V. Wilev (63 N. C. 182) 1040

Wilkerson v. Allen (67 Mo. 502) 1060

V. Gordon (48 Ark. 360) 809

V. Wootten (28 Ga. 568) 734

Page

WilUcv's Appeal (108 Pa. St. .567) 524

Wilkins V. Kllett 9 Wall. 740) 364

V. Harris (Winst. \'.(\. 41 ) 570, .579

r. Wilkins (43 X..). Ivi. .595) 1222

Wilkinson v. Chew (.54 Ga. 002) 991

r. Leland (2 Pet. 627) 467

t'. I'arish (3 Pai. 6.53) 232

V. Winne (15 Minn. 1.59) 842

Wilks r. Slaughter (49 Ark. 235) 684

Will of . For cases under " Will of,"

see the names of the parties.
Willamette Co. v. Gordon (6 Or. 175) 502
Willard's Appeal (65 Pa. St. 265) 340

Willard r. Van Leeuwen (56 Mich. 15) 861
r. Willard (6 Baxt. 297) 224

Willeford v. Watson (12 Heisk. 476) 1228
Willet v. Sandford (1 Ves. Sr. 186) 910

Willett's Appeal (.50 Conn. 330) 496

Willett v. Brown (65 Mo. 1-38) 234

V. Malli (65 Iowa, 675) 1029

William & Mary College v. Powell (12

Grat. 372) 609

Williams's Appeal (7 Pa. St. 259) 518, 530,

535, 571
Appeal (106 Pa. St. 116) 612

Case (18 Abb. Pr. 350) 579

Succession (22 La. An. 94) 580

Succession (26 La. An. 207) 570

Williams, Ex parte (13 Rich. 77) 310

Matter of (5 Dem. 292) 527

Matter of (44 Hun, 67) 526, .527

V. American Bank (4 Met. Mass. 317) 865
V. Averv (38 Ala. 115) 609

V. Belden (1 Root, 464) 846

V. Benedict (8 How. 107) 374, 863

V. Brad lev (7 Heisk. 54) 1080

V. Breedon (1 Bos. & Pul. 329) 617

V. Campbell (46 Miss. 57) 699, 704

V. Childress (25 ^liss. 78) 1037, 1047

V. Claiborne (7 Sm. & M. 488) 607

V. Conlev (20 III. 634) 681

V. Courtney (77 Mo. 587) 244

1). Cowden'(13Mo. 212) 961

I'. Cox (3 Edw. Ch. 178) 239

V. Crary (8 Cow. 24(i) 982

V. Cushing (34 Me. 370) 1012

V. Edwards (94 i\Io. 447) 830, 836

V. Elv(13 AVis. 1) 595,693

V. Ewing (31 Ark. 229) 1272

V. Goude (1 Hagg. 577) 46

V. Ilale (71 Ala:83) 228

V. Holmes (9 Md. 281) 1232

V. Hutchinson (3 X. Y. 312) 823

V.Johnson (112 III. 61) 890

V. Jones (14 Bush. 418) 494

V. Jones (1 Russ. Ch. 517) 9.37

r. Lee(47 Md. 321) . 42

V. McDonald (13 Tex. 322) 1077

V. McKinnev (34 Kan. 514) 873

V. Maitland"(l Ired. Eq. 92) 739

V. Marshall (4 G. & J. 376) 702, 703

V. Mason (23 Ala. 488) 1070

V. Maull (20 Ala. 721) 608

V. Moblev (38Ga. 241) 1013

r. Moore (9 Pick. 432) 366

V. Jlorehouse (9 Conn. 470) 651, 653, 666
V. NefE (52 Pa. St. 326) 946

V. Xichol (47 Ark. 254) 1099. 1100

V. Pearson (38 Ala. 299) 921, 923, 928, 032
f. Penn (12 Mo. App. 393) 781. 8V)

V. Penns_vlvania Railroad (9 Phil. 298) 369

CXXXVl

TABLE OF CASES.

Pa!,'e

Williams v. Perrin (73 Ind. 57) 1061

V. Pettici-ew (02 Mo. 400) UG9, 1138, 1158,

1188
t). Price (11 Cal. 212) 1130

V. Price (21 Ga. 507) 77fi

V. Partly (0 Pai. IGG) 8-21

V. Hatclift- (42 Miss. 145) 1043

V. Hhudes (81 HI. 571) 1084, 1087

V. Hobiiisoii (03 Tex. 576) 320

V. Kubiiisoii (42 Vt. 058) 37, 1203, 1208
V. Pdbsdii (0 Oh. St. 510) 24'J

V. Saunders (5 Cold. 60) 77, 1103

V. Shelbv (2 Or. 144) 553

■y. Sims "(8 Port. 579) 791

V. Sloan (75 Va. 137) 640. 041

V. Stonestreet (3 Puind. 5.59) 823, 1213
V. Storrs (0 John. Ch. 353) 364

V. Stratton (10 Sm. & M.418) 1043, 1151
V. Tobias (37 Ind. 345) 570

V. Verne (08 Tex. 414) 555

V. Wilkins (2 Phill. 100) 529

V. Williams (49 Ala. 439) 1030

V. Williams (14 Pae. R., Cal. 394) 352, 353
V. Williams (2 Uev. Eq. 09) 1039

V. Williams (5 Gray, 24) 171

V. Williams (15 Lea, 438) 822

V. Williams (78 Me. 82) 259

V. Williams (5 Md. 407) 375

V. Williams (142 Mass. 515) 100

V. Williams (43 Miss. 430) 1157

V. Williams (79 N. C. 417) 673

V. Williams (85 N. C. 313) 1088

V. Williams (55 Wis. 300) 704

V. AVilson (4 Sandf. Ch. 379) 292

V. Worthington (49 Md. 572) 877

Williamson's Appeal (94 Pa. St. 231) 340, 344
Succession (3 La. An. 201) 439, 517

Williamson v. Anthony (47 Mo. 299) 787, 821.

822
V. Branch Bank (7 Ala. 906) 371, 693
V. Fontain (7 liaxt. 212) 290

V. Furbush (31 Ark. 539) 390

V. Casque (24 S. C. 100) 262

V. Hill (6 Port. 184) 1128

V. Howell (4 Ala. 693) 800

V. McCrarv (33 Ark. 470) 847

V. Mason (23 Ala. 488) 1140

V. Norwitch (Stv. 337) 426

V. Wilkins (14 &a. 410) 1100

V. Williamson (18 B. Mon. 329) 901

V. Williamson (6 Paige, 298) 985, 1000,

1007

V. Williamson (3 Sm. & M. 715) 1046

Willini? V. Perot (5 Eawle, 204) 374, 405,753

WillisV Farley (24 Cal. 490) 810, 12.50

V. Ferguson (59 Tex. 172) 1089

V. Foster (65. Ga. 82) 1080

V. Jenkins (.30 Ga. 167) 897

V. Jones (42 Md. 422) 518

V. Loan (2 T. B. Mon. 141) 828

V. Roberts (48 Me. 257) 639, 941

r. Sharp (43 Hun, 4.34) 689

V. Smith (05 Tex. 050) 632

r. Smith (60 Tex. 31) 732

V. Watson (5 111. 64) 888

V. Willis (9 Ala. 330) 1153

Willoughbv V. McCluer (2 Wend. 608) 669

Wills V. Cowper (2 Ohio, 312) 393

V. Dunn (5 Grat. 384) 1189

Willson V. Bergin (28 N. H. 96) 1049

V. Tyson (61 Md. 575) 968, 988

Page

Willson V. Whitfield (38 Ga. 269) 544

Wilmerding v. McKesson (28 Hun, 184) 738

V. McKes.son (103 N. Y. 329) 738

Wilmington v. Sutton (6 Iowa, 44) 183

Wilson's Appeal (99 Pa. St. 545) 47, 49

Appeal (115 Pa. St. 95) 737,738

Instate (2 Pa. St. 325) 392

Estate (15 Phila. 528) 986

Wilson, In re (103 N. Y. 374) 76, 477

In re (8 Wis. 171) 92, 94

V. Arrick (4 MaeArthur, 228) 745

I'. Arrick (112 U. S.83) 745

V. Baptist Society (10 Barb. 308) 1155

V. Branch (77 Va. 05) 258

V. Brown (21 Mo. 410) 1049, 1198

V. Bynum (92 N. C. 717) 1024, 1143

V. Cochran (31 Tex. 077) 181, 905

V. Cox (49 Miss. 538) 208

V. Crook (17 Ala. 59) 1022

V. Davis (37 Ind. 141) 421, 423, 1205

V. Dibble (10 Fla. 782) 397

V. Doster (7 Ired. F:q. 231) 693

V. Frazier (2 Humph. 30) 439, 517, 570,

571
V. Fridenburg (19 Fla. 401) 195, 200, 208
V. Fridenberg (21 Fla. 386) 195, 267

V. Fridenberg (22 Fla. 114) 757

r. Fritts(32N. J. Eq. 59) 1240

V. Hastings (06 Cal. 243) 1035

V. Hetterick (2 Bradf. 427) 472

V. Holt (83 Ala. 528) 1023

V. Hoss (3 Humph. 142) 571

V. Hudson (4 Harr. 168) 414, 415, 427
v. Imboden (8 La. An.l40) 566

V. Keeler (2 Chip. Vt. 16) 601

V. Kcllv (16 S. C. 210) 150, 1237, 1238
V. KellV (21 S. C. 535) 1222

V. Knublev (7 East, 128) 1201

V. Leishman (12 Met. 310) 1122

V. Lineberger (88 N. C. 410) 677

V. Long (12 S. & R. 58) 795

V. McCarty (55 Md. 277) 1129, 1131

V. McLenaghan (1 INIcMul. Eq. 35) 255
V. Miller (30 Md. 82) 1085

V. Miller (1 Pat. & H. 353) 1214, 1240
V. Mitchell (101 Pa. St. 495) 30, 43, 44,

49, 52
V. Moran (3 Bradf. 172) 49

V. Odell (.58 Mich. 553) 918

V. O'Leary (L. R. 12 Eq. 525; aff'd

L R. 7 Ch. App. 448) 970

V. Paul (8 Sim. 63) 780

V. Perry (29 W Va. 169) 920, 928, 932
1'. Piper (77 Ind. 437) 1100

V. Proctor (28 Minn. 13) 215, 217

V. Rine (1 Harr. & J. 138) 990

V. Rose (3 Cr. C. C. 371) 1140

V. Rousseau (4 How. U. S. 646) 634

V. Shearer (9 Met. 504) 759, 705

V. Slade (2 Harr. & J. 281) 601

V. Soper (13 B. Mon. 411) 285

V. Staats (33 N. J. Eq. 524) 710

V. Thompson (26 Minn. 299) 1052

V. White (2 Dev. Eq. 29) 1080

V. White (109 N. Y. 59) 1030, 1031, 1080
V. Wilson (1 Cr. C. C. 255) 785

V. Wilson (3 Phillim. 543) 99

V. Wilson (3 G. & J. 20) 1165

V. Wilson (54 Mo. 213) 385, 426

Wilt V. Bird (7 Blackf. 2-58) 794

V. Cutler (38 Mich. 189) 494

TABLE OF CASES.

CXXXVU

Wiltl.aiik's Appeal (G4 Pa. St. 25G) 10(14 ;

Wilton V. Eaton (127 Ma.ss. 174) 7'J.j '

VViltsic V. Shaw (Km N. Y. iUl) lOM

Wiiibivn V. Kiiij; (-35 Miss. 157) 11"27

WiiichcT V. Slirew.sbuiv {'-i HI. 283) 5:J7

W.ixiiL'stev V. Forster (3 Cash. .3GC) 880, 8.H)
V. Holmes (138 Mass. 540) 2(J5

WliKUatt V. Sharland (L. K. 2 P. & D.

217) 531

Wiiulell V. Hudson (102 Iiid. 521) 33;)

Windsor v. Bell (01 Ga. 071) 513, 741, 1012,

1014

Wineland's Appeal (12 Atl. R. 301) 04

Wiutield V. Burton (79 N. C. 388) 1271

Win;^ r. Aii;;rave (8 H. L. 183) 440, 447

V. Meivliant (57 Me. 383) 124

Wingate i-. Pool (25 111. 118) 048, 849, 1158

V. Wallis (5 S. & M. 249) 342

V. Wheat (0 La. An. 238) 300

V. Wooten (5 Sm. & M. 245) 574

Wingeiter v. Wiiinerter (71 Cal. 105) 1028

Winkle v. Winkle (8 Dreg. l!)3) 1123

Winkler r. Winkk-r (18 W. Va. 455) 270, 277

'^ "' 8i)4

570

032

489

602

021

578, 053

1080

923

75

032

1237

1031

1247

303,

309

W nkley v K.inie (32 N. H. 208)
Winn's Siicce* ion (27 La. An. 087)
Winn V. Barne t (3i Miss. 053)

t'. Bob (3 leigh, 140)

V. Ingilby (5 B. & Aid. 025)
Winningham" r. Crouch (2 .Swan, 170)
Winship V. Ba-s (12 Mass. 199)
Winslow y. Crowell (32 Wis. 039)

V. (,'nniniings (3Cush. 358)

V. Kimb 11 (23 Me. 493)
Winsnii h v. Winsmith (15 S. C. Oil)
Wiiisor, .Mat er of (5 Deni. 340)
Winsttni V. MeLendon (43 Miss. 254)

V. Street (2 Pat. & Heath, 109)
Winter v. Winter (Walker, Miss. 211)

Winterhalter v. Workmen (17 Pac. R. 1) 047

Winternuite's Will (27 N. J. Eq. 447) 43

Wintennute v. Kidington (1 Fisher, 239) 035

v. Snvder (3 X. J. Eq. 489) 901

V. Wilson (28 N .J. Eq. 437) 43

Winters r. Elliott (1 Lea, 070) 1082

Winton's Appeal (111 Pa. St. 387) 348

Winton I'. Eldridge (3 Head, 301) 8.39

Wippeler, In re (2 Dem. 020) 1000

Wire V. Wvnian (93 Ind. 392) 1075

Wisdom t'.'Buckiier (31 La. An. 52) 1089

V. Parker (31 La. An. 52) 329
Wise V. Foote (81 Kv. 10) 44, 40

V. O'.Mall.'v (6) Tex. 588) 344

V. Willi.nn^ (72 Cal. 544) 845

Wiseman v. Beekwith (90 Ind. 185) 220

V. Wiseman (73 Ind. 112) 227

Wiser v. Blachlv (1 John. Ch. 007) 5-54

Wisham v. Lippincott (9 X. J. E(i. 353) 287

Wisner's Estate (20 .Mich. 442) 1105

Wistar's Appeal (115 Pa. St. 241) 1197

Estate (13 Phiia. 242) 1230

Wistar ;•. Scott (105 Pa. St. 200) 903

Wiswall V. Hall (3 Pai. 313) 240

Wiswell r. Wiswell (35 Minn. 371) 385

Withee v. Rowe (45 Me. 571) 341

Withers's Appea. (13 Pa. St. 582) 1147

Appeal (14 S. & R. 185) 715

Withers v. Baird (7 Watts, 227) 252

V. .Jenkinrt (14 S. C. 597) 270

V. Pattersrn (27 Tex. 491) 1048

Witherspoou v. lUewett (47 Miss. 570) 832

Page

Withorspoon v. Watts (18 S. C. .390) 273, 580

Withint.Mi, In re (7 Mo. Ai)p. 575) 1138

V. Withiiiton (7 Mo. 589) 473

Witman v. Lex (17 Serg. & R. 88) 921

f. Norton (0 Binn.395) 1104

Witt V. Elmore (2 Bail. .595) 420

Witter I'. Biscoe (13 Ark. 422) 249

I'. Mntt (2 Conn. 07) 113

Witters v. Foster (20 Fed. Rep. 737) 020

Witthaus V. Schack (105 N. Y. 332) 242,

248, 253
Witzel r. Pierce (22 Ga 112) 500

Woehrlin r. Schafier (17 Mo. App. 442) 070
Woerther v. .Miller (13 Mo. App. 507) 211
Wohlieii r. Speck (18 Mo. .301) 1007

Wolf V. Hanks (41 Ark. 104) 331, 1157

V. Bolinger(G2 111. 3(18) 90

V. Ogdcn (00 111. 224) 214, 1025, 1077

V. Robinson (20 Mo. 459) 1043

I'. Wolf (07 III. 55) 2)8

Wolfe V. Kable (107 Ind. .505) 1218, 1224

V. Lvnch (2 Dem. 010) 348

V. Van Nostrand (2 N. Y. 430) 949

Wolfersberger v. Biicher (10 S. & R. 10) 828
Wolff V. Schaeffer (74 Mo. 154) 547, 548

V. Schaffer (4 Mo. App. 307) 547, 806

V. Wohlien (32 Mo. 124) 1049

Wolffe V. Eberlein (74 Ala. 99) 407

Woltinger i'. For.sman (0 Pa. St. 294) 559

Wollaston r. King (L. R. 8 Eq. 105) 1016

Womack's Succession (29 La. An. 577) 099
Womack v. Bo\d (31 Miss. 443) 183, 185

V. Womack (2 La. An. 339) 357

Wood's Appeal (92 Pa. St. 379) 093, 734

Estate (1 Ashm. 314) 088, 701

Estate (.30 Cal. 75) 880

Wood, In re (71 Mo. 023) 1128

V. Brown (34 N. Y. 337) 705, 739, 740, 8:34
V. Bvington (2 Barb. Ch. 387) 1038

V. Chetwood (27 N. J. Eq. 311) 507

V. Cosbv (76 Ala. 5.57) 384, 410, 43.5, 994
V. Gaviion (Amb. 395) 605

V. Goodridge (0 Cush. 117) 732

V. Johnson (13 111. App. 548) 1193, 1198
V. Lee (5 T. B. Mon. 50) 1153

V. McChesnev (40 Barb. 417) 330, 1089
V. Matthews"(.53 Ala. 1 ) 502

r. Morsian (50 Ala. 397) 261, 262

V. Mvrick (10 Minn. 494) 342

r. MVrick (17 Minn. 408) 707

V. Roane (35 La. An 805) 58, 81

V. Savage (2 Doug. Jlich. 310) 010

V. Simmons (20 Mo. 363) 041

V. Sparks (1 D. & B. 389) 410, 51-3, 718
V. Stone (.39 N. H. 572) 324, 345

V. Tallman (1 N. J. L. 15-3) 341, 1140
V. Tnnnicliff (74 N. Y. 38) 68,5, 811

r. Vpndenbnrgh (0 Pai. 277) 985, 987
V. Warden (20 Oh. 518) 611

V. Washburn (2 Pick. 24) 552

V. Weightman (L. R. 13 Eq. 434) 790
V. White (32 Me. 340) 893

V. Williams (61 Mo. 0.3) 548, 549

V. Wood (4 Pai. 299) 543, 545

V. Wood (5 Pai. 596) 492

Woodard v. Mich. R. R. (10 Oh. St. 121) 630
Woodbem- r. Mather.'son (19 Fla. 778) 231
Woodbridge v. Woodbridge (70 Ga. 733) 185
Woodburn r. Woodburn (14 N. E. 58) 122
Woodbury v. Hammond (54 Me. 332) 1194
V. Obear (7 Gray, 467) 35

CXXXVlll

TABLE OF CASES.

Page

Woodburv v. Woodbury (58 N. H. 44) 101

Wooden v. Cowles (11 Conn. 202) SOU

Woodtill V. Patton (7fi Ind. 575) 89, 'J4

Woodfin II. McNealv ("J Ma. 250) 050

Woodfolk f. Beatlv (18 Ga. 52U) i'U

Woodford V. Stephens (51 Mo. 443) 012

Woodyate v. Field (2 Hare, 211) 7'J'J

Woodiiouse V. Phelps (51 Conn. 521) 434

Woodhiil! V. Longstreet (18 N. J. L. 405) 233

Woodin V. Baalev (13 Wend. 453) 811

Woodlief V. Merritt (90 N. ('. 220) 354

Woodman i,'. Howe (50 N. H. 453) 433

Woodruff V. Lounsberry (40 N. J. Eq.

545) 708, 1159

V. Migeon (46 Conn. 236) 976

t;. Pleasants (81 Va. 37) 899

V. Scliultz (49 Iowa, 430) 359

V. Woodruff (17 Abb. Pr. 165) 1136

V. Woodruff (3 Dem. 505) 345

V. Woodruff (32 Ga. 358) 898

Woods V. Elliott. (49 Miss. 168) 841, 847

V. McCann (3 Ala. 01) 853

V. Monroe (17 Mich. 238) 330, 1043,

1040, 1089

V. Ridley (27 Miss. 119) 489, 1155

V. State (10 Mo. 698) 554

V. Woods (2 Bav, 476) 223

V. Woods (1 Met. 512) 945

Woodson V. Pool (19 Mo. 340) 609, 612

Woodward's Appeal (38 Pa. St. 322) 340

Woodward v. Darcv (1 Plowd. 184) 786, 789

V. Howard (13"Wis. 557) 803

V. James (44 Hun, 95) 902

V. Lincoln (9 Allen, 239) 215, 346

V. Woodward (2 Rich. Eq. 23) 202

Woodworth's Estate (31 Cal. 595) 968, 987,

1105

Wood worth, Matter of (5 Dem. 156) 1233

V. Hall (1 Woodb. & Min. 248) 367

V. Sherman (3 Storv, 171) 634

V. Wilson (50 N. H. 220) 1200

Woodyard v. Threlkeld (1 A. K. Marsh.

10) 397

Wooldridge v. Watkins (3 Bibb, 349) 724

V. Wiikins (3 How. Miss. 300) 290

Woolfork V. Sullivan (23 Ala. 548) 427, 684

Woolley V. Clark (5 B. & Aid. 744) 384, 409,

424, 586

1'. Gordon (3 Phillim. 314) 407

V. I'emberton (41 N. J Eq. 394) 1039

V. Preston (82 Kv. 415) 950

V. Schrader (116 "ill. 29) 1010

Woolridpe v. Page (1 Lea, 135) 1029

Wnolstone's Appeal (51 Pa. St. 4.52) 009

Wooster v. Hunts Co. (38 Conn. 250) 2.54

Wooten's Estate (50 Cal. 322) 531

Worcester v. Clark (2 Grant, 84) 24(1

V. Worcester (101 Mass. 128) 890

Word V. Mitchell (.32 Ga. 623) 944

V. West (38 Ark. 243) 844

Worden v. Humeston (72 Iowa, 201) 027

Work V. Cowhick (81 111. 317) 1082

Workman v. Cannon (5 Harr. 91) 878

V. Dominick (3 Strobh. 589) 72

Worman v. Teagarden (2 Oh. St. 380) 953

Worsham v. Col'lison (49 Mo. 206) 230

Worth V. McAden (1 Dev. & B. Eq. 199) 512,

513, 739, 743

V. Worth (95 N. C. 2-39) 1099

Worthev v. Johnson (8 Ga. 2-30) 1021

Worthington v. Gittiugs (56 Md. 542) 499

Page

Worthington v. Klemm (144 Mass. 167) 60

V. McRoberts (9 Ala. 297) 1078

V. Miller (3 S. W. H. 532) 833

Wortiilev V. Hammond (13 Bush, 510) 808

Worthy V. Lyon (18 Ala. 784) 1184

V. "Mcintosh (90 N. C. 530) 842

Wortman v. Skinner (12 N. J. Eq. 358) 735,

1024

Worton V. Ashlev (2 Sm. & M. 527) 1249

Wotton, Goods ."f (L. R. 3 P. & D. 159) 62

Wray v. Davenport (79 Va. 19) 202

Wren v. Span (1 How. ^Sliss. 115) 810

Wright's Appeal (89 Pa. St. 07) 879

Wright V. Campbell (27 Ark. 037) 702

V. De Groff (14 Mich. 104) 1066

V. Denn (10 Wheat. 204) 880, 1098

V. Dunham (9 Pick. 37) 854

f. Dunning (40 111. 271) 204

V. Edwards (10 Oreg. 298) 1021, 1035,

1037, 1080

V. Gilbert (51 Md. 146) 359, 833

V. Harris (31 Iowa, 272) 860

V. Holbrook (.32 N. Y. 587) 1112

V. Holbrook (2 Hob. N. Y. 516) 1112

V. Jennings (1 Bai. L. 277) 218, 262

V. Lang (66 Ala. 389) 653, 654

V. Lewis (5 Rich. 212) 68

V. Linn (9 Pa. St. 433) 933

V. McNatt (49 Tex. 425) 576, 1061

V. Mare (50 Ala. 549) 439

V. Mongle (10 Lea, 38) 566

V. Phillips (56 Ala. 69) 375

V. Rogers (L. R. 1 P. & D. 678) 71

v. Smith (19 Nev. 143) 433

V. Steed (10 La. An. 2-(8) 1031

V. Tinslev (30 Mo. 389) 58

V. West (2 Lea, 78) 270, 271

V. Wilkerson (41 Ala. 207) 348, 1163

V. Wright (13 Allen, 207) 189

V. Wright (59 Barb. 505) 609

V. Wright (7 Ring. 457) 70

V. Wriglit (2 Brev. 125) 795

V. Wright (1 Cow. 598) 121

V. Wright (5 Ind. 389) 71, 89, 90

V. Wright (72 Ind. 149) 525

V. Wright (Mart. & Y. 43) 434, 532

Wrigly V. Sykes (2 Jur. 78) 716

Wuesthoff v. Germania Life Ins. Co. (107

N. Y. 580) 64

Wurts V. Jenkins (11 Barb 546) 1260

Wurtz V. Hart (13 Iowa, 515) 859

Wurzell V. Beckmaii (52 Mich. 478) 99, 490
Wvatt V. Rambo (29 Ala. 510) 694

" r. Steele (26 Ala. 639) 328

V. Williams (43 N. H. 102) 617

Wvche's Estate (Mvr. 85) 522

WVche V. Clapp (43 Tex. 543) 57

WVckoff V. Perrine (37 N. J. Eq. 118) 973,

980

V. Van Siclen (3 Dem. 75) 1116, 1139

V. Wvckoff (16 N. J. Eq. 401) 475, 481

Wveth ».' Stone (144 Mass. 441) 141

WVlie V. White (10 Rich. Eq. 294) 956

WVUv V. Gazan (69 Ga. 506) 1053, 1064

WVman-s Appeal ( 13 N. H. 18) 684

WVman v. Brigden (4 Mass. 150) 967, 1025

■ V. Buckstaff (24 Wis. 477) 336

V. Campbell (6 Port. 219) 329, 1021

V. Fox (59 Me. 100) 246

V. Halstead (109 U. S. 654) 364, 441,

650, 651

TABLE OF CASES.

CXXXIX

Wyman v. Symmes (10 Allen, 153) 7G
Wvndhftm u." Chetwvnd (1 Burr, 414)

V. Way (4 'I'auiU. 310)
WviikoopV. Wviikoon (42 Pa. St. 293)
Wyiin V. Hooker (2G Ga. 553)
Wynne v. Thomas (Willes U. 5G3)
Wynns v. Alexander (2 Dev. & B. Eq.

58)
Wyse V. Smith (4 G- & J. 295)

Page
, 477
70
598
591
82(i
335

090
1040

Yarboroiifch's Succession (10 La. An. 258) 812

Yarborough v. Leggett (14 Te.x. 077) 085, 811

V. Ward (34 Ark. 204) 043, 757

Yard r. Murrov (80 Pa. St. 113) 944, 940

Yanllcv V. Arnold (Carr. & M. 434) 423

V. ('utliburtson (108 Pa. St. 395) 49, 50

V. Cutlibertson (15 Phi la. 77) 50

V. Kaiib (5 Whart. 117) 611

Yarnall's Will (4 Kawie, 40) 82

Y'arter v. Flajrg (143 Mass. 280) 620

Yates V. Houston (3 Tex. 433) 223

V. Paddock (10 Wend. 528) 254

Y'awger v. Yawger (37 N.J. Imi. 216) 1017

Yean Clieah v. Ong Cheng Neo (L. R.

6P. C. 381) 907

Y'earlev v. Cocke (G8 Md. 174) 1131

t;."Long(40Oh. St. 27) 1098

I'eates v. Briggs (95 111. 79) 201

V. Gill (9 a. Mon. 203) 899

Yeatman i'. Woods (6 Yerg. 20) 200

Yeaton v. Roberts (28 N. H. 459) 937, 950

Yeaw v. Searle (2 K. I. 104) 581

Y'ee Yun's Estate (Mvr. 181) 533

Yeldell V. Siiinholster (15 Ga. 189) 645

Y'eo V. Mercer, au (18 X. J. L. 387) 236

Yeomans v. Brown (8 Met. 51) 631

YerbytJ. Hill (16 Tex. 377) 1059

V. Lynch (3 Grat. 400) 774

V. Matthews (26 Ga. 549) 849

V. Yerby (3 Call, 334) 106

Yerger v. Ferguson (55 Miss. 190) 1031

Yerkes v. Broom (10 La. An. 94) 542

Yertore v. Wiswall (16 How. Pr. 8) 628

Yingling v. Hesson (16 Md. 112) 811

Y'nogoso's Succession (13 La. An. 559) 1072

196, 202

44, 474

320

1236

86

240

177

269

842

49

258

Yoe V. Hanvev (25 S. C. 94)

V. McCord (74 111. 33)
Yoeman v. Younger (84 Mo. 424)
Y'ohe V. Barney (1 Binn. 358)
York r. Walker (12 JL & W. 591)
V. Welsh (117 Pa. St. 174)
V. York (38 111. 522)
Yorkly v. Stinson (97 N. C. 236)
Yorks's Appeal (110 Pa. St. 69)
Yosti V. Laughran (49 Mo. 594)
Youndt V. Miller (91 N. C. 331)

Youndt V. Youndt (3 Grant Ca.o. 140) 90, 481
Young's Appeal (26 N. W. 643) 823

Appeal (83 Pa. St. 59) 904

Apiieal (99 I'a. St. 74) 739, 1130, 1131.

1203

Settlement (18 Beav. 199)
Young, In re (3 N. B. Reg. 440)

Ex parte (8 Gill, 285)

V. Alexander (16 Lea. 108)

V. Barner (27 Grat. 96)

V. Brown (75 Ga. 1)

V. Brown (1 Hagg. 53)

V. Brush (28 N. Y. 607)

V. Cook (30 Miss. 320)

I'. Gori (13 Abb. Pr. 13)

V. Holmes (1 Stra. 70)

V. Hunter (6 N. Y. 203)

I'. Jones (9 Humph. 551)

V. Kennedy (95 N. C. 265)

t'. Kimball (8 Blackf. 167)
V. O'Neal (3 Sneed, 55)
V. Radford (Hob. 3 b)
V. Ridenbaugh (67 Mo. 574)
V. Siuimate (3 Sneed, 309)
V. Suggs (Sm. & M. Ch. 393)
V. Twigg (27 Md. 620)
V. Wickliffe (7 Dana, 447)
V. Wittenmyre (22 111. App. 496)
V. WittenmVre (14 N. East. 869)
V. Young (i A. K. Marsh. 56:^)
V. Young (45 N. J. L. 197)
Youngblood v. Norton (1 Strobh.

122)
Younger v. Duffie (94 N. Y. 535)
Youngs V. Youngs (45 N. Y 254)
Youse V. Forman (5 Bush, 337)
Yundt's Appeal (13 Pa. St. 575)
Estate (6 Pa. St. 35)

995

294

533, 1150

1146

42, 70, 470

1124

402

1146

1247

611

991

953

611

1146, 1151,

1184

747, 1182

365, 650

595

Eq.^

44

348

1231

1080
702
375

1042
271
840

1213

64

890

90

122S

1153

Zacharias v. Collis (3 Phillim. 176)
Zachary v. Chambers (1 Oreg. 321)
Zaegefi'. Kuster (51 Wis. 31)
Zahrt, Matter of (94 N. Y. 605)
Zeigler v. Eckert (6 Pa. St. 13)
Zeile, In re (74 Cal. 125)
Zeisweiss i". James (63 Pa. St 465)
Zerbe v. Zerbe (84 Pa. St. 147)
Ziegler v. Grim (6 Watts. lOO)
Zimmerman v. Anders (6 W. & S.

V. Kinkle (108 N. Y. 282)

V. Streeper (75 Pa. St. 147)

Zoellner v. Zoellner (53 Mich. 620)

Zollickoffers v. Seth (44 Md. 359)

Zumwalt V. Zumwalt (3 Mo. 269)

50,51

804, 809

270

267, 208

976, 981

970, 971

908

880

1244

923,

929

693

121

203

810

1193

218)

A TREATISE

ON THE

AMERICxVN LAW OF ADMINISTRATION.

INTRODUCTION.

OF THE NATURE OF PROPERTY AND THE PRINCIPLE
DETERMINING ITS DEVOLUTION.

CHAPTER I.

OF PROPERTY IN GENERAL.^

§ 1. The Acquisition of Property. — My property is that which
is mine. That only is mine wliich I acquire, hold, and dispose of
by my wilL It is mi/ tvill which determines the acqui- property is
sition of a thing by me, whether originally, by reducing ^^n' Iff'us^
to possession, and thus making my iproijerty that which owner.

1 The definition of property has been
attempted upon various theories. An
able writer, Mr. U. M. Rose, has pub-
lished, in the " Southern Law Review "
(N. S., vol. ii. p. 1 et seq.), a series of arti-
cles, entitled " Controversies of Modern
Continental Jurists," in which he com-
ments upon the most celebrated theories
concerning the derivation of rights, and
dwells with approbation upon Kant's Sys-
tem, which he styles ihc Possihiliti/ of
Coexistence (as to Kant's definition of
property, see his Rcchtslehre, published in
the PhUosophische Bibliothek, vol. xxix.,
Berlin, 1870), and Rosmini's theory, from
whose work (Delia Natura del Diritto,
Naples, 18-37) he quotes to some extent.
VOL. I. — 1

The reader will notice how near these
views approacli those given in the text,
which follow the exposition of Hegel
in his Philosophle cles Ileclilx, §§ 40-70.
No translation into the English tongue
of this truly exhaustive and masterly
treatise on the law has, as yet, it is be-
lieved, appeared ; but in " The Journal
of Speculative Philosophy" (vol. iv. p.
155) was published the " Outlines of the
Science of Rights, Morals, and Religion,"
which is a translation of Hegel's PhUoso-
phische Propadentik, enriched by explan-
atory notes elucidating Hegel's terminol-
ogy and abstruse reasoning, and which
contains a full synopsis of his greater
work.

2 NATURE OF PROPERTY. § 2

was no one's property before ; or hy contract, by which a thing
becomes mine through the concurrence of my will with that of its
former owner. Since I cannot rightfully acfiuire the property of
another without his consent, — that is, without his free will, — it
is obvious that the will of the original owner is a necessary ele-
ment in my ownership, and in the ownership of any one who may
lawfully acquire it after me, and remains operative until the prop-
erty has lost its character as such by voluntary abandonment.
By my own free will I may abandon my property, whereupon it
ceases to be such, and relapses into the condition of res nullms, —
subject to become property by the sole will of any person who .
acquires it.

S 2. Tenure and Use of Property ; its Loss by Non-user. — I hold
or use a thing which is mine, at will. Matter is unfree, — i. e. it
It is so only has uo will, it does not belong to itself. Neither right
owne"rwTnftt ^or duty can be predicated of a mere thing; its quality
to be so. jg to offer resistance ; it is, therefore, negative to my
will: my will, in realizing itself, overcomes this resistance and
subjects the thing to its purposes, — changing its form, destroying,
consuming it. That which is mine is thus a part of my person-
ality, of me, in so far as its end and purpose of existence is the
satisfaction, the realization of my will, and to serve it for its pur-
poses as my bodily limbs serve me. Will, then, is the essence of
property ; without it there is none. Hence, that from which I
have withdrawn my will, which I have abandoned, ceases to be
my property, and becomes, as we have seen, res nullius, the ap-
propriation of which by another is no violation of my right, be-
cause it is no collision with my will. If, then, I wish to preserve
my property, or, which is the same in effect, my right to it, 1
must indicate, in some way perceptible to others, that it is still
subject to my will; otherwise I may be understood as having
abandoned it. To avoid collisions arising out of a misinter-
pretation of my relation to a thing, a definite period is fixed
It ceases to be ^Y custom or law, within which my will is presmiied to
the property attach to it ; if I permit this period to expire without

of him who ^ . ji j.

ceases to will using the tiling, or indicatmg m some tangible way that

it to be his. . . , , . ^i . • , . • i

it continues to be mine, (keeping it in possession, lay-
ing it up, or in some way exercising ownership over it,) its aban-
donment is presumed, and my right to it is lost by prescription,
my ownership barred by limitation.

§ 4 ALIENABILITY OF PROPERTY. 6

§ 3. Alienability of Property. — 111 like manner I may relin-
(juish my property to another, either by freely giving it, or ex-
rhawjuKj it for other property. We have already seen ^^ ^ .^^^ .^ ^^
that property acquired from another can become such be some one's
only by the will of the former owner. My donee as
well as my vendee holds the property given or sold by the concur-
rence of my will with his own ; it must be my will that the donee
shall taivc, and his that he will receive, the thing which he ac-
quires from me by gift; and my will to relinquish and that the
vendee shall hold the propei-ty 1 sell or barter, and his to relin-
quish and that 1 shall hold the property I get in exchange there-
for. Property so relinquished does not cease to be property when
it ceases to be mine, for it is my will that my donee or vendee shall
hold it. The alienation of property constitutes one of Alienation is
the forms in which 1 use it, in which it serves my pur- t" whichVop!
poses, and in which I realize my ivill. This phase or p;Jfb"'''it,^*'
quality of property constitutes the sphere of contract, owner.
Alienability is of the essence of property ; an infringement of my
right or power to alienate my property is therefore a limitation
upon my free will, and to that extent a violation of my personal
liberty, because my free will finds realization in property. The
infraction of my personal freedom is precisely the same if a lim-
itation is put upon my power to alienate property as if I were
prevented from acquiring, or from holding or using it. The lim-
itation would in either case deprive me of my powder to contract,
and thus destroy my liberty .^

§ 4. Operation of the Owner's Will after his Death. — Property,
then, is the realization of the free will of a person, the external

1 Intellectual or manual skill, sciences, which I may alienate for his use, — not

arts, even reH^ious functions (sermons, the wiiole of my labor, skill, or services,

masses, prayers, etc.), as well as services — the totality of my activity or produc-

to be rendered for another at or for a tions, — for that would be to alienate my

given period, are all included in the own personality, to destroy my free will,

sphere of contract. It might appear, on which are inalienable. The servant or

a superficial view, that such skill, or fane- laborer for hire realizrs hix will hy ex-

tions, or services, cannot be classed as changing his services or productions for

things, and do not therefore constitute his wages, and thus enters into a lawful

property, being themselves emanations contract ; but the slnve gives up or is de-

of free will, and qualities or attributes of prived of his free will, to the destruction

the mind. But it is within the province "f his persoiutliti/, which can neither be

of my mind or will to e.rtcninlize a lim- relinquished nor acquired as property by

ited share of my activity, to give to an- anotlier. Hegel. Philosophie des Kechts,

other an interest in it, and thus to reduce §§ 4.!, fi^■^ 67. and addenda.
it to the condition of an external thing,

4 NATURE OF PROPERTY. § 5

sphere of his freedom. As such, it partakes of, and
iiizes ii7iiTO^P-^'" is clothed with, the dignity and invioUxbility of the
o?rishtof'its person. The things which constitute property can
owner. ^^^^,^ j^q rights, for they have no will ; and will alone,

or the person in which it has its abode and vehicle, can be the
subject of right and of its correlative, duty. The law recognizes
and deals with property only in so far as it recognizes and deals
with the will of the owner, realized or externalized therein. For
the sphere of the law is the Spiritual ; it operates upon and
through the will alone. ^ Thus the law recognizes in the property
of a deceased person his free will ; that is, his rational will, and
enforces it. The failure of such recognition would destroy the
property, which can be such only through the will of its owner.
If this has been adequately expressed, the disposition of the prop-
erty is enforced accordingly ; if not, the law itself supplies the
omission by imparting to the property the universal will, which is
the free will of rational persons.

§ 5. Distinction between Rational and Capricious Will. — The
distinction between truly free or rational will and caprice, unfree
But cancels *^^' irrational will, lies in the content which the will
mere caprice, giyes itsclf, or the objcct wliich it pursues. Universal
will (as distinguished from personal, individual, or subjective
will) is the will as embodied in the law, in morality, ethics, relig-
ion. Without universal will there could be no laws, nor anything
obligatory upon us all. Each one would act according to his own
caprice or pleasure, without respecting the caprice or pleasure of
others. In so far, then, as the will of the individual has for its
content or object the universal will, it is rational and free.2
Caprice, arbitrary or limited will, has for its object or content the
gratification of some impulse or appetite, which may or may not
be rational, i. e. in consonance with the universal or absolute
will.3 It follows that the law can recognize and enforce only

1 The will is free; freedom is its sub- 2 « The absolute will has only itself for

stance and essential quality, in like man- object, while the relative will has some-

ner as the substance and essential quality thing limited " : Hegel, Propiideutik, § 20;

of matter is gravity. Gravity is not an Jour. Sp. Ph., vol. iv. p. 57. See also

accidental predicate of matter, but mat- Hegel, Encyclopadie, §§ 483-486.

ter itself; so with freedom and will : free- ^ Caprice (arbitrariness) is formal, but

dom is will. Will without freedom is a not true freedom. Since I may elect to

word void of meaning; freedom exists determine, or not to determine, this or

only as will. Heeel's Philosophie des that, I possess what is ordinarily called

Rechts, § 4, and addendum. freedom. My choice consists in the fao-

§ 6 PROPERTY AND FA^HLY. 5

true or rational will, and must ignore and cancel that which is
capricious and arbitrary.

§ 6. Relation of Property to the Family. — Tlic ethical relation
between the sexes demands tht'ir union in matrimony, from which
the family results as a spontaneous natural (social „. , , ,

. '^ , ^ . ^ Riirht of the

union) society, whose members arc united by the family to

bonds of mutual affection, implicit trust, and volun-
tary obedience (pietas}. The family is an organic totality, whose
constituent elements have their true existence not in their indi-
viduality, but in tlieir relation to each other through the totality,
lacking independence when separated from it ; they have no sepa-
rate interests to seek, but only one common interest for the whole.
Hence, there dwells in the family but one will ; namely, that of
the head of the family, who represents it in its legal relations to
others.! In recognizing the true nature and validity of tlie
family, the law accords to it and secures it in the enjoyment of
the necessary means to its existence, property ; and this in a
higher sense and in a more efficient degree than it secures the
property of individuals. The existence of the family as an aggre-
gate person requires a permanent estate, adequate not only to the
capricious purposes and desires of an individual, but to the com-
mon collective wants of all its members.^ In this estate or prop-
erty no one member of the family has an exclusive interest or
right of possession, but each his undivided interest in the common
fund.2 Nevertheless, the property is usually lield by the head of
the family, and in his name. It devolves chiefly upon him to
provide for it the means of subsistence and of satisfying their
various wants. He controls, manages, and disposes of the prop-

ulty of the will to make this or the other free when allowed to act arbitrarily, but

thing mine. Being a particular content, true freedom has no contingent content ;

this thing is not adequate to me: I am it alone is not contingent. Hegel, Phil,

not identical with it; I am simply the po- d. R., § 15 ; Jour. Sp. Ph., iv. 56-58.

tentiality to make it mine. Hence, the ^ 3 Jour. Sp. Phil., p. 167, § 28.

choice lies in the indeterminateness of '^ Hence the provisions in the statutes

the F^go and the determinateness of the of tlie several States securing to tiie widow

content ; being determined (limited) by and orphans of a deceased person the

tills content, the will is not free — i.e. homestead, year's support, etc. as against

has not itself (universal will) for its con- creditors, the homestead acts, liability of

tent. Whether the content (object) of a father for the support and education of

the capricious will be rational (conform- his minor children, the wife's right to

ing to the universal will) or not, depends dower, etc.

upon nrcident : my dependence upon the ^ Hegel, Phil. d. R., §§ 158, 170 ; En-
content constitutes the inconsistency of cycl., § 520.
caprice. Men usually believe themselves

NATURE OF PROPERTY.

§•7

erty or estate, limited in his absolute dominion over it, aside from
his moral obligations, only by the affirmative provisions of the
law. Upon the dissolution of the family through the develop-
ment of its ethical purpose, i. e. upon the attainment of major-
ity of the children, — who then separate from it as persons sm'
juris, capable of holding property of their own and becoming
founders of new families, — their interest in the family estate is
modified accordingly ; the authority of the father, as well as his
liability to support such children, is no longer recognized in law,
but becomes of ethical or moral force only.^

§ 7. Testamentary Disposition of Property. — -From the nature
of property, in its relation to the individual as well as to the
Testamentary family. Springs the principle of its devolution upon
powersprinss ^j g dcatli of the owncr. The power to dispose of

from the ri^ht , • /i <■

of alienation, property by last will or testament results strictly irom
its essential quality of alienahiUty by the owner,^ and is, liivc gifts
or contracts inter vivos, limited only by the policy of the law.^
The restraint placed upon a testator is no greater than that
which exists in cases of alienation of property inter vivos;

1 Hegel, Phil. d. R., § 177.

2 See ante, § 3.

3 But, from tlie standpoint of etliics
and morality, the unlimited testatory
power is not justifiable. If the testator
die after his children have readied major-
ity, there may be some ground for volun-
tary discrimination between his natural
heirs. Unless, however, this is resorted
to in a very limited measure, and for valid
reasons, it will be in violation of the logi-
cal and ethical basis of the family. Nor
can the testatory power be deduced from
the arbitrary will of the testator against
the substantial rights of the family unless
the kinship be remote. The arbitrary
power of the father to disinherit his chil-
dren is one of the immoral provisions of
the Roman laws, according to which he
might also kill or sell his son ; and the
wife (even if not in the relation of a slave
to her husband, in numum. conveniret, in
mancipio esset, but as a matron) was a
member, not of the family of which she
was the mother, but of that of which she
was a descendant, inheriting from the
latter, and the latter inheriting from her.
Hegel, Phil. d. R., §§ 179, 180.

The power of testamentary disposition
of property is nowhere so unlimited as
under the modern statutes of England
and the American States. The common
law of England, at least the custom in
particular places, did not allow a man to
dispose of the whole of his personal es-
tate by will unless he died without either
wife or issue, but required him to leave
one third to his wife and one third to his
children, if he left both wife and children ;
or one half to his wife or children if he left
either. (See 1 Perk. Williamson Exec,
\ et ser/.) Under the codes of Louisiana
and most of the continental countries of
Europe the right to disinherit one's own
children is allowed only for certain causes
pointed out by the law, which are re-
quired to be recited in the instrument,
the trutli of which may be traversed and
the will set aside if not sustained at the
trial. Blackstone is eloquent in the ex-
pression of his disapprobation of " the
power of wantonly disinheriting the heir
by will, and transferring the estate,
through the dotage or caprice of the an-
cestor, from those of his blood to utter
strangers " : 2 Bla. Comm. 373.

§ 8 SUCCESSION AT LAW. 7

the wife's dower, the provisions, clothing, year's sup- J,';.";|J;'J/;",1-;;'
port, household furniture, etc., of which a testator ohiis family,
cannot deprive his family, are similarly protected against credi-
tors, and, in many cases, against improvident alienation by the
living head of the family. A fruitful source of litigation is found
in the capricious and arbitrary disjxjsitions often made in wills, to
the grievance and unjust deprivation of heirs at law ; and the
readiness with which juries seize upon slight pretexts, flimsy
proof of " undue influence," etc., to set aside such unjust wills,
is indicative of a deep-seated ethical aversion to the power of
arbitrarily diverting the natural channel of the devolution of
property.

§ 8. Succession of Property at Law. — Upon the natural dis-
solution of the family by the death of the parents, or more par-
ticularly of the husband or father, the property of the Hence property
family descends to the heirs. It is quite apparent famUy upon its
that, in the case of a family in the most restricted, "^^"^^'^ '^^^t^-
natural sense (consisting of parents and children), there is in this
process no substantial, but only a formal change of ownership :
the property held by them in common, or by the head of the
family for them,^ now passes to them directly. In the absence of
a testamentary division, the- property vests by the law of descent,
passing from the husband and father to the wife and children,
that being the natural, substantial, and rational course ; such, in
the absence of a contrary disposition, is the rational, substantial
will of the deceased to which the law gives effect. In default of
wife and children, the parents, brothers and sisters, or other
more distant relatives, constitute the heirs ; the family bond is
looser as the kinship is more remote and the relatives belong to
other families of their own. In the same ratio in which the rea-
son demanding the heirship between members of the same family
loses force with the remoteness of kinship, the propriety and jus-
tice of testamentary disposition of property becomes more ap-
parent.2 The disposition of property in anticipation of death

1 See ante, § G. protected even against their own inipru-

2 The institution of primogeniture is dence and caprice by the entail of their es-
deducible from the political necessity of tates, relieving tliem from the distracting
the State, which seeks to increase its cares of obtaining the means of support,
stability by creating a class of persons and from the vicissitudes of fortune, tlms
independent alike of the favor of the gov- enabling them to devote their undivided
ernment and of tlie public at large, and energies to the service of the State. Pri-

8 NATURE OF PROPERTY. § 9

{donatio mortis causa) is but another form of testamentary dis-
position.i

§ 9. The Law as the Rational "Will of the Owner — It is sclf-
evideut that the claims of creditors of a deceased person consti-
The law ac tute a title to the property left by him superior to that
wint'theX- of heirs, whether testamentary or at law. A deljt con-
ceased himself stitutes property of the creditor remaining in the pos-

would have i i J , . , , , i ^^^ c

done. session of the debtor, which, by the concurrent will ot
both, is, at some period subsequent to the creation of the debt
(arising out of an express or implied contract), to pass into the
possession of the creditor. The debtor, then, has only a qualified
property in the thing (usually the price for goods sold or services
rendered) which constitutes the debt ; namely, the right of pos-
session for a period of time which may be definite, or depend
upon the forbearance of the creditor. The substantial property
the right to the thing, with a present or future right to the pos-
session also — is already in the creditor ; for this reason, it can-
not go to the debtor's heirs, or it goes to them to the extent only
in which he had an interest therein. To secure the rights of
creditors in the estates of deceased persons against the heirs as
well as against strangers, and to secure justice to and between
the heirs themselves, — in other words, to enforce the rational
will of the decedent, which can be no other than that upon his
death his property shall pass to his creditors and testamentary or
legal heirs, — the law itself performs the office of the deceased
owner, substituting for or supplying as his will its own universal
will.2

mogeniture and entail are violative of of that law which has undertaken to

the true principle of property, destroying provide for the discharge of the duties

both its alienability and natural course of omitted by the intestate. The creation

descent ; hence, they are utterly inde- of this aijent the law wisely leaves to the

fensible and immoral where no political discretion of the ancestor, if he chooses

necessity exists for them. (Hegel, Pliil. d. to exercise it ; he may make his own will

R., §§ 306,180.) In America they are instead of leaving it to the law io make

generally inhibited by the constitutions one for him, and he may appoint his own

or statutes of the several States. agent or executor instead of confiding

1 See post, ch. vii. this duty to the probate court under tlie

2 " The character of thh estate, together authority of the law. If the ancestor, by
with the variety of individuals who may will, appoint his own agent or executor,
be interested in it, as creditors, legatees, he thereby becomes vested with the title
or distributees, seems to demand that it to the property in a fiduciary character,
also should be vested hy law in some But if, either designedly or otherwise,
common agent, who shall preserve it from the ancestor die without executing his
waste, and dispose of it to those entitled power of testamentary disposition, the
to receive it according to the provisions law, as in case of real estate, assumes

^ 10 EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS. 9

From this theory it is apparent that tlie true reason of the law
of descent, of the recognition of the vahdity of testaments, and of
the authority assumed by the law over the estates of 'n,e nature of
deceased persons, is to be found in the necessity of re- |^|'",Pff^;^j tjjf
storino- tlie essential quality of propertv which has lost family deter-

, . , '-, mine the

the will element by the death oi the owner, bome course of
text-writers look upon the i)roperty left by deceased
persons as res nuUius, which might be seized and ai»i)ropriated by
the first comer or bystander, and hold that the laws of descent
and of distribution are simply wise and necessary precautionary
measures to prevent strife and violence at the death-bed. That
such is the effect of these laws is evident enough, as also their
wisdom and validity ; but to place the reason of their enactment
on this ground is to ignore the true nature of the family, as well
as the true nature of property.^

§ 10. Administration : Functions of Executors and Administra-
tors. — The purpose of the law in this respect is accomplished in
a simple and efficient manner by its officers or minis- j^^^ devoiu-
ters, vested with powers and duties commensurate with t'"° of p'^p-

' 1 erty accom-

the exigencies requiring their intervention. The sum piished by

. . . n T 7 . • • 1 • 1 • -J- executors

of their activity is called aamDii^tration, wmch, \n its and admin-
narrowest legal sense, is the collection, management,
and distribution, under legal authority, of the estate of an intes-
tate by an officer known as administrator ; or of the estate of a
testator having no competent executor, by an administrator with
the loill annexed. The person charged with the management and
disposition of the estate of a testator is an executor, and his office
is called executorship, because he executes the testator's will, but
his official acts are also called administration.'^ The functions of
these officers are in many respects similar to those of trustees as

itself the duty of appointment, and vests tlie management of the estates of minors,

this title and authority over the perxonal persons of unsound mind, drunkards,

estate in a common agent for the parties spendthrifts, etc., by officers known as

in interest, who is called an administra- (jncii-diann, cm-alors, tutors, committees, etc.

tor." — Harris, J., delivering the dis- Persons who are incompetent to man-

senting opinion in Evans v. Fisher, 40 age their affairs have not free will, with-

!Miss. 643, 679 et seq., citing from 1 Tuck, out which, as previously set forth in

Lect., pt. 2, pp. 397, 3!>8. the text, there can be no property ; hence,

1 Hegel, Phil. d. R., § 178. as in the case of deceased persons, the

2 The term administratior), in its pri- law vindicates its character as such by
mary signification and general sense supplying it with the content of its own
equivalent to conduct, management, distri- universal will, through the intervention
bution, etc. (Webster), is also applicable to of guardians, etc.

10 NATURE OF PROPERTY. § 11

known in chancery. Text-writers find it convenient to subsume
them under the same class when discussing the i)Owers, rights,
duties, and liabilities of trustees. But there is an obvious and
essential distinction between administrators and ordinary trus-
tees : while the latter derive their jjowers from the voluntary
creators of the trust, the authority of the former flows directly
from the law itself. Their functions constitute an essential ele-
ment of the law, and are exercised with entire independence of
the personal views, desires, and intentions of the parties con-
cerned. They are in the full sense officers of the law, and of
courts organized and having jurisdiction for the especial purpose
of aiding and controlling them. They arc clothed with authority
to act in all matters connected with the disposition of the dece-
dent's estate, precisely as he himself would rationally have done ;
and it is the ofifice of these courts to compel such action, and to
cancel all capricious, wilful acts inconsistent with justice and the
legal rio'hts of creditors and distributees.

§ 11. Functions of Courts controlling the Devolution of Property.
— The organization of courts having exclusive jurisdiction over
^ . „ , , matters pertaining to the administration of the estates

Controlled by ^ "

a class of of dcccascd pcrsous, and of minors and persons mcapa-
ized for this blc of managing their affairs, has undoubtedly proved
purpose. exceedingly useful and convenient to the public. But
while to this circumstance may be ascribed their historical devel-
opment and the modern growth and increased extent of their
jurisdiction, yet the true distinction between them and the courts
of ordinary plenary jurisdiction is not found in their usefulness
or convenience, but is based upon the more profound principle
underlying their origin, the logical diremption of the functions
peculiar to the two classes of courts, which a brief examination of
these functions will readily disclose.

The division of the powers of government into their constituent
elements results, in all modern free states, in the three co-ordinate
departments, confided to separate magistracies, known as the
legislative, judicial, and executive. It is sufhcient for the present
purpose to bear in mind that it is the office of the judiciary to
interpret and apply the law established by the legislative branch
to cases arising out of collision, whether actual or imaginary,
with the law, leaving it to the executive branch to carry out the
judgments of the courts. Thus the judge is seen to act as the

§ 11 TESTAMENTARY COUETS. 11

organ or mouth-piece of the law, announcing, in each case brought
to his official cognizance, whether the alleged collision between
the will of an individual, as objectified in an outward act, (for will
which is undetermined, not become external by accomplishment
of its purpose, is beyond the realm of the law, which deals only
with the actual,') is real or imaginary. In the exercise of this
function, the judge, with a directness peculiar to this branch of
sovereign power, accomj)lishes the great office and end of the
state and of all government, the accomplishment of justice, the
realization of will : securing to the rational will of the individual
its legitimate fruition, and holding the irrational, capricious, or
negative will to its own logical result (reparation and punishment
for wrong and crime).

But we have seen that all property subject to administration is
deficient in that element which alone can be the basis of a col-
lision between the individual will and the law ; it is the province
of the court having jurisdiction over executors and administra-
tors to supply the individual ivill lacking in property, to fill the
vacuum created by the death of the owner with the content of
the univci'sal will ; that is, to secure the disposition of property
under administration as the owner, acting rationally, would have
disposed of it if living. The functions involved in this office ^
have a ministerial element superadded to their judicial quality,
which, if they occurred in ordinary courts of law or equity, would
require the intervention of adjuncts — commissioners, auditors, ref-
erees, etc. — involving, aside from the question of inconvenience,
delay, and cost, an incongruity in the duties of the office.^

Such being the logical basis and scope of courts having control
of executors and administrators, their historical development in
England, but more particularly in the United States, has been a
gradual but steady separation from the common law and chancery
courts, and has resulted in a practical recognition of probate juris-
diction as a distinct and independent branch of the law, destined
to achieve for itself a sphere sui generis, based upon and deter-
mined by its own inherent pi'inciples.

1 Hegel, Pliil. d. R., §§ 113, 13. ing inventories, settlements, reports, etc.,

2 Such as the appointment of admin- fixing the dividends to be paid to credi-
istrators, granting probate of wills in non- itors, decreeing payment of legacies,
contentious cases, qualifying executors, ordering distribution of the residue, etc.
fixing the amount and passing upon the '^ Jurisdiction of Probate Courts:
sufficiency of bonds and sureties, receiv- South. L. K., (N. S.) vol. iii. pp. 254-267.

12 REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY. § 12

CHAPTER II.

OP THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN EEAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY.

§ 12. Distinction between Movable and Immovable, or Real and
Personal Property. — All property, of whatever kind or division.
All property is necessarily determined, in its devolution upon the
cordi'ng lo'the death of the owner, by the same immanent law or
owner's will, p^-jnciple. There is no inherent difference in this re-
spect between corporeal and incorporeal, or between movable and
immovable property ; all alike passes according to the will of the
deceased owner, whether expressed by himself or presumed by the
law. But the difference existing between movable and

But real and ° i p m -tj. c

personal prop- immovable property, with respect to the leasibility ot
under dl^ffer-^ its actual transfer or delivery from person to person,
ent rules. ^^^^ irom placc to place, gives rise to important dis-
tinctions to be observed, both as regards the formalities necessary
to constitute a valid testamentary disposition, and as to the code
of law which may govern the descent. It will appear, from the
consideration of the subject hereafter,^ that immovable property
must be determined by the law of the place where it is situated ;
but that movables generally descend according to the law of the
owner's last domicil.

The most important classification of property, giving rise to far-
reaching and radical distinctions at the common law and in most
of the States, is its division into real and personal,^ corresponding
substantially, but not precisely, to immovable and movable prop-
erty, or to lands and tenements on the one side, and goods and
chattels on the other. The importance of this division grows out
The distinc- of, or is at least enhanced by, the introduction of the
ofThe'feudar* feudal System into England after the Conquest, which
system. p^^ ^u end to all absolute ownership in land, and

1 Post, § 168. because it is directed against the thing

2 The terms " real " and " personal " itself, — the real thing ; that for goods and
seem to owe their origin to the nature of chattels is personal, because the proceed-
the remedies applicable for the depriva- ing is against the person only : Rap. & L.
tion of either of these classes of prop- Law D., 1066.

erty : the action for land is a real action,

§ 13 REAL ESTATE AT COMMON LAW. 13

thus did violence to the j)riiicij)le \i\h)u whieli property rests. The
feudal system has so thoroughly ])cnueatcd tlic common law, and
so thoroughly given it form and color, that neither this nor the
statutory systems of England or America can be understood with-
out a knowledge of and continual reference to the feudal prin-
ci})les. A brief outline of the origin and history of the tenure by
which land was and now is held in England must therefore pre-
cede the further consideration of the subject.

§ 13. Origin of the Tenure of Real Estate at Common Law. — The
peculiarity of the feudal system consists in the division of the
ownership : under it the property in as well as domin- Tenure of
ion over all lands in England was originally in the [h"'feudar'^
king, who granted out their use on condition of certain system.
services to be performed. This holding, or tenure, was not limited
to the first or paramount lord and his vassals, but extended to all
to whom such vassals parted out their feuds to their own vassals,
thus becoming mesne lords between the latter and the lord para-
mount.i It became a fundamental maxim and necessary principle,
(though in reality, says Blackstone, a mere fiction,) " that the
king is the universal lord and original proprietor of all the lands
in the kingdom ; and that no man doth or can possess any part of
it, but what has mediately or immediately been derived as a gift
from him, to be held upon feudal services." ^ Gratuitous as were
these feuds at their first introduction, so they were precarious,
depending upon the will of the lord, who was the sole judge
whether his vassal performed his services faithfully. Then they
became certain for one or more years, and later they began to be
granted for the life of the feudatory ; until in process of time it be-
came unusual, and was therefore thought hard, to reject the heir,
if capable of performing the services. The heir, when admitted
to the feud of his ancestor, used to pay a fine for the renewal,
which continued to be exacted upon the death of the tenant even
after feuds became absolutely hereditary .^

The ancient English tenures are described by Bracton (in the
time of Henry III.) as of four kinds, which he calls knight service,
free socage, pure villenage, and villein socage, all of them being
upon condition of services, duties, and burdens more or less op-

1 1 Washb. on Real Property, bk. 1, 2 2 Bla. Comm. 51.

ch. 2, pi. 11. 8 2 Bla. Comm. 54 et seq.

14 EEAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY. § 14

pressivo ; ^ but they were swept away, in the course of time, with
all their heavy appendages,^ and all tenures in general (except
frank-almoign, grand serjeanty, and copyhold) reduced to one gen-
eral species of tenure called free and common soearje, by which all
freehold lands in England are held to this day.^

§ 14. Substantial Abrogation of the Feudal Tenure by English
Statutes. — It is readily seen that the tenure of the feudatory,
Tenure of Under the strictly feudal princijjle, was not property
lands under jjj j^\^q ^^^q scusc ; for wc liavc sccu that an essential

English . ' _ _

Statutes, attribute of property is its alienability,* and the feudal

tenant could neither convey his right to another during his life-
time, nor transmit it to heirs or devisees after his death. The
tenure was enlarged in the course of time ; the power to alienate,^
to transmit, first by descent, and finally by devise,^ was accorded
to the tenant, so that at the present time there is but little prac-
tical difference between the absolute ownership enjoyed by the
American landholder and the tenure by free and common socage
now prevalent in England.'' But this enlargement of the ten-
ant's rights cannot be looked upon as the fruit of the logical
development of the feudal tenure ; it is rather a departure from
it, an abandonment of its principles, imperatively demanded by
the change in the relations between the lord and the vassal, — a
change which in the course of time has swept away every condi-
tion supporting the feudal system. In so far as lands are now
recognized, in England, as property, wliose owners enjoy all the
rights and consequences involved in absolute ownership, the
feudal tenure has been abolished in reality, though the name
and- the forms which it entailed upon the common law have
survived.

1 2 Bla. Comm. 61 et seg. * Ante, §§ 3, 7.

2 By Stat. 12 Car. II. c. 24, pi. 1, 2 ; ^ In the year 1285, by the statute of
"a statute," says Blackstone, " wliich 13 Edw. I., called the Statute of Mer-
was a grreater acquisition to the civil prop- chants, it was provided that tlie goods
erty of this kingdom than even Magna cnid lands of the debtor shall be delivered
Charta itself; since that only pruned the to the creditor, if the debt be not dis-
luxuriances that had grown out of the charged; and in 1290 the statute known
military tenures, and thereby preserved as " Quia emptoris terrarum," 18 Edw. I.
them in vigor; but the statute of King c. 1, removed all restrictions upon the
Charles extirpated the whole and demol- alienation of the lands of freemen,
ished both root and branches " : 2 Bla. ^ gy statute of 32 Henry VIII. c. 1,
Comm. 77. followed by the explanatory statute of

3 1 Washb. on R. P., bk. 1, ch. 2, pi. 34 & 35 Henry VIII. c. 5.
42 , 2 Bla. Comm. 79. 1 2 Bla. Comm. 78, 79.

§ 15 REAL AND PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES. 15

§ 15. The Devolution of Real Property to the Heir or Devisee, and
of Personal Property to the Administrator or Executor. — The com-
mon law of Euglaiul took form and growth under the inlluenccs
of the feudal system in its original vigor : feudal principles
constitute one of its essential features, and determine wholly its
policy in respect of real estate. Whatever rights of ownership
are now enjoyed by English landholders have been granted by
acts of Parliament, in derogation of the common law as well as in
conflict with feudal principles.^ Since at common law no Eng-
lish subject could hold land allodially, or in absolute
ownership, but held it upon condition of rendering ser- comiiticmTd '
vices and duties (some of them being military, hence olThe vassal-
excluding from a genuine feud all infants, women,
and professed monks, as incapable of bearing arms), and under
purely voluntary grant {dedi et coricessi'), from the feudal lord, it
follows that feudal grants could not be taken for the ,,. ,, ,

° _ not liable for

debts of the tenant, either before or after his death, the tenant's
nor devolve by succession upon his heir or devisee.
Nor had the personal representative of a deceased feudal tenant
the slightest claim to or interest in the fee held by the

and reverted

decedent, for the tee reverted to the lord ; neither to the lord on
creditors nor next of kin were entitled thereto, and if
it passed to the heir it was not by descent or in right of the an-
cestor, but by a renewed grant from the lord.^ Feuds
became hereditary, and the unconditional descent of ^y"enl"ved
lands from the ancestor to the heir was secured by a s''*"^-
statute which abolished the court of wards and liveries, „ , ,

. ,. . . . 1 . Statute abol-

of wardships, liveries, primer seisins, ousterlemains, ishins; feudal

SGrVlCG

values and forfeitures of marriage, fines for alienation,

and tenures by homage, knight service, and eseuage.^ This

statute operated as a confirmation of title in the heir, « , ,.„

1 ' confirmed title

but creditors were not allowed to subject lands in the of ti'^ heir,

but save no

hands of heirs to the satisfaction of their claims against claim to
the ancestor ; consequently executors and administra-
tors, whose principal function it is to pay creditors out of the
estate left by decedents, had no interest in or duties with reference
to such lands. The law subsequently gave recogni- statutes snb-
tion to the rights of creditors in a series of statutes, |o^p/Jvm|!nf
culminating in 3 & 4 William IV. c. 104, which makes °^ '^''^^^•

1 Ante, § 14. 2 Ante, § 1-3. 3 Stat. 12 Car. II. c. 24.

16 REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY. § 16

real estate of a deceased person liable for simple contract debts,
as well as for specialties. Thus, by a number of statutes, the
tenure of English landholders was made equal, in every practical
respect, to absolute ownership, investing the tenant with all the
rights, and subjecting him to all the duties, of allodial owners ;
while the common law, in its forms of procedure, in the nature of
the remedies and defences accorded to litigants, and in the prin-
ciples governing its technical construction, is feudal in its theory.

This dual nature of the English law sometimes produces antag-
onism between its content and its form, and thus violates in its
Antagonism provisions the strict requirements of logic ; a notable
tiie'stamtoiT instance of which may be found in the rule that the
changes. legal ownership of personal property descends to the

executor or administrator, but that of real property to the devisee
or heir. The rule arose out of the feudal tenure of lands, which
could not, as above shown, go to the personal representative,
because neither the creditors nor the heirs had any right thereto.
The gradual conversion of this tenure into an ownership possess-
ing all the essential qualities of property except the name,
removed the foundation and reason of the rule ; but the rule
remained, — a form void of essence, a body from which the soul
has fled.

It is very important, for the purpose of ascertaining the scope
and meaning of the numerous rules, statutory enactments, and
judicial decisions bearing upon the distinction between real and
personal property, to keep continually in mind that they are
traceable to a condition of things no longer existing in England,
and which never had existence in America.

§ 16. Incongruity of the Rule in America. — The common law

distinction between real and personal property is still recognized

in most of the American States, and with it the doc-
Mischief pro- . 1 J J 1 T •
duced by the trme that real property descends to the devisee or

thrfo^mmoV licir, and personal property to the executor or admin-
law rule. istrator. This doctrine was received along with the

common law of which it forms a part. Its incongruity, more con-
spicuous in a country in which feudalism had never obtained foot-
hold, together with the attempts made in many of the States to
abolish or modify the rule as inconsistent with the true theory of
property, has produced much confusion and inconsistency in the
decisions of the courts of the several States touching the law of

§ 16 INCONGRUITY OF THE RULE. 17

real estate of deceased persons. The common law,, as well as the
statutes of England enacted before the settlement of the Colonies,
is not only the basis uj)on which the new States built up their own
systems, but was enacted as law in almost every rftate,^ introducing,
save as against aOirniative legislative modification, the feudal
principles which it embodies. These princii)les are so interwoven
with common law jurisprudence, that to remove them would de-
stroy the whole texture.^ It seems to be so difficult, Indeed, en-
tirely to eliminate from our codes those rules and doctrines which
constitute an essential element of the common law, but which
grew out of conditions utterly different from our own, that but
few legislatures have undertaken the task of building up a purely
American system ; and what efforts are made by legislatures in
this direction are often thwarted by the conservative spirit of law-
yers and judges, in construing American statutes from the stand-
point of the common law. In some of the States, however, the
distinction between personal and real property, as affecting the
course of its descent, has been entirely abolished,^ and in most
of them the common law rule more or less modified. These
attempts to adapt the common law to the condition of things in
America, in which the legislative and judicial authorities of each
State proceed according to their own views of the policy demanded
for the interest of its citizens, either retaining the common law,
or modifying it to a greater or less extent, or cutting loose from
it entirely, have resulted in a bewildering labyrinth of conflicting
decisions, not only among the several States, but in the States
themselves.*

1 Except Louisiana. advisers, but a positive injury to credi-

2 Tilghnian, C. J., in Lyle v. Ridi- tors and distributees, in its mischievous
ards, 9 Serg. & R. 322, 333. It is held in tendency to destroy faith in tlie validity
this case that tlie common law doctrine of of the title to property which executors
forfeiture, for the purpose of barring con- and administrators find it necessary to
tingent remainders, lias been extended sell in winding up the estates under their
to Pennsylvania. charge. See, on this point, the remarks

5* See post, § 337. of the Hon. John F. Dillon in his address

* The diversity of the American law before the Alabama Bar Association, 22

on this point, and on the scope of the Am. L. Rev. 30, 37, entitled "A Century

jurisdiction of probate courts and the of American Law "; and of the Hon. I)a-

conclusiveness of their judgment (see, on vid Dudley Field before a reunion of the

this point, post, §§ 143 et seq.) is not only Yale Kent Club at New Haven, entitled

the source of distressing uncertainty and " Improvements in the Law," to be found

anxiety to administrators and their legal in 22 Am. L. Rev. 57, 61.
VOL. I. — 2

TITLE FIRST.

OF THE DEVOLUTION OP PROPERTY ON THE
DEATH OF ITS OWNER.

PART FIRST.

OF THE DEVOLUTION AS DETERMINED BY THE ACT
OF THE OWNER.

BOOK FIRST.

OF TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY.

The scope of the present treatise forbids an exhaustive disqui-
sition on the Law of Wills and Testaments ; nor is there any need
for such an undertaking, the whole ground being amply covered
by the able and thorough work of Jarman, the fifth American
edition of which contains references to the latest American decis-
ions relating to the subject up to the time of its publication, with
explanatory comments by the American editor.^ But it is una-
voidable to refer to the principles upon which the law is based,
and to incorporate into the present work some of the details bear-
ing upon testamentary capacity, the form, execution, attestation,
revocation, and probate of wills, as well as, at the appropriate
time, to point out the principal rules of construction, and the
principles upon which the will is carried into effect.

1 " A Treatise on Wills, by Thomas M. Bigelow, Ph. D., of the Boston Bar.
•Jarman, Esq. The Fifth American from Little, Brown, & Co., 1881."
the Fourth English Edition. By Melville

S 17 PROPERTY DISPOSABLE BY WILL. 19

CHAPTER III.

OP THE EXTERNAL LIMITS PLACED UPON TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY.

§ 17. Limitation of the Property disposable by Will. — It may
be proper, in the first place, to consider what part of a man's
property is subject to his testamentary disposition. In this par-
ticular the practical development of the English law is not in
strict harmony with the logical notion of property, which seems
to demand a restriction of the power within narrower limits than
are placed upon it in either England or America. Contrary to
the progress of testamentary law in Rome and on the European
continent, which proceeded from practically unlimited power of dis-
position (Law of the Twelve Tables) to a limitation thereof (^Lex
Falcidia)^ the legislation of England has constantly enlarged the
powers of testators in this respect,^ until now, both in England
and America, the right to dispose of property by will is as broad
and comprehensive as the right of disposition while living.^

Without inquiring into the distinctions as to the various kinds
of property which may be devised or bequeathed, and whether
property acquired by the testator after the time of executing his
will passes thereby,^ it is necessary to remember, in this connec-
tion, the various provisions existing at common law and enacted
by the several States in favor of the widow and surviving minor
children, as limitations upon the testator's power over his prop-
erty. These subjects will be treated hereafter in connection with
the subjects of dower,* support of the family,^ and homestead.^

In Louisiana, whose code of laws retains many of the principles
of the civil law, the testator's power to disinherit his children and

1 " ... Glanvil will inform us, that the reign of Charles L to be the general

by the common law, as it stood in the law of the land." 2 Bla. Comm. 491.

reign of Henry II., a man's goods were ^ Ross v. Duncan, Freem. Ch. 587,

to be divided into three equal parts, of 598 et seq.

which one went to his heirs or lineal de- ^ This subject will be treated in a

scendants, another to his wife, and the subsequent part of this work. See post,

third was at his own disposal. . . . This § 419; also § 63.

continued to be the law of the land at * Post, § 105 et seq.

the time of Magna Charta, . . . and Sir & p„st, § 77.

Henry Finch lays it down expressly in ^ Post, § 64.

20 EXTERNAL LIMITS ON TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY. § 18

father or mother is Hiulted to cases eiiiauerated by the statute,
and based upon their own misconduct, the particulars of which
must be alleged in the will ; ^ the disinherited parties being
allowed to traverse such allegation and avoid the will if found to
be untrue.^ So also " donationes inter vivos, or mortis causa,
cannot exceed two thirds of the property, if the disposers, having
no children, leave a father, mother, or both." ^

§ 18. Limitations upon Testamentary Capacity. — We have seen
that the power of testamentary disposition is an essential element
in the nature of property,^ because the right to hold
tamentary property Includcs the right to alienate it in such
capacity. manner as the owner may, in the exercise of his free
will, determine.^ It follows from this, that every person may
make testamentary disposition of his property who is capable,
with reference thereto, of exercising free will.^ But this defini-
tion of testamentary capacity, although perhaps strictly accurate
in the abstract, is too general and vague to serve as a sufficient
„ , rule of law. To enable iudges and iuries to act with

Kities neces- o o o

sary to deter- the Certainty and uniformity required for the purposes
iiieiitary of justicc ill ascertaining the validity of testamentary
capacity. dispositions, particular rules are established by legisla-
tive enactment and judicial authority, by means of which the law
is rendered positive and certain, so far as human intelligence can
make it. These particular, positive rules of law, themselves
established to carry out the fundamental principle, operate as a
limitation upon the discretional scope of judges and juries ; with-
out which the line of division between testamentary capacity and
incapacity would necessarily be fixed by each person acting in a
judicial character, now here, now there, according to the personal
impression of the moment, producing upon the community rather
the effect of a misleading ignis fatuus, than serving as a light to
guide them in the knowledge of the law.

1 Code, art. 1609. having attained the age of majority, or

2 Code, art. 1616. of twenty-one years, not under legal dis-

3 Code, art. 1481. Cole v. Cole, 19 ability, are competent to dispose of their
Mart. (7 n. s.) 414, 419, overruled as to property by will. So in Delaware, Indi-
the amount of the legitime of a father ana, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts,
or mother in Marks v. Marks, 35 La. Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Ne-
An. 993. braska, New Hampshire, New Jersey,

* Ante, § 7. North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsyl-

5 Ante, § 3. vania, and Vermont. See Post, § 20,

6 Hence, in most States, all persons p. 25, notes 3 and 4.

§ 18 LIMITATIONS UPON TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY. 21

Til the nature of thint^s such rules must be negative in form,
because they operate as limitations, — particularizing, defining the
general law, as exhaustively stated in the general for-
mula, Every person capable of exercising free will may are nRi,'ative
make a valid testamentary disposition of his property. '" '^""'
The first step will therefore be to state the proposition itself
in its negative form : No person is capable of exercising testa-
mentary power who is, for any reason, incapable of exercising free
will ; from which the classification of testamentary incapacity, or
of persons incapable of making wills because they lack testa-
mentary capacity, naturally arises. Manifold are the distinctions
drawn, in the numerous books which treat of this subject, as to
the sources of testamentary incapacity ; ^ it will be sufficient, how-
ever, for the purposes of this work, to observe the distinction
between external limitations upon the will, or disabili- incapacity
ties created by the law in furtherance of public policy, ext.'rnarre-
and incapacity arising from an immanent defect of the ffictionsami

^ "^ ° _ iiDnianent de-

mind by reason of which the person is devoid of the ^^ct of mind.

reasoning power and firmness of intellect necessary to realize his
own will.

To the former belong the legal presumption of want of discre-
tion arising from infancy, the merger of a married woman's per-
sonality in that of her husband, the incapacity of an alien to
devise lands, etc.

1 Goflolphin, in his " Orphan's Legacy : he is careful to add: "But here note,

or a Testanientar3^ Abriilgment," reck- That all the said Persons are not in all

ons five classes of persons incapable of Cases absolutely and utterly Intestable,

making testaments: "1. Such as are by but in some certain Cases only, as will

Law prohibited for want of Discretion ; as more distinctly appear hereafter." — God.

Children, Mad or Lunatick Persons, Idi- on Wills, ch. vii.

ots, Old Persons grown Childish through Williams, the most accurate and logi-

excess of Age, and Persons Actually cal, and at the same time most careful and

Drunk. 2. For want of Freedom or Lib- diligent, and therefore thoroughly reli-

erty, or that are not Siti juris in all re- able author on Testamentary Law, dis-

spects ; as Villains, Captives, and Women tinguishes between what he calls " three

Covert. 3. For want of some of their grounds of incapacity: 1. the want of

principal Senses; as Deaf, and Dumb, sufficient legal discretion ; 2. the want of

and Blind. 4. Such as are Criminous ; as liberty or free will; 3. the criminal con-

Traytors, Felons, wilful Feio's de se, and duct of the party" : Wms. on Ex. [12] ;

the like. 5. Such as are prohibited by to which lie adds, as not strictly subsum-

reason of some certain Legal Inipedi- able under any one of these heads, the

ments ; as outlawed Persons, Persons at cases of aliens and of the reigning sov-

the very Point of Deatli, Alien Enemies, ereign. This division seems better to

and such others." This classification, accord with the ancient learning on the

however, does not seem to satisfy him, for subject, than with strict logic.

90

EXTERNAL LIMITS ON TESTAMENTAKY CAPACITY. § 19

'J'o the latter may be referred idiocy, lunacy, delirium, or any
condition of weakness or unsoundness of mind by reason of
uhich a person's acts or conduct are not attributable to his own
free will.

§19. Incapacity of Aliens. — The testamentary incapacity of
aliens does not extend to personal property ; ^ and the invalidity
Incapacity of of the dcvisc of real estate by them arises out of their
to leahTroJl'^' incapacity to hold real estate. Considerations of pub-
eityoniy. lie policy require that no alien, whether friend or
enemy, shall have title to lands as against the sovereignty ; ^ but
an alien may take land by purchase or devise, and hold the title
subject to the right of the sovereignty to procure an escheat or
forfeiture upon information and office found.^ Until the land is
so seized, or the alien owner in some way dispossessed, he has
complete dominion over the same, and may convey it to a pur-
chaser ; ^ but upon the alien's death, although he leaves heirs
who would be capable of taking if he were a citizen, the land
escheats.^ This is the rule at common law, according to which
aliens cannot take real estate by descent, or by operation of law in
anv respect ; ^ but a great chanue has taken place in

Change from - r o .. ±

the common pcccnt ycars, botli in England and America, in the di-
rection of obliterating all distinction between citizens
and aliens in the ownership of property. Most of the States now
enable alien friends not only to acquire lands by purchase and de-
siates in visc, but also by descent, and to hold, alien, and devise,

which aliens - •,,i ,t t • -i t •

may take by and transmit the same by descent,^ either iincondition-
conditiomiUy. ^^b'? ^^ ill Alabama,^ Colorado,^ Florida,^*' Georgia,^^

1 Evan's Appeal, 51 Conn. 435, 439. v. Gardner, 7 Watts, 455, 458; Maynard v.

2 Commonwealth v. Martin, 5 Munf. Maynard, 30 Hun, 227, 230.

117, 119. 6 Montgomery v. Dorion, 7 N. H. 475,

3 1 Redf. on Wills, p. 11, pi. 5; Fairfax 480; Blight v. Rochester, 7 Wheat. 535,
V. Hunter, 7 Cr. 603, 619 et seq. ; Fox v. 544 ; Dawson v. Godfrey, 4 Cra. 321, 322 ;
Southack, 12 Mass. 143, 146; per Dyk- People v. Conklin, 2 Hill, (N. Y.)67, G9.
man, J., in Maynard v. Maynard, 36 Hun, ^ Howard v. Moot, 64 N. Y. 262, 270;
227, 229 ; and see post, on the subject of Lumb v. Jenkins, 100 Mass. 527 ; Doe i-.
Escheats, §§ 131 et seg. Robertson, 11 Wheat. 332, 357; Billings

4 Sheaffe r. O'Neil, 1 Mass. 256 ; t>. Hauver, 65 Cal. 593; Kilfoy y. Powers,
McCreery v. AUender, 4 H. & McH. 409, 3 Dem. (N. Y.) 198.

412 ; Marshall v. Conrad, 5 Call, 364, 402; » Code, 1886, § 1914.

Scanlan i'. Wright, 13 Pick. 528, 529; » Gen. St. 1883, p. 132, § 61.

Ramires v. Kent, 2 Cal. 558, 560. i" Dig. 1881, p. 470, § 7.

5 See post, §§ 131 et seq.; Slater v. " Code, 1882, § 1661. Alien friends,
Nason, 15 Pick. 345, 349 ; Mooers v. " shall have the privilege of purchasing,
White, 6 Johns. Ch. 360, 365; Rubeck holding, and conveying real estate."

§20

INCAPACITY OF ALIENS AND INFANTS.

23

Illinois,^ Indiana,^ lowa,-^ Kansas,* Mai ne,^ Maryland,^ Massachu-
setts/ Minnesota,^ Mississippi,^ Missouri,^'^ Nebraska," Nevada,^^
New Jersey ,^^ North Carolina,^* Ohio,^^ Oregon,^^ Rhode Island,'^
South Carolina,^^ Tcnncssee,^^ Virginia,^'' Wisconsin, ^^ and West
Virginia; '-^^ or upon condition of bona fide residence in oruponcon-
the State or United States, as in Arkansas,^^ Connecti- ^enc" i'n '^^'*''
cut,^'* Kentucky ,2^ Michigan,^^ New Ilampshire,'-^" New U. states.
York,^^ Pennsylvania ; 2^ or, that the inheritance be Oroncon-
chiimcd within a time limited, as in California ^'^ and inheritance
Texas.^' The Naturalization Act accom{)lishcs the same with'rn'Tcer-
result in England.^^ Both the English and most of the tain time.
American statutes provide, that alienage in any of the Alienage of

' o ./ ancestors no

grantors or ancestors through whom title to real estate detect in title,
is claimed shall constitute no defect in such title.^

§20. Incapacity of Infants. — The incapacity of infants arises
necessarily out of their want of discretion. But the gradations
of mental capacity are impossible of accurate measure- ^ •. ,

J •' ^ Incapacity of

incut ; and, since it is impracticable to ascertain the infants, cfisa-

.»,.,. «. . 1 bilitv attach-

precise moment when an miant s mmd is sumciently ingtoage
matured to act rationally upon the ordinarj'- affairs of

1 Starr & Cur. An. St. 1885, p. 264,
ch. vi., par. 1 and 2.

2 Rev. St. 1881, § 2967.

3 Rev. Code, 1886, § 1908.

< Const. 1859, Bill of Rights, § 17 ;
Compiled L. Kans. 1885, p. 50, § 99.

5 Rev. St. 1883, p. 604, § 2.

6 Rev. Code, 1878, p. 398, § 8.

7 Pub. St. 1882, p. 744, § 1.

8 Gen. St. 1878, p. 820, § 41.

9 Rev. Code, 1880, § 1230.
w Rev. St. 1879, § 325.

11 Comp. St. 1885, eh. 73, § 54.

1-^ Laws, 1879, p. 51; Gen. St. 1885,
§ 2655. An exception is made in this State
against subjects of the Chinese Empire.
But see State v. Preble, 18 Nev. 251.

« Rev. 1877, p. 6, § 3.

14 Code of 1883, § 7.

16 Rev. St. 1880, § 4173.

i« Code, 1887, § 2988, p. 1352.

1' Pub. St. 1882, p 442, § 6.

18 Gen. St. 1882, § 1847.

10 Code, 1884, § 2804 et seq.

2» Code, 1887, § 43.

21 Rev. St. 1878, § 2200.

22 Code, 1887, ch. 70, §§ 1, 2.

23 Dig. 1884, §§ 232 et seq.

2* Gen. St. 1888. § 15. An exception is
made in this State in favor of French citi-
zens, who are classed with resident aliens.
Non-resident aliens may hold and transmit
real estate used for mining purposes.

25 Gen. St. 1883, p. 191, § 1. After de-
claring his intention of becoming a citi-
zen of the United States.

-6 Const. 1850, art. xviii. § 13.

27 Gen. L. 1878, p. 325, § 16.

28 Banks & Br. Rev. St. p. 2164, §§ 15
et seq. But not exceeding two thousand
acres.

29 Bright. Purd. Dig. 1883, p. 84 et seq.
Alien enemies having declared their in-
tention to become citizens are allowed to
hold lands not exceeding two hundred
acres in quantity nor twenty thousand
dollars in value ; alien friends, not e.v
ceeding five tliousand acres.

3" Five years, after which the property
escheats. Civ. Code, §§ 671, 672; State
V. Smith, 70 Cal. 153.

31 Within nine j'ears. Rev. St. 1879.
Art. 1658.

82 33 Vict. c. 14, § 2.

38 See post, on the subject of Descent
of Property, § 76.

24 EXTERNAL LIMITS ON TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY. § 20

life, the law fixes a definite age before the attainment of which it'
conclusively presumes the want of discretion. It is evident that,
whatever age may be fixed upon, there will be many whose mind
is riper and better able to understand the nature of human trans-
actions before they reach it than that of others who have passed
this age. The limitation, therefore, is an external one, based not
so much upon mental incapacity, but arising out of a legal disa-
bility. The necessity of classing infancy with external limitations
upon testamentary power is apparent also from the diversity of
the rules laid down with regard thereto in the several codes.
Common Fo^ ^^ common law male infants of fourteen, and
law rule. female infants of twelve years of age, were held com-
petent to make wills in regard to their personal estate.^ This
rule was abolished in England by statute,^ in 1838,

Abolished by , . , 11 Tj -n 1 ' l +1

English Stat- wluch allows uo valid will by any person under the
age of twenty-one years, whether of personal or real
property ; but in many of the American States the common law
Rules ob- distinction is still observed. In Florida ^ and South
served in Carolina the statute fixes the age of twenty-one years

American . .,

States. as necessary to devise real estate, but is silent as to

personal property. In Tennessee^ no age qualification is men-
tioned for either real or personal property ; hence the common
law remains unchanged in each of these three States. In New
York males of eighteen and females of sixteen, in Georgia ^ infants
of fourteen and in Colorado of seventeen years of age, and in
Maryland parties " when competent to contract and make deed,"
may bequeath personal property. In a number of States the age
required of either sex is twenty-one to devise real, and eighteen
to bequeath personal property; ^^ in others, the age of twenty-one
for males and eighteen for females is fixed as necessary to will

1 The rule is not so much that of the » Meyer v. Meyer, 7 Fla. 292, 204.
common law, which seems to fix the age * Moore v. Steele, 10 Humph. 562.
of seventeen years as the period of testa- 565 ; Campbell v. Browder, 7 Lea, 240.
mentary capacity, but introduced into ^ O'Byrne r. Feely, 61 Ga. 77, 85.
England by the ecclesiastical courts, ^ in Alabama, Arkansas, Oregon,
which there had exclusive jurisdiction Ehode Island, Virginia, and West Vir-
over the probate of wills of personalty, ginia. In Arkansas the real and personal
and is traceable to the civil law. See property of a married female is made her
Smallwood v. Brickhouse, 2 Mod. 315; separate property by the Constitution,
Hyde v. Hyde, Free. Ch. 316 ; Arnold v. and may be devised as if she were a
Earle, 2 Lee Eccl. R. 529, 531. feme sole. Const., art. xii. § 6.

2 1 Vict. c. 26, amended by 15 & 16
Vict. c. 24.

§ 21 INCAPACITY OF MARRIED WOMEN. 25

either real or ])crsonal jd-ojicrty.^ In Missouri males may will
personal projjerty at eighteen, but must be twenty-one to devise
real estate, while females may will eitiier personal or real estate at
eighteen. In several States wills of realty as well as of personalty
may be made by either sex at eighteen ;^ in Wisconsin the mar-
riage of a female, and in Texas the marriage of a male or female,
enables such person to dispose of real or personal property by
will before reaching the age of majority. But by far the greater
number of States require a testator of cither sex to be of full age,^
or of the age of twenty-one years,* to dispose of either real or
personal property by will.

A rule of computing time should be noticed in connection witli
the question of infancy and majority, which is a departure
from the ordinary rule. At common law, in com-

. Computing

putmg the age of a person tor testamentary purposes, time of ma-
the day of his birth is included. As the law does not ^°"-'
recognize fractions of a day, but directs both the day of the birth
and of the anniversary to be reckoned as full days, it results that
a person born on the first day of January, 1880, in the last hour
of that day, will attain majority on the first instant of the thirty-
first day of December, 1900, — nearly two days less than twenty-
one years.^ The rule is recognized in several American States.^

§ 21. Incapacity of Married Women. — The disability attaching
to married women to dispose of their property by last will is
peculiar to the English law. It arises out of the fiction Coverture
at common law, that coverture merges the personal f^f^ent'frv^''
existence of the wife in that of the husband ; it is said t^^^pacity.
that a married woman has no legal existence apart from her hus-
band." This rule was not changed in England by the several
statutes concerning wills ; ^ but in the Married Women's Property

1 In Illinois, Iowa, Kansas. "scarcely less tlian a blunder, which, for

2 In California, Connecticut, Nevada, the good sense of the thing" he wished

3 Massachusetts, Michigan, Minne- to see set right. 1 Redf. on Wills, 20
sota, Nebraska, New Jersey, Ohio, Ver- ct seq.

niont. 6 State r. Clarke, -3 Harr. (Del.) 557,

* Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, 558; Hamlin r. Stevenson, 4 Dana, 597 ;

Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Caro- Wells v. Wells, 6 Ind. 447.
Una, Oregon, Pennsylvania. 7 Murray v. Barlee, 3 M. & K. 209,

s 1 Jarm. on Wills, *45. Judge Ked- 220.
field cites Svvinburn, Blackstone, Kent, » Married women are expressly dis-

Bingham, and Metcalf as so laying down ablcd by the statute of 1 Vict. c. 26, nor

the rule, and takes occasion to express his was the rule changed in the amendatory

emphatic dissent therefrom, deeming it statute of 15 & 16 Vict. c. 24.

26 EXTERNAL LIMITS ON TEST AMENTA IIY CAPACITY, § 21

Act of 1882 ^ married women are enabled to hold, and dispose of

" by will or otherwise," any real or personal property, in the

same manner as if they were femes sole ; since which time wills

of married women are entitled to general probate, including all

property disposed of in the will.^ Exceptions are men-
Exceptions to . , . -.^ ,. , ,. , , . 1
the rule at tioncd m English cases, according to which married

common hiw. , i i i-i -n

women may, even at common law, make vahd wills ;
but it will be noticed that the term exceptions is scarcely applica-
ble, as the circumstances under which the power is recognized
arc not strictly subsumable under the rule.

The first of these exceptions is, that a married woman may will
her personal property with the consent of her husband.^ But
since at common law the personal property of the wife is abso-
lutely that of the husband, his consent to its testamentary dispo-
sition is in reality the gift of the husband to the wife's legatee ; *
and this view is recognized by the power vested in the husband
to retract his consent, even after the wife's death, at any time
before probate of the will.°

Another exception is said to be the power of a married woman
to dispose by will (without the husband's consent) of property
which she holds in auter droit, as where she takes as executrix ; ^
but this affects only such property as passes by representation,
and includes none in which she has a beneficial interest, to which
the right of the husband would attachJ

It is also mentioned as an exception to the disability of a mar-
ried woman to devise property, that she may do so in pursuance of
a sufficient ante or post nuptial contract ; ^ this is clearly the result
of the marriage contract, and not the exercise of testamentary
power conferred by the law.

1 45 & 46 Vict. c. 75, § 1, pi. 1, § 2. ® Maas v. Sheffield, 1 Rob. 364, 10 Jur.

2 Goods of Price, L.*R.'l2 Prob. D. 417; Brook v. Turner, 2 Mod. 170, 172;
137 ; Goods of Homfray, L. R. 12 Prob. Van Winkle v. Schoonmaker, 15 N. J.
D 138 note. E<1- ^^^> 3«6 et seq.

3 Bransby v. Haines, 1 Cas. Temp. ' Scaramell v. Wilkinson, 2 East, 552,
Lee, 120, holding that the will of a mar- S^^-

ried woman, made witliout the husband's ' Scammell v. Wilkmson, supra.

consent, is a mere nullity ; but the spirit- ^ 1 Redf on Wills, 24, citmg Rich v.

ual courts have jurisdiction to decide the Cockell, 9 Ves. 368, 375; Hodsden v.

question whether the husband consented Lloyd, 2 Br. C. C. 534. See the Chan-

or not. Steadman v. Powell, 1 Add. 58 ; cellor's remarks, p. 543 ; the will was

Tucker v. Inman, 4 M. & Gr. 1049, 1076. made before marriage, and held revoked

* So held per North, C. J., in Brook by the marriage.
V. Turner, 1 Mod. 211.

§ 21 INCAPACITY OF MARRIED WOMEN'. 27

IJut in equity the power of nKirricd women to dispose of their
real as well as personal property is fully recoo-nized ; hence all
property over which courts of chancery obtain iurisdic-

' ' "^ "' ' • 1 Coverture no

tion may be as freely and fully devised be a married disability ia
woman as by a feme sole, whether the legal estate is "^"' ^'
vested in a trustee or not, since the husband and all persons on
whom the le.2;al estate may devolve will be deemed trustees for
the persons to whom the wife has given the equitable interest.^

In America there is a tendency to depart from the ancient
doctrine of the common law in respect of the property rights of
married women. So great is the progress already T^g^j.^^^^^^^, i,j
made in this direction, that it seems not impossible Americano

„,:.,, abolish iiica-

that at some future day the principles of the civil law pacity from
will have entirely supplanted the common law in this
respect, and when no distinction will be recognized between the
sexes, and between married and unmarried females, in respect of
their right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property .-

In respect of the testamentary power of married women they
have been placed upon a footing of substantial, if not absolute,
equality with unmarried women and men in Arkansas,'^ g^^^^^ ^^^^
Connecticut, Florida,^ Illinois,^ Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, ting married

' ' ' ' ' women upon

Maine,^ Maryland,^ Michigan,^ Minnesota,^ Mississipj)!,^" same footing

., ^ . with uiimar-

Nebraska,!^ Nevada,^^ r^ew York,^-^ Ohio,^* feouth Caro- ried women
lina,^^ Texas,!^ Vermont,^" and Wisconsin ^^ ; in some ^^ ™^"*
States it was deemed necessary to annex a limitation with refer-

1 1 Jarm. on Wills, *39-41. See the 8 Const., art. xvi. § 5.
elaborate statement by tlie American edi- ^ St. 1878, p. 567, § 1.

tor of the conmion law doctrine of testa- i" Code, 1880, § 1167, abrogating all
mentary incapacity by coverture, p. *41. common law disabilities of married

2 The Married Women's Property women, § 1169.

Act, 1882, also indicates the policy of " Comp. St. 1885, ch. 23, § 123.

England to place a married woman, so far ^- Gen. St. 1885, § 3001.

as her separate property is concerned, in ^^ " Act for the more effectual protec-

the position of a feme sole : Butt, J., in tion of the property of married women,"

Goods of Price, L. R. 12 Prob. D. 137, 138. passed April 11, 1849. See Van Wert v.

3 Dig. 1884, § 4621. Benedict, 1 Bradf. 114. 116.

* Dig. 1881, p. 757, § 16. 14 Allen v. Little, 5 Oh. 66, 68 et seq.

° St. & Curt. St. 1885, p. 1275, par. 9. is Const., art. xiv. § 8.

6 Rev. St. c. 61, § 1. See Meserve v. 16 Rev. St. 1879. § 48.57. In this State

Meserve, 63 Me. 518. marriage enables an infant female, other-

'^ Code, 1878, p. 421, § 12. This stat- wise disqualified, to make a valid will,

ute refers to ch 51, § 20, as to the kind i^ Rpy. L. 1880, § 2039.

of property she may devise. See SchuU i" Rev. St. 1878, § 2342.
V. Murray," 32 Md. 9, 15.

28

EXTERNAL LIMITS ON TESTAMENTAUY CAPACITY.

S 22

married wo-
men to one
half their
estate.

States allow
ing them to
dispose of
equitable
estates.

States savins; cnce to the husband's rights (as tenant by the curtesy,
'narit'if '^"'^ '^ etc., in stHct analogy with the widow's right of dower,
'■'si't*^- etc.), as in Missouri,^ New Hampshire,^ New Jersey,^

hl'M^estanien- Pennsylvania,^ Oregon,^ and Rhode Island^; in others,
tary power of ^q limit the powcr to oHC half of her property, without
consent of the husband in respect of the other half,
as in Colorado," Kansas,^ and Massachusetts.^ Power
to dispose of her separate property by will is given
in Alabama,^'' California,^^ Indiana,^^ Kentucky ,i^ Ten-
nessee,^* and Virginia,^^ by which it would seem her
common law status is slightly, if at all, changed. In
Georgia, the common law is substantially enacted by statute,^^
and in North Carolina the common law prevails.^'' In Dela-
ware a wife may will her property with the consent of her hus-
band expressed in writing and attested by two witnesses ; but
such will is nevertheless inoperative against the husband's right
to curtesy. ^^ In Kentucky, where a married woman cannot make
a will, it was held that a holographic will executed by a married
woman, and after her husband's death recognized and adopted by
her as her will, is valid.^^

§22. Incapacity of Criminals. — Other limitations upon the
right to dispose of property by last will existed at common law

1 Eev. St. § 3961.

2 Gen. L. 1878, p. 435, § 11.

3 Rev. 1877, p. 638, § 9. See Vreeland
V. Ryno, 26 N. J. Eq. 160 ; Camrlen Co.
V. Insham, 40 N. J. Eq. 3, 6.

* Dickinson v. Dickinson, 61 Pa, St. 401.
6 Code, 1887, § 3068.

6 Pub. St. 1882, pp. 423, 424, 471.

7 Gen. St. 1883, p. 695, § 2269.

8 Comp. L., ch. 117, § 35. See Barry
V. Barry, 15 Kans. 587 ; Bennett v. Hutch-
inson, 11 Kans. 398, 408.

9 In personalty: Pub. St. 1882, p. 819,
§ 6. This statute also secures to the hus-
band his curtesy. It is held that the
husband takes no interest in his wife's
realty devised to others, if he has no
curtesy. Burke v. Colbert, 144 Mass. 160.

1" Code. § 2352. See Mosser v. Mosser,
32 Ala. 551, 555 ; O'Donnell v. Rodiger,
76 Ala. 222.

11 Civ. Code, § 1273.

12 Formerly : Noble v. Enos, 19 Ind. 72.
But see Rev.' St. 1881, §2557.

1" Gen. St. 1883, p. 832, § 4. See
George v. Bussing, 15 B. Mon. 558, 562.

!■• Johnson v. Sharp, 4 Coldw. 45.

15 Code, 1887, § 2286, 2513.

18 Code, 1882, § 2410, giving the reasons
for tlie common law rule, and all excep-
tions. But it is there held that a married
woman may will her property (the lan-
guage of the judge is " all they own,"
which seems to include real and personal
property, whether legal or equitable)
without her husband's consent. Urquliart
V. Oliver, 56 Ga. 344, 346.

1^ A married woman may dispose by
will of her equitable property : Leigh v.
Smith, 3 Ired. Y.q. 442, 445; and such
will must be admitted to probate in the
probate court : Whitfield v. Hurst, 3
Ired. Eq. 242, 244.

18 Rev. Code, 1874, p. 479, § 5, but
consent is no longer required: L. 1876,
ch. 165, § 5.

19 Porter v. Ford, 82 Ky. 191.

§ 22 INCAPACITY OF CRIMINALS. 29

or under ancient English statutes. Traitors and felons j,,^,^ ;,
were formerly incompetent to devise their lands, be- fi'.m ciini-
cause they were by the attainder ipno jacto vested m
the crown. ^ This rule included a felo de se ^ as to his personal
property, but he was capable of devisin^^ his realty because there
was no attaindcr.3 'phis subject is of little importance now, even
in England, attainder having been abolished by statute,* and has
not been known in the United States since the adoption of the
Federal Constitution.

1 1 Jarm. on Wills, *48 et se<j. ceased was forfeit to thd crown : Goods

2 But only as to tlie forfeiture ; it was of Bailey, 2 Sw. & Tr. 156, 159.

held tliat tlie executor of the will of a * Norris v. Chambres, 29 Beav. 246,

person found /do de se by the verdict of 258.

a coroner's inquest is entitled to probate, * 33 & 34 Vict. c. 23.

although the personal property of the de-

INCAPACITY ARISING FROM MENTAL DISABILITIES. § 23

CHAPTER IV.

INCAPACITY ARISING FROM MENTAL DISABILITIES.

§ 23. Degree of Mental Vigor requisite to make a Will. — The

most important ground of testamentary incapacity, fertile in

, , abundant crops of litigation, is that of mental defi-

Sounduess of , ^ o '

mind necc's- cicncv, arising either from idiocy, lunacy, or any other

sai-v to tes- *'' ° tt <>,i • -i •

tanientary permanent or temporary disorder oi the mmd, incon-
capaci y. gjgtent with the exercise of free will ; or from such
weakness of the mind as unfits it to resist undue influences, so
that the testator's dispositions cannot be said to be his own spon-
taneous acts, but are ratlier the results of importunities, devices,
fraudulent representations, or even of threats and force brought
to bear upon him by designing persons.

This subject has been much enlarged upon by able and ingenious
writers of the legal as well as medical profession, who have treas-
ured up a vast amount of learning in their voluminous books.
Referring to them for the details and subtle distinctions drawn
between the several forms of incapacity which are held to invali-
date wills, it is nevertheless necessary to examine the principal
grounds constituting such incapacity, in order to point out the
principles upon which, under our system of laws, property passes
by will.

It is conceded on all hands, that no rule can be laid down to

indicate the precise degree of intelligence, or mental power, which

is necessary to constitute testamentary capacity. The

Sufficient to •' ' • n \

transact ordi- ncarcst approach thereto is the requirement of the same

narv business. .,,>,, . p j i .

capacity for testamentary purposes as for the transac-
tion of the ordinary business of life. If the party is capable of
acting rationally in buying and selling property, settling accounts,
collecting and paying out money, or borrowing or loaning money,
he is capable of making a valid will.^ But even this rule, vague
as it is, is not universal ; for it has been held, as will appear from

1 Meeker v. Meeker, 75 111. 2fi0, 260 ; Illinois cases ; "Wilson v. Mitchell, 101 Pa.
and see Bice v. Hall, 120 111. 597, 601 ; St. 495, 502.
Brown v. Riggin, 94 111. 560, citing other

§ 23 MENTAL VIGOR REQUISITE TO MAKE A WILL, 31

the furtlicr considcnifiou of tliis subject,^ that a man may bo inca-
pable of managing his affairs, or to make a contract, and yet com-
petent to make a valid will ; and, on the other hand, a person
may be compos mentis in the ordinary broad nsc of this term, and
yet be incompetent to make a will.'f Business capacity is not,
therefore, an absolutely reliable standard of testamentary ca-
pacity.^ A safer rule is now laid down in a number of States^
viz.: "While /the law does not undertake to measure a person's
intellect, and define the exact quantity of mind and memory
which a testator shall possess to authorize him to make a valid
will, yet it does require him to possess mind to know the extent
and value of his property, the number and names of the persons
who are the natural objects of his bounty, their deserts with ref-
erence to their conduct and treatment toward him, their capacity
and necessity, and that he shall have sufficient active memory to
retain all these facts in his mind long enough to have his will
prepared and executed ; if he has sufficient mind and memory to
do this, the law holds that he has testamentary capacity ; and
even if this amount of mental capacity is somewhat obscured or
clouded, still the will may be sustained."^* And it ^he^
should be remembered, that the decisive question al- ^"^J'j^gl^'jfg
wavs is whether the instrument propounded is the actoftes-

" n J T •! j_ tator.

spontaneous act of a person understanding its nature

and consequences ; and that this is, ultimately, a question of fact

to be determined by the jury^

1 Post, % 29. fia- 552, 571. Also cases cited by Cal-

2 This broad assertion by tlie reporter vin, Surrogate, in Townsend v. Bogart,
in Ills syllabus to Townsend v. Bogart, supra : Van Guysling v. Van Kuren, 35
infra, is, however, hardly justified by the N. Y. 70; Barnhart v. Smith, 86 N. C.
language of the Surrogate, either in this 47.3, 483. To similar effect : Elliott v.
case (p. 105) or in the case of Maijs ?•. Welby, 13 Mo. App. 19, 24; Benoist y.
Freeman, 8 Hcdf. 181, 209 et seq., to which Miirrin, 58 Mo. 307, 322 ; affirmed. Jack-
reference is made. In Maryland the stat- son r. Hardin, 83 Mo. 175, 180 ; Delafield
ute provides tiiat to make a valid will the v. Parish, 25 N. Y. 9, 29. citing numerous
testator must be capable of executing cases ; O'Donnell v. Rodiger, 70 Ala. 222,
a valid deed or contract: Davis i'. Cal- 228. See Rice »'. Rice, 53 Mich. 432, 437 ;
vert, 5 G. & J. 269 ; Stewart v. Elliott, 2 Ballantine v. Proudfoot, 62 Wis. 210 ;
Mackey, 307, 318. Will of Earnsw()rth,C>2 Wis. 474 ; Delaney

a Townsend v. Bogart, 5 Redf. 9.3, 104 ; v. Salina, 31 Kans. 532 ; Sherley v. Sher-

Kramer v. Weinert, 81 Ala. 414, 416, cit- ley, 81 Ky. 240, 249; Cline v. Lindsey,

ing Stubbs v. Houston, 33 Ala. 55.5. 110 Ind. 337, 347 ; Shaver v. McCarthy,

* Bundy v. McKnight, 48 Ind. 502, in- 110 Pa. St. 339; Stoutenburg i-. Hopkins,

struction to the jury, p. 511, approved, 12 Atl. R. 689 (N. J.) ; Epling v. Hutton,

p. 514. See cases there cited : Moore v. 121 111. 555.

Moore, 2 Bradf. 261 ; Morris v. Stokes, 21 - See the case of Potts v. House, 0 Ga.

32 INCAPACITY ARISING FROM MENTAL DISABILITIES. § 25

§ 24. Incapacity of Idiots. — An idiot is Said to be a person
wholly destitute of the reasoning faculty, unable to compare two
ideas together,^ and utterly incapacitated for the trans-
depnvat*imf action of auv busincss.2 Early writers laid down very
of reasoning ^arrow tcsts of idiocy, such as inability to count twenty
pence, to tell father or mother, or how old he is;^
Blackstone lays down the same rule nearly two centuries after-
ward,'* and Lord Hardwicke said that the term non compos mentis
imports not weakness of understanding, but a total deprivation of
reason.^ In later years courts of equity, both in England and
America, have taken jurisdiction of persons who had become
from any cause so weak and incapacitated in mind as to be
unable to manage their affairs, and placed them under guardian-
ship ; ^ but in respect of the testatory power it seems that, while
the will of a person proved an idiot is of course void,'' mere
weakness of mind, imbecility, whimsicality, or eccentricity is not
sufficient, in the absence of other proof of incapacity, to invalidate
a will.^

§ 25. Incapacity of Lunatics. — Unless, therefore, a person is
proved to have been an idiot or natural fool, some other evidence

324, .350 et seq.; Stewart v. Lispenard, 26 and understand his letters, and read by

Wend. 255, 296 et. seq. ; Comstock v. Had- teaoliing or information of another man,

lyme, 8 Conn. 254, 264 ; Cordrey v. Cor- then it seemeth he is not a fool or a nat-

drey, 1 Houst. 269, 273; Trish v. Newell, ural idiot." Comment ascribed to Lord

62 111. 196, 203 ; Brooke v. Townshend, 7 Hale, in Fitzherbert's Naturae Brevium,

Gill, 10, 32 ; Stevens v. Vancleve, 4 Wash. 233.

C. C. 262,269; Boyd y. Eby, 8 Watts, 66, * "A man is not an idiot if he hath

70 ; Gardiner v. Gardiner, 34 N. Y. 155, any glimmering of reason, so that he can

157. It is error to take from the jury tell his parents, his age, or the like com-

the question of undue influence, or to tell mon matters." 1 Bla. Comm. 304.
them that in case of doubt they must find ^ Ex parte Barnsley, 3 Atk. 168, 173.

for the will : Mulier r. St. Louis Hospi- « Gibson v. Jeyes, 6 Ves. 266, 272;

tal, 73 Mo. 242, afiirming 5 Mo. App. 390. Ridgway v. Darwin, 8 Ves. 65; In re

But where the testimony is such that the Barker, 2 Johns. Ch. 233.
court in the exercise of a sound legal dis- '^ 1 Jarm. on Wills, *34; Whart. &

cretion would not sustain the verdict, the Stille, Med. Jur. § 20.
court should refuse to direct an issue: ^ Tiie cases so holding are very numer-

Eddey's Appeal, 109 Pa. St. 406 ; Herster ous. See Stewart v. Lispenard, 26 Wend.

V. Herster, 116 Pa. St. 612. 255, particularly the Surrogate's opinion,

1 See Dr. Ray, Med. Jur, Insan. § 60, p. 263 ; the Chancellor's opinion, p. 290 ;

5th ed. and the opinions of Senators Verplanck,

^ Bannatyne v. Bannatyne, 14 Eng. L. p. 296, and Scott, p. 314 ; Lee v. Lee,

& Eq. 581, 590. 4 McCord, 183 ; Delafield v. Parish, 25

3 " So as it may appear that he hath N. Y. 9, 102; Kinne v. Kinne, 9 Conn,

no understanding or reason what shall be 102, 105; Harrison v. Rowan, 3 Wash,

for his profit, or what for his loss: but if C. C. 580, 586; Hall v. Dougherty, 5

he hatli such understanding, that he know Houst. 435, 449.

§ 25 INCAPACITY OF LUNATICS. 33

of incapacitv must exist, in addition to imbecility or ,

. • Limacj' or

weakness of the mind, to invalidate liis will. Persons periodical
non compos mentis, — or of unsound mind, which terms
are now generally conceded to mean the same thing,^ — may
be lunatics, distinguishable from idiots chiefly by the periodicity
or partial nature of the disorder of their mind, while idiots are
uniformly and wholly deprived of reason ; and from imbeciles,
who may or may not possess sufficient vigor of mind to dispose
of their property, according to the circumstances by which they
are surrounded, while lunatics who are not imbeciles, but affected
with delusions, may have ample mental force, but exercise it in an
abnormal or perverted manner. The importance of the distinction
lies in the difference of the treatment of the issue of devisavit
vel no7i, and of the evidence under it, necessary to meet the case
arising on the one or other ground. For if it be proved that the
testator was an idiot, this will invalidate the will. If it be shown
that he was of weak mind, the question will be whether there was
undue influence. If his mind was affected by delusions, the va-
lidity of the will must depend upon the further question whether
it is affected by, or its provisions are the consequence of, an
insane delusion.^

The term lunacy originated in the hypothesis formerly enter-
tained concerning periodical insanity, that the persons affected
were under the influence of the moon ; it is now used Now applied
in the law to denote insanity or derangement of the mentoTmmd
mind generally.^ It is said to be a disease of the brain, generally.
a mental disorder, by which the freedom of the will is impaired.
The legal test of insanity is delusion. " Insane delusion consists
in a belief of facts which no rational person would believe";*
taking things for realities which exist only in the imagination,^
and which are impossible in the nature of things ; ^ " mingling

1 1 Kedf. on Wills, *59, pi. 1 ; lb. 61, ness, Derangement, Alienation, Aberra-
pl. 5 ; Buswell on Insanity, § 18 tion. Mania, Delirium, Frenzy, Monoroa-

2 See Bigelow's note (1), 1 Jarm. on nia. Dementia, as synonyms.

Wills, *38, in which he calls attention to * Forman's Will, 54 Barb. 274, 289,

the necessity of this distinction, and col- quoting from Dew v. Clark, 3 Addams's

lects numerous English and American Eccl. R. 70.

authorities on the subject under consid- ^ Waring v. Waring, 6 Thornton's

eration. Notes, 388 ; Morse v. Scott, 4 Dem. 507,

^ Per Patton, Pr., in McEIroy's Case, 508.

6 W. & S. 451, 453. Webster mentions, 6 Ray's Med. Jur. § 169. " It is of the

under the word " Insaniiy," Lunacy, Mad- essence of an insane delusion, that, as it
VOL. I. — 3

34 INCAPACITY ARISING FROM MENTAL DISABILITIES. § 25

ideas of imagination with those of sensation, and mistaking one
for the other." ^

Partial insanity, where a person has insane delusions as to one
or more subjects, and not as to others, does not destroy testamen-
Partiai tary capacity, unless the insane delusion concerns the

insanity. subject of the testamentary disposition.^ But however
unimpaired the memory may be, aud although there may be rea-
soning power, if there be insane delusion concerning the property
which one seeks to dispose of, he cannot make a valid will.^

Neither superstition or ignorance, however gross,* nor error in
fact,^ nor prejudice,^ nor unfounded suspicion," amounts to an
insane delusion. Nor does moral insanity, unaccom-

What are not ., , . i i • • • -n i

insane panicd by msane delusion, vitiate a will, however un-

just, unnatural, or perverse the content, or immoral

delusions.

has no basis in reason, so it cannot by
reason be dispersed " : Merrill v. Rolston,
5 Redf. 220, '251.

1 Duffield V. Morris, 2 Harr. (Del.) 375,
380. See Wiiart. & Stille's Med. Jurispr.
(4th ed.) § 19 et seq., § 305 et seq.

2 Forman's Will, 54 Barb. 274, 289
et seq., citing (p. 289) Dew v. Clark, 3
Addams's Eccl. R. 79 ; Frere v. Peacocke,
1 Rob. Eccl. R. 442, 445 ; FuUeck v.
Allinson, 3 Hagg. 527 ; Seaman's Friend
Soc. V. Hopper, 33 N. Y. 619 ; Stanton v.
Wetherwax, 16 Barb. 259. See also Cot-
ton V. Ulmer, 45 Ala. 378, 395 ; Board-
man V. Woodman, 47 N H. 120; Gardner
V. Lamback, 47 Ga. 133, 192 ; HoUinger
V. Syms, 37 N. J. Eq. 221, 236 et seq. ;
Benoist v. Murrin, 58 Mo. 307, 323 ; Rice
V. Rice, 53 Mich. 432,434 ; Brace v. Black,
17 No. E. R. 66 (111.). It was held in
Lonisiana, that where a person himself,
unaided by others, makes a sage and ju-
dicious will containing nothing " sound-
ing in folly," it will be presumed, in the
case of a person habitually insane, that it
was made during a lucid interval, throw-
ing the burden of proof upon those at-
tacking it : Kingsbury v. Whittaker, 32
La. An. 1055, 1061 et seq. See Vance v.
Upson, 66 Tex. 476, 488.

3 Brinton's Estate, 13 Phila. 234 ; Taw-
ney v. Long, 76 Pa. St. 106, 111, 116;
Ballantine v. Prnudfoot, 62 Wis. 216.

* Florey v. Florey, 24 Ala. 241, 249 et
seq. ; Leech v. Leech, 1 Phila. 244, 247 ;

Addington v. Wilson, 5 Ind. 137, 139;
Gass V. Gass, 3 Humph. 278, 282; Chafin
Will Case, 32 Wis. 557, 564. See Denson
V. Beazley, 34 Tex. 191, 198, and dissent-
ing opinion, 206 et seq. ; Otto v. Doty, 61
Iowa, 23; Storey's Will, 20 111. App. 183,
194 ; Will of Smith, 52 Wis. 543, 547 et
seq. ; and Brown v. Ward, 53 Md.376 ; all
holding that a belief in spiritualism is not
of itself a certain test of insanity. La
Bau r. Vanderbilt, 3 Redf. 384, 388, hold-
ing that a belief in clairvoyance does not
invalidate a will, unless it be shown that
it was the offspring of such belief. To
similar effect, Schildknecht v. Rompf, 4
Southw. R. (Ky.) 235.

5 Hall V. Hall, 38 Ala. 131. 134 ; Clapp
V. FuUerton, 34 N. Y. 190; Hite v. Sims,
94 Ind. 333. But see Ballantine v. Proud-
foot, 62 Wis. 217, where the erroneous
impression of the testatrix as to the con-
duct of her daughter was held an insane
delusion avoiding the will; and see also
Re Dorman, 5 Dem. 112.

6 Den V. Gibbons, 22 N. J. L. 117, 155;
.Tenckes v. Smithfieid, 2 R. I. 255, 263 ;
Phillips V. Chater, 1 Dem. 533; Carter v.
Dixon, 69 Ga. 82 •, Salisbury v. Aldrich,
118 111. 199, 203; Chancy v. Bryan, 16
Lea, 63, 68 ; Schneider v. Manning, 121
111. 376.

■7 Seaman's Friend Society v. Hopper
(Hopper Will Case), 33 N. Y 619, 624;
Stackhotise v. Norton, 15 N. J Eq. 202,
228; Cole's Will, 49 Wis. 179, 181.

§ 26 PRESUMPTION OF SANITY, AND LUCID INTERVALS.

35

the motive may be ; ^ but gucli facts may be shown toL^ethcr with
other evidence on the (juestion of unsoundness of mind.^

§ 26. Presumption of Sanity, and Lucid Intervals. — As partial
insanity, or tiie existence of delusion on one or more subjects
(monomania), is not sufiicient to invalidate a will Burden of
unl(>ss the delusion be upon the subject affected by the I'^^'^f^^'l
testatorv act,^ so, too, the will of an insane person may aiwaVs on

' II- proponent.

be valid, if it be shown that it was executed durmg a
lucid interval. The importance, in a legal sense, of the subject
of lucid intervals in a mind affected by insanity, is due, like that
of the distinction between idiocy and lunacy, to the nature of the
evidence necessary to establish the will of a person proved to have
been insane. For, the burden of proving the validity of a will
resting necessarily upon him who propounds it for probate, it is
obvious that he must show, among other things, the sanity of the
testator, without which his proof must fail, and the instrument
propounded cannot receive probate.'* But since experience has
shown that sanity or soundness is the general condi- Butmaycon-
tion of the human mind, the law permits the proponent pres[",i*ption
of the instrument to rely on the presumption of sanity °^ ^''""'y-
arising out of this experience, instead of requiring affirmative
or actual proof thereof. If, therefore, a will is produced, and its
due execution proved, this, in the absence of further proof, is
sufficient to establish the will.^ This presumption, Thisp-e-
however, may be met by evidence of the testator's maTtTre-
incompetcncy, which may or may not convince the butted,
jury ; if it fail to disturb their confidence in his competency, the
presumption will still prevail, although no evidence of sanity be

1 If the disposition is not against the - Bitner v. Bitner, 65 Pa. St. 347, 362 ;

policy of the law. See Dew r. Clark, Mayo i'. Jones, s?//)m; Leech i;. Leech, 1

supra; Boardnian v. Woodman, 47 N II. Philn. 244; Woodbury v. Obear, 7 Gray,

120, 136; Frere r. Peacocke, .sK/^ra ; Nic'h- 4(57, 470; Hubbard i'. Hubbard, 7 Oreg.

olas V. Kershner, 20 W. Va. 251 ; Mayo 42, 46; Lamb v. Lamb, 105 Ind. 456, 462;

V. Jones, 78 N. C. 402, 406; Carpenter" r. Sherley v. Slierley, 81 Ky. 240.

Calvert, 83 III. 62, 70 ; Hiirsins v- Carlton, » Ante, § 25.

28 Md. 115 ; Lewis's Case, 38 N. J. Eq. 219, * Wms. Ex. [21].

226, holding that a man may be a thief, a ^ At least in contentious proceedings,

miser, unclean, profane, and of ungovertia- Tiie statutory requirements in the several

ble temper, and yet liave testamentary ca- States, and the rules of proceeding in the

pacity; Will of Blakely, 48 Wis. 294. probate of a will in common form, or in

And a gift to one with whom the testator a non-contentious or ex parte proceeding,

lived in adultery or concubinage is not for may raise a different rule. See on tliis

that reason void : see post, § 31, p. 48, n. 5. subject post, §§ 216, 220.

86

INCAPACITY ARISING FROM MENTAL DISABILITIES. § 26

And then it oifered. But if the evidence be such as to show the
tbat^wnrwrs" existence of insanity in the testator generally, so that
aTudd"""^' in the absence of further proof the presumption of
interval. Sanity would be rebutted, it may still be shown, in sup-
port of the will, that it was made during a lucid interval.^

The applicability of the presumption of sanity, and its extent in
support of a last will, has given rise to voluminous discussions in
text-books and in the courts of the several American States. The
prevailing doctrine (in the absence of statutory pro-
visions to the contrary) is in accordance with the
English view, as above stated.^ It is so held in Ala-
""■ bama,'^ Arkansas,* California,^ Delaware,^ Indiana,"

lowa,^ Kansas,^ Kentucky ,i*^ Maryland,^i Massachusetts,^^ Missis-

states in which

the presump-
tion of sanity
mav be relied

1 Cartwri<iht v. Cartwriglit, 1 Phillim.
90, 100, in wliich Sir Wm. Wynne states
the law as follows : " If you can establish
that the party afflicted habitually by a
malady of the mind has intermissions,
and if there was an intermission of the
disorder at the time of the act, that being
proved is sufficient, and the general ha-
bitual insanity will not affect it ; but the
effect of it is this, it inverts the order of
proof and of presumption; for until proof
of an habitual insanity is made, the pre-
sumption is that the party agent, like all
human creatures, was rational ; but where
an habitual insanity, in the mind of tlie
person who does the act, is established,
there the party who would take advan-
tage of an interval of reason must prove
it." See Wms. Ex. [20] et seq., and
numerous English cases cited there. 1
Jarm. on Wills, *37.

2 Wms. Ex. [20] et seq. See preceding
note.

3 Stubbs V. Houston, 33 Ala. 555, 563,
in effect overruling Dunlap v. Robinson,
28 Ala. 100; Cotton v. Ulmer, 45 Ala.
378, 396 ; O'Donnell v. Rodiger, 76 Ala.
222, 227.

■1 McDaniel v. Crosby, 19 Ark. 533,
545, on the authority of and approving
Rogers v. Diamond, 13 Ark. 474, and
several English cases so holding; Mc-
Cullogh V. Campbell, 49 Ark. 367.

5 Panaud v. Jones, 1 Cal. 488 (per
Bennet, J., p. 498).

^ Chandler v. Ferris, 1 Harr. 454, 461 ;
Jamisoa v. Jamison, 3 Houst. 108, 124.

The syllabus omits to mention this point ;
the charge to the jury contains these
words : " The presumption of law is in
favor of his capacity ; the burden of
showing want of capacity rests on those
who oppose the will ; and it is incum-
bent on them to show such incapacity by
satisfactory proof." (p. 124.)

7 Turner v. Cook, 36 Ind. 129, 137. In
this case the statute is referred to as re-
quiring proof, in probate in the common
form, of execution, competence, and free-
dom from restraint ; but throws the onus
to prove unsoundness of mind on the
party alleging it.

8 Webber v. Sullivan, 58 Iowa, 260,
266.

9 Rich V. Bowker, 25 Kans. 7, 12.

10 Milton V. Hunter, 13 Bush, 163, 170,
distinguishing between the practice in
probate courts, where the statute requires
the witnesses to be interrogated concern-
ing the testator's sanity, and the contest
of a will in chancery or on appeal ; af-
firmed in Flood v. Pragoff, 79 Ky. 607,
612.

11 Taylor v. Cresswell, 45 Md. 422, 430.
" In this State the presumption of law is
in favor of sanity, and the burthen of
proof is upon the party impeaching a will
for want of testamentary capacity."

1- It was held in this State, in the case
of Crowninshield v. Crowninshield, that
the burden of proof of the testator's san-
ity did not shift from the proponent even
upon proof of sanity by the subscribing
witnesses, and that the presumption of

§ 26 PRESUMPTION OF SANITY, AND LUCID INTERVALS. 37

sippi/ New Hampshire,^ New Jersey,^ New York,* North Caro-
lina,^ Oregon,^ Pennsylvania,^ Tennessee,^ and apparently in
Wisconsin.^ The States in which the presumption states in which
is held inapplicable or insufficient, and that afhrma- Hl.Vi's^'not''^"
tive evidence of the testator's sanity is necessary to suthcient.
esta])lish the will, are Connecticut,^'^ Georgia," Illinois,^^ Maine,^-^
Michigan," Missouri,i^ Texas,^*^ Yermont,^^ and West Yirginia.^^

sanity was rendered inapplicable by tlie
statute : 2 Gray, 524, 532 et seq. But ia
tlie later case of Kaxtei v. Abbott, 7
Gray, 71, 83, a majority of the court
(Tliomas, J., dissenting) held that the
legal presumption, in the absence of evi-
dence to the contrary, was in favor of
sanity.

1 Payne v. Banks, 32 Miss. 292, 296.

2 Pettes V. Bingham, 10 N. H. 514,
615, affirmed in Perkins v. Perkins, 39
N. H. 163, 167.

3 Wiiitenack v. Stryker, 2 N. J. Eq. 8,
11, affirming the rule as stated in the
text, and repeated in Turner i-. Cheesiiian,
15 N. J. Eq. 243, 245, and Boylan v.
Meeker, 28 N. J. L. 274, 280; and in Den
V. Gibbons, 22 N. J. L. 117, the court ap-
prove an instruction to the jury, that the
existence of doubt should be decisive
against the conclusion of insanity, p. 141.

* Ean I'. Snyder, 46 Barb. 230, 232;
Gombault v. Public Administrator, 4
Bradf. 226, 244; Brown v. Torrey, 24
Barb. 583, 586.

5 Mayo V. Jones, 78 N. C. 402, 403
et seq., distinguishing between tiie probate
in common form and tlie trial of an issue
between parties, p. 405.

e Clark v. Ellis, 9 Greg. 128, 142 et seq.

t Grubbs v. McDonald, 91 Pa. St. 236,
241, citing Landis v. Landis, 1 Grant, 248.

" Puryear v. Reese, 6 Coldw. 21, 25;
Bartee v. Thompson, 8 Baxt. 508, 512.

9 In Lewis's Will, the judge having
found the testator to be competent by
preponderance of evidence, adds : " The
presumption is that he continued compe-
tent to do so until the will was executed ;
. . . we think tiie contestant has failed to
overtlirow that presumption " : 51 Wis.
101, 112; Cole's Will, 49 Wis. 179. 182;
Lyon, J., in Silverthorn's Will, 68 Wis.
372, 379, states that in his opinion tiie
statute requires affirmative proof to be
made of the mental soundness of the

testator before the will can be admitted
to probate ; but sliglit evidence is suffi-
cient to put tlie contestant to his proofs
upon that question : Allen v. Griffin, 69
Wis. 529, 537.

1" Knox's Appeal, 26 Conn. 20, 22, af-
firming Comstock V. Hadlyme, 8 Conn.
254, and relying for authority on Maine
and Massachusetts cases. (But in Massa-
chusetts the law is otherwise : see Ba.x-
ter V. Abbott, suprn.)

11 Evans v. Arnold, 52 Ga. 169, 179
et seq. This case does not entirely reject
the presumption of sanity, but requires
some affirmative proof It is affirmed in
Wetter v. Haversham, 60 Ga. 193, 194,
and relies for authority on Maine, Con-
necticut, and Micliigan cases.

1-2 Carpenter v. Calvert, 83 111. 62, 71,
holding affirmative proof of sanity to be
required by the terms of the statute in
the first instance.

13 Robinson v. Adams, 62 Me. .369;
Cilley V. Cilley, 34 Me. 162; Barnes v.
Barnes, 66 Me. 286 ; Gerrish v. Nason, 22
Me. 438, 441.

1* McGinnis v. Kempsey, 27 Mich. 363,
373.

1^ As intimated by Napton, J., in Har-
ris r. Hays, 53 Mo. 90, 96. See also
Miiller v. St. Louis Hospital, 5 Mo. App.
390, in which an instruction to the jury
was refused, that ujion equiponderance
of evidence the verdict should be in favor
of the will. This case was approved in
73 Mo. 242, and later cases turning on
this point are not inconsistent therewith :
Jackson v. Hardin, 83 Mo. 175, 182; El-
liott V. Wclby, 13 Mo. App. 19, 28.

i« Beazley v. Denson, 40 Tex. 416, 424.

1^ Williams r. Robinson, 42 Vt. 658,
664, overruling dicta to the contrary in
Robinson v. Hutchinson, 26 Vt. 38, and
Dean v. Dean, 27 Vt. 746.

i'^ McMechen i-. McMechen, 17 W. Va.
683, 700.

38 INCAPACITY ARISING FROM MENTAL DISABILITIES. § 27

In Ohio the statute requires proof to be made in common form,
and makes such probate prima facie valid ; hence the presumption
of sanity is immaterial.^ But even in some of these States the
presumption of sanity, although it may not be sufficient when
entirely unsupported by affirmative testimony, may be relied on
in aid of such affirmative testimony, and will have its effect in
cases where the testimony is doubtful or contradictory .^

§ 27. Presumption of Insanity. — When such evidence has been
produced as will satisfy the jury of the testator's insanity before
Insanity or recently after the execution of the will, it is of

must bJproof coursc indispcnsablc to the validity of the will that
of lucid interval {^^ j^g sliowu to havc bccu cxecutcd during: a lucid in-

or cessation of ^

insanity. tcrval, or upon cessation, whether temporary or per-

manent, of the malady.^ If the proof of insanity consist in the
decree or judgment of a competent court declaring the testator to
be non coinpos mentis, and placing him under guardianship, the
presumption is, and continues until there be a decree or judgment
by a competent court declaring his restoration, that he is incom-
petent to make a valid will ; * but this presumption may be
rebutted by proof showing his sanity at the time of executing the
w^ill, although the guardianship be unrepealed,^ or the Chancellor
may, if he is satisfied that such party is competent to dispose of
his estate by will, with sense and judgment, suspend proceedings

1 Hears v. Hears, 15 Ohio St. 90, 101. Hamilton v. Hamilton, 10 R. I. 538, 542 ;

2 See Evans v. Arnold, supra; Carpen- Harden v. Hays, 9 Pa. St. 151, 161 ; Pan-
ter V. Calvert, supra; Trish v. Newell, 62 coast v. Graham, 15 N. J. Eq. 294, 308.
111. 196. In Illinois it is held that the record of a

3 Ante, § 26, p. 36, n. 1. The possibility court showing the appointment of a con-
oflucid intervals is in modern times denied servator to a person adjudged to be in-
by some eminent alienists. But whether competent to manage his affairs, is not
the term " lucid interval " is accurately competent evidence to show the insanitj'
or improperly used, in the scientific sense, of such person at the time of making a
is unimportant for legal purposes. The will, subsequent to the adjudication : Pit-
law recognizes certain conditions of in- tard v. Foster, 12 111. App. 132, 139. In
sane persons as enabling them to act in- Hichigan such order may be put in evi-
telligently and exercise free will ; which dence as bearing on the testator's condi-
is not denied by psj'chological physi- tion, but is not prima facie evidence of
cians, but accounted for by them as a testamentary incapacity : Rice v. Rice,
temporary mask of the delirium, or one 50 Hich. 448: and so in Wisconsin:
of the phases of the disease conditioned Slinger v. Calverly, 37 N. W. Rep. 236,
by the periodicity of its nature, — a fleet- 238.

ing remission of the symptoms rather ^ Stone v. Damon 12 Hass. 487, 488 ;

than a change of the pathological con- Wliitenack v. Stryker, 2 N. J. Eq. 8, 28 ;

dition. See Whart. & Stille, Hed. Jurisp. Estate of Johnson, 57 Cal. 529, 531 ;

§§ 61 pt seq., 744 et seq. Brady v. McBride, 39 N. J. Eq. 495.
* White V. Palmer, 4 Mass. 147, 149 ;

§27

PRESUMPTION OF INSANITY.

39

against him, so as to enable him to make a will.' A siniilur pre-
sumption arises, as above stated, when a condition of insanity or
derangement of the mind has been proved by witnesses ; - where-
by the onus to prove sanity at the time of the execution of the
will is thrown upon the proponent.^ But this pre-

. , , Accidental or

sumption does not exist where the malady under temporary
which the testator labored was in its nature either presum'ed to
accidental or temporary ; * nor is it raised by the ^"""""^'
suicide of the testator soon after making his will.^ Delirium,
being the direct result of a bodily disease, generally abates with
the fever producing it, and wholly ceases with resto-
ration to health ; hence no presumption of permanent
insanity arises from mere delirium.^ Intoxication or drunken-
ness, if it exist to the extent of producing mental oblivion, or to
disorder the faculties and pervert the judgment, de-
prives a person of the testamentary capacity while it
continues ; '^ but as it ceases with the cause, it is no indication of
subsequent disability,^ unless it become habitual, and continue so

nor delirium.

Drunkenness.

1 In the Matter of Burr, 2 Barb. Cli.
208, 210.

2 Clark V. Fisher, 1 Pai. 171, 174 (but
see Clarke v. Sawyer, infra, 3 Saiidf. Ch.
351); Morrison y.' Smith, ;3 Bradf. 209,
223 ; Rush v. Megee, 36 Ind. 69, 85 ; God-
den I'. Burke, 35 La. An. 160, 171;
O'Donnell v. Rodiger, 76 Ala. 222.

3 And it is not sufficient to prove san-
ity before and after the day on which the
will was made, but the lucid interval
must be proved at the very time : Har-
den V. Hays, 9 Pa. St. 151, 162; Aubert
V. Aubert, 6 La. An. 104, 108 ; Saxon v.
Whitaker, 30 Ala. 237.

Complete restoration need not, how-
ever, be shown in proving the lucid inter-
val ; it is sutticient to prove a restoration
of the faculties of the mind sufficient to
enable the testator soundly to judge of
the act: Boyd v. Eby, 8 Watts, 60, 70;
see Busw. on Insanity, § 189, and Eng-
lish cases cited; i. a. Creagh i-. Blood, 2
Jones & LaT. 509, 516.

* Brooke v. Townshend, 7 Gill, 10, 31 ;
Staples V. Wellington, 58 Me. 453, 459
(stating the law as applied to contracts,
applicable a fortiori to wills) ; McMasters
V Blair, 20 P'a. St. 298, 302 ; Snow v. Ren-
ton, 28 III. 306, 308 ; Rutherford v. Mor-

ris, 77 111. 397, 409, citing Trish v. Newell,
62 111. 196; O'Donnell o. Rodiger, 76 Ala.
222. See Blake v. Rourke, 38 N. W.
Rep. (lo.) 392.

a Duffield V. Morris, 2 Harr. 375, 382 ;
Brooks V. Barrett, 7 Pick. 94, 97; McEl-
wee V. Ferguson, 43 Md. 479, 484. It has
been held that suicide is evidence tending
to show insanity : Frary v. Gusha, 59 Vt.
2.57, 264 ; Godden v. Burke, 35 La. An.
160, 171.

6 1 Redf. on Wills, 92 ; Busw. on In-
sanity, § 191 ; Clarke v. Sawyer, 3
Sandf. Ch. 351, 410 (a case of apoplexy
causing paralysis ; see Clark v. Fisher,
supra, 1 Pai. 171) ; Brown v. Riggin, 94
111. 560, 569 (a case of epileptic attacks,
attended with convulsions, fever, and de-
lirium).

7 1 Redf. on Wills, 160, and author-
ities there cited ; 1 Jarm. on Wills, *34,
note 1, and authorities. Intoxication
at the time of making the will does not
of itself avoid it, if it does not prevent
him from knowing what he is about :
Pierce v. Pierce, 38 Mich. 412, 417 ; Key
i;. HoUoway, 7 Baxter, 575 585.

8 Wheeler v. Alderson, 3 Hagg. 574,
602; Ayrey v. Hill, 2 Add. 206. 210;
Gardner v. Gardner, 22 Wend. 526, 533

40 INCAPACITY ARISING FROM MENTAL DISABILITIES. § 28

long as to produce actual insanity.^ By itself it does not, as a
rule of law, raise the presumption of incapacity .^ ^

§ 28. Competency of "Witnesses on Questions of Sanity. — " The

proof of a lucid interval is a matter of extreme dilticulty," says

Williams,^ " for this, among other reasons, that the

Difficulty of ' PI-, 11 1

proof of lucid patient is not unirequently rational, to all outward
appearances, without any real abatement of his malady.
On the other hand, if the deceased was subject to attacks pro-
ducing temporary incapacity, and was at other times in full pos-
session of his mental powers, such attacks may naturally create
in those who only happen to see him when subject to them a
strong opinion of his permanent incapacity. These considera-
tions, while they tend to reconcile the apparent contradictions of
witnesses, render it necessary for the court to rely but little upon
mere opinion, to look at the grounds npon which opinions are
formed, and to be guided in its own judgment by facts proved,
and by acts done, rather than by the judgments of others." *

But there is a difficulty attaching to the subject of

Necessity of ^ r. . . . -, ^ p ,i t i- ,-

testimony of the proof of iiisanity itseli, apart from the distinction
non-exper s. j^g^^^^gj^ general sanity and lucid intervals, which in
the nature of things compels resort to the opinions of witnesses,
although they may not be professionals or experts.^ The opinion
of non-professional witnesses as to the sanity or insanity of the tes-
tator is generally permitted to be given, although the authorities

et seq.; Peck v. Gary, 27 N. Y. 9, 17; ^ Wms. Ex. [22], citing Sir John NichoU

Julke V. Adam, 1 Redf. 454, 457 ; Pierce in White v. Driver, 1 Phillim. 84, 88 ; eit-

u. Pierce, 38 Mich. 412, 418; Turner v. ing also Bragden v. Brown, 2 Add. 441,

Cheesman, 15 N. J. Eq. 243, 246 ; Tlionip- 445 ; Ayrey v. Hill, 2 Add. 206, 210 ; and

son V. Kyner, 65 Pa. St. 368, 378 ; Estate other English authorities,
of Johnson, 57 Cal. 529; Lang's Estate, * Kinleside v. Harrison, 2 Phillim. 449,

65 Cal. 19. 459, and other English authorities.

1 Duffield V. Morris, supra, in which ^ « They are competent because, con-
Harrington, J., said: "It is not improb- sidered in connection with the means of
able that drunkenness long continued or observation on which they are based,
much indulged in may produce on some they are the best evidence of which the
minds and with some temperaments per- case in its nature is susceptible. From
manent derangement, fixed insanity." the nature of the subject, it cannot gen-
Gardner V. Gardner, supra ; McSorley v. erally be so described by witnesses as to
McSorley, 2 Bradf. 188, 198; Cochrane's enable others to form an accurate judg-
Will 1 T. B. Mon. 263. ment in regard to it " : Doe, J., dissent-

2 Gardner i-. Gardner. 22 Wend 526; ing, in Boardman v. Woodman, 47 N. H.
Lewis V. Jones, 50 Barb. 645; Ex parte 120, 144 ; Cline v. Lindsey, 110 Ind. 337,
Patterson, 4 How. Pr. 34 ; Lecrkey v. Cun- 341 ; 1 Redf. on Wills, 139, pi. 4 ; and see
ningham, 56 Pa. St. 370 ; McPhersou's p. 140 et seq. ; also p. 137, pi. 3 ; Whart.
Appeal, 11 Atl. R. 205 (Pa ). & St. Med. Jurisp. §§ 257 et seq.

§28

WITNESSES ON QUESTION'S OF SANITY.

41

arc by no means uiianiniouH on tliis subject.^ In some
States this is confined to the sul)scribing witnesses ;2 but
in by far the greater number, courts permit non-experts,
whether subscribing witnesses or not, to give their opin-
ion of the testator's sanity, on condition of stating also
upon which it is based. So in Ahibama,^ Arkansas,*
Connecticut,-^ Delaware,^ Georgia,' Illinois,^ Indiana,^
lowa,!^ Kentucky ,^1 Maryland,^^ Michigan,^^ Minnesota,^**
Missouri,!^ New Hampshire,^*^ New Jersey ,i" New York,^*^

Testimony of
subscribing
witnesses
always ad-
mitted.

the facts

Non-experts
must state
facts upon
whiiii tliuir
opinion is
grounded.

1 1 Redf. on Wills, 140 et seq. It is
noticeable, however, that tlie doctrine ac-
cording to wiiich the testimony of non-
professional witnesses is admissible is
gaining ground. See authorities, infra.

2 Ware v. Ware, 8 Me. 42, 54 et seq. ;
Poole V. Richardson, 3 Mass. 330 ; Need-
ham V. Ide, 5 Pick. 510, 512. In the
case of Baxter v. Abbott, 7 Gray, 71,
Judge Thomas regrets the rule but sus-
tains it : " If it were a new question, I
should be disposed to allow every witness
to give l>is opinion, subject to cross-exam-
ination upon the reasons upon which it is
based, his degree of intelligence, and his
means of observation. It is at least un-
wise to increase the existing restrictions."
(p. 79.) And see the cases of Barker v.
Comins, 110 Mass. 477, and Nash v. Hunt,
116 Mass. 237, in wliich the testimony of
non-experts is considered in a more favor-
able light, and May v. Bradlee, 127 Mass.
414, 422, in wliich a witness, not an ex-
pert, but guardian of the testator, was
allowed to answer the question whether
he had observed any fact which led him
to infer that there was any derangement
of intellect.

3 In re Carmichael, 3G Ala. 514, 522,
citing numerous earlier Alabama cases.

* Abraham v. Wilkins, 17 Ark. 292,
322.

5 Dunham's Appeal, 27 Conn. 192. In
this State a witness so giving his opinion
cannot be compelled to give his opinion
on a hypotiietical case to test the value
of ills opinion (p. 200).

6 Duffield V. Morris, 2 Harr. 375, .385.

7 Walker v. Walker, 14 Ga. 242, 251,
relying on Potts v. House, 6 Ga. 324.

* American Bible Society r. Price, 115
111. 623, 642 ; Roe v. Taylor, 45 111. 486,

disclaiming a contrary view ascribed to
Van Horn v. Keenan, 28 111. 415, 449.

9 Leach v. Prebster, 39 Iiul. 492, 494 ;
State V. Newlin, 69 Ind. 108, 112; Cline
V. Lindsey, 110 Ind. 337, 341.

1" Pelamourges v. Clark, 9 Iowa, 1, 12;
Severin i'. Zack, 55 Iowa, 28, 31 ; Par-
sons I'. Parsons, 66 Iowa, 754, 759 ; Nor-
man's Will, 72 Iowa, 84 ; Meeker v.
Meeker. 37 N. W. 773.

11 Hunt V. Hunt, 3 B. Mon. 575, 577.

i''^ Weems i'. Weems, 19 Md. 334, 345.

13 Beaubien v. Cicotte, 12 Mich. 459,
495 et seq.; Rice v. Rice, 50 Mich. 448;
3 Am. Prob. R. 128.

" Pinney's Will, 27 Minn. 280, 281.

1^ Moore v. Moore, 67 Mo. 192, 195, re-
lying on Baldwine v. The State, 12 Mo.
223, and Crowe o. Peters, 63 Mo. 429, 434.

w Hardy v. Merrill, 56 N. H. 227, re-
viewing the history of the contrary doc-
trine and overruling Hamblett u. Hamb-
lett, 6 N. H. 333, 340 ; Boardman v.
Woodman, 47 N. H. 120, 135.

1" Turner v. Cheesman, 15 N. J. Eq.
243. But the New Jersey cases (Sloan v.
Maxwell, 3 N. J. Eq. 563, Whitenack v.
Stryker, 2 N. J. Eq. 8, Lowe v. William-
son, 2 N. J. Eq. 82, (Jarrison v. Garrison,
15N.J. Eq. 266) all give very little weight
to such opinions : the court draws its own
conclusions and forms its own judgment
from the premises which have produced
the conviction in the mind of the wit-
ness.

18 Culver V. Haslam, 7 Barb. 314, af-
firmed in DeWitt v. Barley, 13 Barb. 550.
551 ; but witnesses who did not subscribe
the will are confined to their conclusions
from the facts to which they testify ;
attesting witnesses may give their opin-
ion generally : Clapp v. FuUerton, 34

42 INCAPACITY ARISING FROM MENTAL DISABILITIES. § 29

North Carolina,! Ohio,^ Peiinsylvania,^ Tennessee,* Texas,^ Ver-
mont,^ and Virginia." In California^ the question is left open;
and in South Carolina the intimation is that only

But not sub- . . . Q CI I

scribing wit- subscribing witnesses can give their opinion.^ hub-
scribing witnesses are not generally required to state
the facts upon which they base their opinion ;!° but their tes-
timony is not conclusiveji! although it is entitled to the greatest
regard. ^2

§ 29. Incapacity from Imbecility. — Mere imbecility or weakness
of mind, whether natural or brought on by old age, epilepsy or simi-
lar diseases, habitual drunkenness, or any other cause, does not, as
has already appeared,i^ deprive a person of testamentary capacity. i*

N. Y 190, 194 et seq. ; In tbe Matter of
Ross, 87 N. Y. 514, 520, citing Hewlett v.
Wood, 55 N Y. 634.

1 Clary /;. Clary, 2 Ired. L. 78, 80.

2 Clark V. State, 12 Ohio, 483, 492.
But see Runyan v. Price, 15 Ohio St. 1, 14,
ill which the court held that a witness
could not be allowed to state his opinion
as to the sanity or insanity of a testator,
or his capacity to make a will, at the time
he was called upon to witness the will, for
two reasons: one of which was stated
to be that the inquiry involved a ques-
tion of law and fact, and the very ques-
tion to be decided by the jury, and as-
sumed that the witness knew the dejfree
of capacity which the law required for
the performance of the act of executing
a will.

3 Shaver v. McCarthy, 110 Pa. St.
339, 346 ; Titlow r. Titlow, 54 Pa. St. 216,
223 ; Bricker v. Lightner, 40 Fa. St. 199,
205; Pidcock v. Potter, 68 Pa. St. 342,
351.

* Gibson v. Gibson, 9 Yerg. 329, hold-
ing that the opinions of non-experts (not
subscribing witnesses), considered merely
as opinions, are not evidence, but may be
given after stating the appearance, con-
duct, or conversation of testator, or other
fact from which his mind may be in-
ferred (p. 332) ; Puryear I'. Reese, 6 Coldw.
21, 26.

s Denson v. Beazley, 34 Tex. 191,
212.

6 Cram v. Cram, 33 Vt. 15, 18 et
seq. See also Fairchild v. Bascom, 35 Vt.
398.

7 Burton v. Scott, 3 Rand. .399, 403 et
seq. ; Young v. Barner, 27 Gratt. 96, 103
et seq,

8 Estate of Toomes, 54 Cal. 509, 512.
But the judge rendering the opinion
strongly intimates that such testimony
should be admitted (p. 513) ; and in the
Estate of Brooks, 54 Cal. 471, 474, it
seems to have been admitted without
objection.

9 Jeter r. Tucker, 1 S. C. 245, 254.

w Titlow V. Titlow, 54 Pa. St. 216, 223 ;
Gibson v. Gibson, 9 Yerg. 329, 3-32 ; Van
Huss V. Rainbolt, 2 Coldw. 139 ; Williams
V. Lee, 47 Md. 321, 325.

11 McTaggart v. Thompson, 14 Pa. St.
149, 155, citing Irish v. Smith, 8 Scrg.
& R. 573, 5»1, and Rambler v. Tryon, 7
Serg. & R. 90, 93 ; Storey's Will, 20 111.
App. 188, 186, 195.

1- Harrison v. Rowan, 3 Wash. C. C.
580, 586; Stevens v. Vancleve, 4 Wash.
C. C 262,268; Turner y. Cheesman, 15
N. J. Eq. 243 ; Shaver v. McCarthy, 110
Pa. St. 339, 347.

13 Ante, § 25.

11 " For courts cannot measure the size
of people's understandings and capacities,
nor examine into the wisdom or prudence
of men in disposing of their estates " :
Wms. Ex. [40], citing Osmond ;-. Fitzroy,
3 P. Wms. 129. See also Reed's Will, 2
B Mon. 79; Bleecker v. Lynch, 1 Bradf.
458, 470 ; Elliott's Will, 2 J. J Marsh. 340,
342 ; Dornick v. Reichenback, 10 Serg. &
R. 84, 90; Blanchard r. Nestle, 3 Denio,
37, 40; Crolius v. Stark, 64 Barb. 112,
117 ; Thompson v. Kyner, 65 Pa. St. 368,

§29

rNCAPACITi: FliOM IMBECILITY.

43

It seems that extreme old ajL^c in a testator is deemed by the courts
a circumstance callincr for their vi<i;ihincc,i but by itself ^, ,
constitutes no testamentary disciualification.^ Yet im-
becility, though not amounting to actual insanity, may be shown
to exist to an extent which invalidates the will,^ as

1 11 j^ m • 1 • T . 1.1 Iinbpcilitv

where he has not sutticient mmd to comprehend the may invaii-
nature and eli'ect of the act he was performing, or the *'*^ ^' '
relation he held to the various individuals who might naturally be
expected to become objects of his bounty, or to be capable of
making a rational selection among them.* Senile dementia may
so far impair the mind that "a man in his old age becomes a very
child again in his understanding, and so forgetful that he knows
not his own name " ; such a person has obviously no more testa-
mentary capacity " than a natural fool, or a child, or a lunatic." ■''
It must be remembered, however, that a lower degree of intel-
lectual vigor is necessary, or held sufficient, to make a valid will,
than is required to sustain a contract.*^ Total loss of memory, or

378; Rutherford v. Morris, 77 111. 397,
holding tliat even softening of the brain
two years prior to the making of the vvill
will not invalidate it, if the testator at
the time of mnking it was capable of
transacting his ordinary business affairs
(p. 408 ft sef/.); Wintermute v. Wilson, 28
N. J. Eq. 437 (affirming Wintermute's
Will, 27 N. J. Eq. 447) ; Chrisman v.
Ciirisman, 18 Pac. K. (Or.) ti.

1 Collins V. Townley, 21 N. J. Eq. 353,
in which the age of the testatrix (ninety-
eight years) was held to warrant a de-
mand for full formal proof of the will;
Weir V. Fitzgerald, 2 Bradf 42, 64 ; Cuth-
bertson's Appeal, 97 Pa. St. 163, affirm-
ing Boyd V. Boyd, 66 Pa. St. 283 ; Will
of Ames, 51 Iowa, 596, 604.

'^ " On the contrary, it calls for protec-
tion and aid to further its wishes, when a
mind capable of acting rationally, and a
memory sufficient in essentials, are shown
to have existed " : Maverick v. Keynolds,
2 Bradf. 360, 384. See also Watson v.
Watson, 2 B. Mon. 74 ; Creeiy v. Os-
trander, 3 Bradf. 107 ; Reynolds v. Root,
62 Barb. 250, 258 ; Van Alst i-. Hunter,
5 Johns. Ch. 148, 158; Van Huss v.
Rainbolt, 2 Coldw. 139, 142; Thomas v.
Stump, 62 Mo. 275, 279 ; Browne v. Mollis-
ton, 3 Whart. 129, 137 ; Sloan v. Maxwell,

3 N. J. Eq. 503, 581 ; Den v. Johnson, 5
N. J. L. 454, 457 et seq. ; Humphrey's
Will, 26 N. J. Eq. 513 ; Sheldon v. Dow,
1 Dem. 503; Wilson v. Mitchell, 101 Pa.
St. 495, 503; Cornwell v. Riker, 2 Dem.
354, 366 ; Smith v. James, 34 N. W. R.
(lo.) 309.

3 McTaggart v. Thompson, 14 Pa. St.
149, 154; Shropshire v. Reno, 5 J. J.
Marsh. 91, 92 ; Den v. Vancleve, 5 N. J.
L. 589, 660 et secj. ; Holden v. Meadows,
31 Wis. 284, 296; Hyatt v. Lunnin, 1
Dem. 14.

* Forman v. Swift, 7 Lans. 44.3, 446 ;
Daniel v. Daniel, 39 Pa. St. 191, 207 ;
Bates V. Bates, 27 Iowa, 110. 116; Bundy
V. McKnight, 48 Ind. .502, 513 et seq.

6 I Redf. on Wills, 98, pi. 6. quoting
from the " Orphan's Legacy " by Godol-
pliin, and citing Griffiths r. Robins, 3
Madd. 191, turning on a deed of gift ;
Mackenzie v. Handasyde, 2 Hagg. Eccl.
211, 218 ; and Potts v'. House, 6 Gii. ?.2A.

" " A man may be cajiable of making
a will and yet incapable of making a con-
tract, or to manage his estate " : Harrison
V. Rowan, 3 Wash. C. C. 580, 586. Gard-
ner V. Laniback, 47 Ga. 133, 192 ; Turner
r. Cheesman, 15 N. J. Eq. 243, 256 ; Kinne
?'. Kinne, 9 Conn. 102, 105; Converses.
Converse, 21 Vt. 168; Ilovey v. Chase,

44 INCAPACITY ARISING FROM MENTAL DISABILITIES. § 30

Loss of
memorv

the loss of memory of the testator's family or property,
is fatal to the validity of the will ; ^ but if memory
is not totally lost, the fact that it is poor or impaired does not
affect the testatory capacity ,2 for the mind may be sound, al-
though the memory be impaired.^ It has been held that want
of memory, vacillation of purjiose, credulity, and vagueness of
thought may all exist in connection with testamentary capacity ; *
and " there is no rule of law which presci"ibes average capacity
for a testamentary act." ^

§ 30. Incapacity in Consequence of Force, Fraud, or Intimida-
tion. — A will coerced by actual force emj^loyed upon the testa-
tor,^ or by threats and intimidations," or obtained in consequence

52 Me. 804, 314; Brinkman v. Rue^rge-
sick, 71 Mo. 553, 555; Wise v. Foote, 81
Ky. 10, 15; Whitney v. Twombly, 136
Mass. 145.

In the case of Harvey r. Sullens, 46
Mo. 147, 153, an instruction to tlie jury,
that if the testatrix at the time of execut-
ing the will was " old and infirm in body
and feeble and childish in mind, and so
incapable of transacting her ordinary busi-
ness, then she had not sufficient capacity
to make a will," was held to be justified
" under the circumstances here presented,"
but the court say that as an abstract prop-
osition of law it would not be quite accu-
rate. The proposition that, " if one be
able to transact the ordinary affairs of life,
he may, of course, execute a valid will,"
is approved, and the cases of Tomkins v.
Tomkins, 1 Bail. 92, and Coleman v. Rob-
ertson, 17 Ala. 84, cited in support thereof
(p. 154). The principle announced in the
syllabus of the case (p. 148), that persons
incapable of transacting ordinary busi-
ness are incapable of making a will, is
not, therefore, an accurate statement of
the principle announced by the court. In
Young V. Ridenbaugh, 67 Mo. 574, 586,
the testamentary capacity required is
stated to be an understanding of the dis-
position the testator wishes to make of
his property, and whether the will makes
that disposition.

1 Yoe V. McCord, 74 III. 33, 39 ; Turner
V. Cheesman, 15 N. J. Eq. 243, 256 ; Con-
verse V. Converse, 21 Vt. 168, in which
Judge Redfield says tliat the testator
" must undoubtedly retain sufficient active

memory to collect in his mind, without
prompting, particulars or elements of tlie
business to be transacted, and to hold
them in his mind a sufficient length of
time to perceive at least their obvious re-
lations to each other, and be able to form
some rational judgment in relation to
them " (p. 170) ; Delafield v. Parish, 25
N. Y. 9, 29 ; Aikin v. Weckerly, 19 Mich.
482, 506 ; Lamb v. Lamb, 105 Ind. 456,
462.

2 See cases supra, note 1 ; Eddy's
Case, 32 N. J. Eq. 701 ; Wilson v. Mitch-
ell, 101 Pa. St. 495, 505; Montague v.
Allan, 78 Va. 592.

's Lowder v. Lowder, 58 Ind. 538, 542.
" If the testator was of sound mind, but
of poor or impaired memory, he was of
sound mind and memory, as the phrase is
known in tiie law " : Yoe v. McCord, 74
III. 33, 39.

* Hopple's Estate, 13 Phila. 259.

^ Per Cooley, J., in Hoban v. Piquette,
52 Mich. 346, 361.

^ Mountain v. Bennet, 1 Cox Ch. C.
353, 355.

^ " Imaginary terrors may have been
created sufficient to deprive him of free
agency." " The conduct of a person in
vigorous health towards one feeble in
body, even though not unsound of mind,
may be such as to excite terror and make
him execute as his will an instrument
which, if he had been free from such in-
fluence, he would not have executed " :
Boyse v. Kossbnrough, 6 H. L. Cas. 2, 49.
See Will of Farnsworth, itifra.

30

INCAPACITY FROM FORCE, INTIMIDATION, ETC.

45

of fraud jierpoti'atcd ii))on liim,^ is sclf-ovidontly void, be- Forcc,throats,
cause it is not his spontaneous act or free will. For the "r fraud in "'
same reason, the law does not recognize that as a valid validate wiii.
testamentary act which is the result of external influ- rndne in-
encc broufjlit to bear upon the testator to an extent A"®"^^-
and under circumstances which overpower his free will.^ Out of
this principle springs a prolific source of litigation between heirs
at law and beneficiaries of testators ; and no subject affords
greater scope to juries for the indulgence of personal opinions and
views of right and wrong, because no general rule can be laid
down to ascertain the extent and nature of the influence under
which a testator may have acted, or, where this is ascertained, to
determine whether and to what extent such influence was legiti-
mate or unlawful.-^

§ 31. Incapacity arising from Undue Influence. — Undue influ-
ence, to vitiate a will, must be such as caused the testator to

1 Davis V. Calvert. 5 Gill & J. 2fiP, 80?, ;
Dietrick v. Dietrick, 5 Serg. & K. 207 (in-
cluding' as fraudulent unfounded imputa-
tions against those entitled to the testator's
bounty); Will of Farnswortli, t)2 Wis.
474 ; but the mistake of the testator as to
a fact, unless occasionetl by fraudulent or
deceptive representations, does not in-
vaUdate a will : Howell v. Troutman, 8
Jones L. 804, 307 ; aliter, if the benefi-
ciary, possessinsf the confidence of the
testatrix, knowingly permits her to make
a will under a false impression : Green-
wood r. Cline, 7 Or. 17.

2 Lord Cranworth, in the case of
Boyse v. 'Rossborough, supra, points out
that it is not metaphysically accurate to
predicate want of will of a person acting
under coercion. lie illustrates by argu-
ing tliat it is the will of the traveller to
give up his purse when threatened with
death by the highwayman in case of re-
fusal, and that it is the will of the owner
to give up his horse to the thief who
steals it under the fraudulent pretence of
borrowing it, and adds : " But the law
deals with the case as if they had been
obtained against my will, my will having
been the result in one case of fear, and in
the other of fraud. Tlie same principle
must guide us in determining whether an
instrument duly executed in point of form
is or is not a will. The inquiries must be

. . . was the instrument in question the
expression of his genuine will, or was it
the expression of a will created in his
mind by coercion or fraud ? " 6 H. L.
Cas. 44, 45.

^ " To make a good will, a man must
be a free agent. But all influences are
not unlawful. Persuasion — appeals to
the afTections, or ties of kindred — to a
sentiment of gratitude for past services,
or pity for future destitution, or the like
— these are all legitimate and may be
fairly pressed on a testator. On the
other hand, pressure of whatever charac-
ter, whether acting on the fears or hopes,
if so exerted as to overpower volition
without convincing the judgment, is a
species of restraint under which no valid
will can be made. Importunity or threats
such as the testator has not the courage
to resist — moral command asserted and
yielded to for the sake of peace and quiet,
or of escaping from distress of mind or
social discomfort — these, if carried to a
degree in which the free play of the tes-
tator's judgment, discretion, or wish is
overborne, will constitute undue influ-
ence, though no force is either used or
threatened. In a word, a testator may be
led, but not driven ; and his will must be
the offspring of his own volition, but not
the record of some one else's " : Hall v.
Hall, 37 L. J. P. 40.

46

INCAPACITY ARISING FROM MENTAL DISABILITIES.

31

dispose of his property contrary to his iudcrment or dc-

Whatconsti- . ' e f i ^ , \ r 2

tiites undue sirc/ 111 conscquence ot iraudulcnt re])rcsentations ^ or
importunities and external pressure whicli he was too
weak to resist,^ and hence always contains an element of coer-
Must contain ciou or fraud destroying free agency ;4 if his judgment
an element of ^^ ^^^ misled by falsc representations, nor liis will

coercion or j i 7

fraud. overpowered by irresistible importunities, no influence

brought to bear upon him can invalidate his will, because it is in
such case free from the element of coercion or fraud.^ No precise
line can be drawn distinguishing legitimate from unlawful influ-
ence, except the general one thus indicated ; ^ but it is held that
„„ , . , considerations addressed to a testator's good feelings,

Wliat IS not ^ ^

undue in- simply influencing his better judgment ; " the earnest
solicitations of a wife,^ or the exercise of influence
springing from family relations, or from motives of duty, affec-
tion, or gratitude ; ^ persuasion, argument, or flattery ; ^** kindness

1 Forney v. Ferrell, 4 W. Va. 729 ;
Leverett v. Carlisle, 19 Ala. 80 ; Marx v.
McGlynn, 88 N. Y. 857 ; Sunderland v.
Hood, 13 Mo. App. '232 ; Stoutenburgh
V. Hopkins, 43 N. J. Eq. 577, 581 ; Mar-
shall V. Flinn, 4 Jones L. 199, 204.

2 To invalidate a will on the ground
of false representations to the testator it
must be proved that such representations
were made, that they are false, and that
the disposition in the will was made in
consequence thereof; but it is not neces-
sary to prove that the representations
were made in bad faith for the purpose of
procuring the will : Smith v. Du Bose, 3
S. E. R. (Ga.) 309, 318.

3 Kinleside v. Harrison, 2 Phillim.449,
551; Chandler v. Ferris, 1 Harr. (Del.)
454, 464 et seq. ; Taylor v. Wilburn, 20
Mo. 306, 309 ; Brick v. Brick, 66 N. Y.
144, 149 ; Layman v. Conrey, 60 Md. 286,
292; Will of Earns worth, 62 Wis. 474;
Maynard v. Vinton, 59 Mich. 139; Sclio-
field V. Walker, 58 Mich. 96, 106.

4 Williams i-. Gonde, 1 Hagg. 577, 581 ;
Gardiner v. Gardiner, 34 N. Y. 155; Gai-
ther V. Gaither, 20 Ga. 709 ; Stackhouse
V. Horton, 15 N. J. Eq. 202, 231 ; Jackson
V. Hardin, 83 Mo. 175, 185 ; Higgins v.
Carlton, 28 Md. 115; Children's Aid So-
ciety V. Loveridge, 70 N. Y. 387, 394 ;
Potter's Appeal, 63 Mich. 106, 113. In

Stewart v. Elliott, 2 Mackey, 307, 319, it
is held that undue influence may exist in
the absence of fraud.

5 Simmerman v. Songer, 29 Gratt. 9,
24; Shailer v. Bumstead, 99 Mass. 112,
121 et seq. ; Latham v. Udell, 38 Mich.
238 ; AUmon ;;. Pigg, 82 III. 149 ; Munroe
V. Barclay, 17 Ohio St. 302, 314 et seq. ;
Parramore v. Taylor, 11 Gratt. 220, 239;
Stoutenburgh v. Hopkins, 43 N. J. Eq.
577, 590.

6 Bo3'se V. Rossborough, 6 H. L. Cas.
2, 47 ; Lynch v. Clements, 24 N. J. Eq.
431, 434 ; Maynard v. Vinton, 59 Mich.
139, 153.

' Tucker v. Field, 5 Redf. 139 ; Potts
V. House, 6 Ga. 324, 359 ; Wise v. Foote,
81 Ky. 10, 15.

8 Rankin v. Rankin, 61 Mo. 295, 300 ;
Small V. Small, 4 Me. 220; Jackman's
Will, 26 Wis. 104, 116 ; Stulz v. Scliaeffle,
18 Eng. L. & E. 576.

9 Wait V. Breeze, 18 Hun, 403, 404 ;
Hall V. Hall, L. R. 1 Prob. & Div. 481,
482; Rutherford v. Morris, 77 111. 397,
412 ; Matter of Mondui t, 1 10 N. Y. 450,
456 ; Hughes v. Murtha, 32 N. J. Eq. 288 ;
Pierce v. Pierce, 38 Mich. 412; Barnes v.
Barnes, 66 Me. 286, 297 ; McCullogh v.
Campbell, 49 Ark. 367, 371.

10 Potts V. House, 6 Ga. 324, 3-59;
Chandler v. Ferris, 1 Harr. 454, 464;

§ 31 INCAPACITY ARISING FROM UNDUE INFLUENCE. 47

and attentions to the testator ; ^ and influence worthily exerted
for tlu; benefit of others,^ cannot be considered as " undue," so as
to affect the validity of a will inspired thereby. The opportunity
mere opportunity to exercise influence over a testator ,\"e"',*"j"^ar.
does not, even in connection with an uniust will, war- [?"* prtjiump-

' _ J 7 j|„„ „f undue

rant the presumption of undue influence, in the absence influence,
of affirmative evidence of its exercise, where the testator's minfi
is unimpaired, and he imderstood the contents of his will.'^

What deti'rce of influence will vitiate a will depends much upon
the bodily and mental vigor of the testator, for that which would
overwhelm a mind weakened by sickness, dissipation, ,^ , . „

•' 111 Undue mflu-

or age might prove no influence at all to one of strong ence over a
mind in the vigor of life.* The question to be decided be such oVer a
is, whether the testator had intelligence enough to de- ^^'"""S""'"^-
tect the fraud, and strength of will enough to resist the influence
brought to bear upon him.^

Influence is never presumed, (except in the case to be consid-
ered below, between attorney and client, or where the legatee
sustained a fiduciary relation to the testator,) but , „

•' . , ^ Influence

must always be proved by the party alleging it; ''not must always

generally, but as a present constraint operating at the

time of executing the will," and the proof must exclude the hy-

O'Neall V. Farr, 1 Rich. 80, 84 ; McDaiiiel by another surrogate, to raise the pre-

y. Crosby, 1'.) Ark. 533, 551; Mclntire v. sumption of undue influence ) Estate of

McConn, 28 Iowa, 480, 486 ; Schofield r. Brooks, 5t Cal. 471, 474; Hubbard v.

Walker, 68 xVIich. 96, 106. Hubbard, 7 Or. 42, 47 ; In re Martin, US

1 Miller v. Miller, 3 Serg. & R. 267, N. Y. 1'J3, 197 ; Blake v. Rourke, 38 N.
270 ; Lowe v. Williamson, 2 N. J. Eq. 82, W. R. (lo.) 392.

88; Den v. Gibbons, 22 N. J. L. 117, * Haydock v. Haydock, 33 N. J. Eq.

158 ; Gieespin's Will, 26 N. J. Eq. 528, 494.

527 ; Rogers v. Diamond, 13 Ark. 474, ^ Robinson, J., in Griflfith v. Diffen-

483; Eddy's Case, 32 N. J. Eq. 701, dorffi-r, 50 Md. 466, 480.

708; Wilson's Appeal, 99 Pa. St. 545. ^ Humphrey's Will, 20 N.J. Eq. 518,

551 ; McCoy v. McCoy, 4 Redf. 54, 60. 521 ; Ewen r. Perrine, 5 Redf. 640 ;

2 Harrison's Will, 1 B. Mon. 351, Davis v. Davis, 123 Mass. 590, 597 ;
352 ; Creely v. Ostrander, 3 Bradf. 107, Webber v. Sullivan, 58 Iowa, 260, 264 ;
112; Tawney v. Long, 76 Pa. St. 100, Armstrong ;•. Armstrong, 63 Wis. 162;
115. Rockwell's Appeal, 54 Conn 119.

" The influence must be specially di- " Thompson v. Kyner, 65 Pa. St.

reeled toward procuring a will in favor of 368, 379. citing earlier Pennsylvania

particular parties " : McCulloch v. Can)p- cases ; McMahon v. Ryan, 20 Pa. St. 329,

bell, 49 Ark. 367, 371. 330; the ratification of a will drawn un-

3 McCoy V. McCoy, 4 Redf. 54, 60; der undue influence when the influence
Iloban r. IMquette, 52 Mich. 346, 364. has been removed, cancels the objection
(But see Demmert v. Schnell, 4 Redf. to the validity of the will on that ground :
409, as to what opportunities were held, Taylor v. Kelly, 31 Ala. 59, 71 ; to simi-

48 INCAPACITY ARISING FROM MENTAL DISABILITIES. § 31

proved by

circuni-

stauccs.

pothesis of the testator's acting upon his own free will.^ Like
Mavbe other facts, it may be proved circumstantially. ^ The

contents of the will may be considered in connection
with the testator's disposition and affections, and decla-
rations about it, as indicating whether there was extraneous
influence ; -^ remembering, however, that the unnatural character
of the will does not of itself prove undue influence.* So, also,
the relations which the testator sustained toward the legatees
may furnish indicia; and it is held that, unlike the influence
arising from gratitude, affection, or esteem, or the kind offices of
a wife or husband, or other person in the ordinary social relations
of life, which are held lawful and proper, such influence arising
from unlawful relations is undue and vitiates the will.^ That a
portion of the testator's estate is bequeathed in violation of the
terms of a family settlement does not, in the absence of proof of
fraud or undue influence, vitiate the will ; the rights of parties
affected may be enforced on the distribution of the estate.^

lar effect see Shailer v. Bumstead, 99
Mass. 112, 125.

1 Boyse v. Rossborough, stipra ; May-
nard v. Vinton, 59 Mich. 139, 153 ; but an
instruction to the jury, that, "in order to
set aside the will on the ground of undue
influence, it must be shown that the cir-
cumstances of its execution are inconsist-
ent ivith any other hi/pothesis than such undue
influence," was held erroneous : Gay v.
Gillilan, 92 Mo. 250, 257.

2 Reynolds v. Root, 62 Barb. 2-50;
Beaubien v. Cicotte, 12 Mich. 459, 488 ;
Jackman's Will, 26 Wis. 104, 130 ; Denny
V. Pinney, 12 Atl. Rep. ( Vt.) 108, 111 ; Ty-
ler V. Gardiner, 35 N. Y. 559 ; Saunders's
Appeal, 54 Conn. 108, 116; Herster v.
Herster, 116 Pa. St. 612. Declarations
of the testator long before the making of
the will are competent to explain prefer-
ences : Dye v. Young, 55 Iowa, 433 ;
Moore v. McDonald, 12 Atl. Rep. (Md.)
117, 120.

2 Tyler v. Gardiner, supra ; Allen v.
Public Administrator, 1 Bradf . 378, 386 ;
McLaughlin v. McDevitt, 63 N. Y. 213,
217 ; Denton v. Franklin, 9 B. Mon. 28,
30 ; Storer's Will, 28 Minn. 9, 12 ; Potter
I'. Baldwin, 133 Mass. 427, allowing decla-
rations of the testator, both before and
after the date of the will, to be given in

evidence, and citing Shailer v. Bumstead,
99 Mass. 112; Lewis v. Mason, 109 Mass.
169, and May v. Bradlee, 127 Mass. 414 ;
Parsons v. Parsons, 66 Iowa, 754, 758 ;
Whitman v. Morey, 68 N. H. 448 ; Her-
ster V. Herster, 116 Pa. St. 612.

4 Kevil (,-. Kevil, 2 Bush, 614; Kitchell
V. Beach, 35 N. J. Eq. 446; Webber v.
Sullivan, 58 Iowa, 260, 265. But in Mis-
souri it was held that this may throw the
onus upon the proponents : Gay v. Gilli-
lan, 92 Mo. 2.50, 264.

5 Denton v. Franklin, 9 B. Mon. 28
Dean v. Negley, 41 Pa. St. 312, 817
Rudy V. Ulrich, 69 Pa. St. 177, 181 ; Mc-
Clure V. McClure, 6 S. W. R. (Tenn.)
44 ; Kessinger v. Kessinger, 37 Ind. 341,
343. But. the existence of the relation
is not itself proof, nor does it give rise to
a presumption of undue influence : Main
V. Ryder, 84 Pa. St. 217, 225; Farr v.
Thompson, Cheves, 37, 48 ; Roe v. Tay-
lor, 45 111. 485 ; Sunderland v. Hood, 84
Mo. 293, affirming s. c, 13 Mo. App.
232, 236 et seq. ; Wainwright's Appeal,
89 Pa. St. 220, 226 ; Donnely's Will,
68 Iowa, 126 ; Porschet v. Porschet, 82
Ky. 93; Matter of Mondorf, 110 N. Y.
450.

6 Schaaber's Appeal, 13 Atl. R. (Pa.)
775.

§ 32 LEGACIES TO FIDUCIARY ADVISERS. 49

§ 32. Presumption against Legacies to Fiduciary Advisers. — The
rule that undue influence may never be presumed, but must be
proved by the person ^vho alleges it, is subject to an e.xception in
those cases in which a legacy is given by~a testator to his attor-
ney, confidential adviser, guardian, or other person sustaining
toward him anv fiduciary relation. Proof of the exist- i^,., .

.fiftuciarv

ence of such relation raises the prcsumutio-n of undue ''elation of
influence, which is fatal to the bequest unless rebutted raises pre-
by proof of full deliberation and spontaneity on the un'due"'" "
part of the testator, aiid good faith on the part of the '"^"®°^®'
legatee.! The presumption extends beyond the period of minor-
ity in the case of guardian and ward, so as to invalidate

• 11 11 • n r 1 • n t Guardians.

a Will made by a person m lavor of his lormer guardian
a few days after attaining majority ; ^ and a bequest to the wife of
a guardian likewise gives rise to the presumption, where it appears
that the guardian may expect and derive substantial advantage
and benefit from such will of his ward.^ It is held to be the duty
of a priest acting as confessor and adviser of a testator

Priests.

about to will his property to a stranger in blood , to make
inquiries touching his family relations, and disinterestedly advise
him as to his duties to wife and children, and that a failure to do
so avoids a gilt or testamentary donation, although it be not to
the donee's personal benefit, but " in the interest of religion " and
for " his spiritual welfare."* The principle avoiding sucli gifts
cannot be evaded by giving interests to third persons, instead of
those who exercise the undue influence.^

1 Moek r. Pprrv. P,Ci Miss. inO, 244 et Yardley v. Cuthbertsnn, 108 Pa. St. 395,

sm., oiling numerous ICnglish ami Amer- 4ol et seq. ; iloore v. Spier, 80 Ala. 129,

ican authorities ; St. Leger's Will, 34 134.

Cnnn. 434, 450; Wilson v. Moran, 3 2 Garvin y. Williams, 44 Mo. 465, 469

Bradf. 172, 180; Breed v. Pratt, 18 Pick, ct se(j.

11-3; Miiller v. St. Lonis Hospital Asso- 3 Briilwell r. Swank, 84 Mo. 455.

ciation, 5 Mo. App. 390, 397, affirmed in * Ford v. Hennessey, 70 Mo. 580, 587

72 Mo. 242; Harvey v. Sullens, 4G Mo. f< <;e7.. citing Kirwan y. Cullen, 4 Irish Ch.

147, 154; Watterson c. Watterson, 1 Head, (n. s.) 322, 326 (sustaining a gift infer

1; .Morris v. Stokes, 21 Ga. 552, 573 ; In r.Vos in trust); Tiiompson v. Heffernan,

re Welsh, 1 Rcdf. 238, 245 et seq. ; Frew 4 Drury & W. 285, 2!»1 (a donatio mortis

V. Clarke, 80 Pa. St. 170, 180; Wilson's causa held void) ; and Hoghton v. Plogh-

Appeal, 99 Pa. St. 545, 551, affirming ton, 15 Beav. 278, 299 (avoiding a deed

Cuthbertson's Appeal, 97 Pa. St. 103; of resettlement of family estates between

Wilson V. Mitchell, 101 Pa. St. 495, 505 ; a father and iiis eldest son, executed soon

Post I'. Mason, 20 Him, 187; Bristed v. after the son attained majority). Mar.x

Weeks, 5 Kedf. 529, 533 ; Dale v. Dale, 38 v. :McGlynn, 88 N. Y, 357, 371.
N. J. Eq. 274 ; Brick r. Brick, 43 N. J. » Ford i: Hennessey, supra, citing

Eq. 167 ; Montague v. Allan, 78 Va. 592; Yosti i;. Laughran, 49 Mo. 694, 599, and
VOL T. — 4

50 INCAPACITY ARISING FROM MENTAL DISABILITIES. § 33

The same presumption arises where the person who prepares
the instrument or conducts its execution is himself benefited by its
Sciiveners provislous ; very clear proof of volition and capacity,
of will. as ^q\\ as of knowledge by the testator of the con-

tents, is necessary in such case to tlie validity of the instrument.^
But if the beneficiary writing the will is a near relative, who would
take a considerable share of the estate if there were no will, tlie
presumption which might arise against a stranger is not applica-
ble to him.2 The appointment of the scrivener as executor is not
sufficient to require affirmative proof that the paper was drawn in
accordance with the instructions of the testator, or that he is
aware of its contents and legal effect.^ In Georgia, the rule
requiring evidence to rebut the presumption of undue influence
by the scrivener of a will who is benefited by it has been
denied.*

§ 33. Presumption as to Seamen's "Wills. — A similar exception
to the ordinary rules and presumptions by which the intention of
Similar pre- tcstators is to bc ascertained is made in the case of

sumption in . .

capeofthe scamcn,^ whose temporary necessities are considered
7eamen. to Operate upou them as a sort of duress on the part

Ranken v. Patton, 6-5 Mo. 378, 390 et seq.; ence that the will, having been written

Drake's Appeal, 45 Conn. 9, 18. by tlie beneficiary, is subsequently coijied

1 Wms. on Ex. [112], citing English by another: Kelly v. Settcgast, 08 Tex

and American authorities ; Cheatham v. 13, 20.

Hatcher, .30 Gratt. 66,69; Post f. Mason, - Caldwell v. Anderson, 104 Pa. St.

01 N. Y. 639, reported in 3 Am. Prob. R. 109, 206. But even in such case, when

43, where numerous cases are cited. It the evidence shows that the will was not

is said in this case, l)y Danforth, J., that read by the testator, nor explained to

"the relation of attorney and draughts- him, the burden of showing that the will

man no doubt gave, in the case before was drawn as directed by the testator is

us, the opportunity for influence, and on the beneficiary : Blume v. Hartman,

self-interest might supply a motive to 115 Pa. St. 32.

unduly exert it, but its exercise cannot ^ Linton's Appeal, lOi Pa. St. 228,

be presumed in aid of those who seek to 237.

overthrow a will already established by * Carter v. Dixon, 69 Ga. 82, 80. In

the judgment of a competent tribunal, Stirling v. Stirling, 64 Md. 138, 147, it is

rendered in proceedings to which the said that it is not always a suspicious

plaintiflTs were themselves parties, nor in circumstance against the validity of a

the absence of evidence warrant a pre- will, that the writer is largely benefited

sumption that the intention of the tes- by it.

tator was improperly, much less fraud- ° " It is the policy of the law of this
ulently, controlled." See also Crispell country," says Sir John NichoU in the
V. Dubois, 4 Barb. 393, 398 ; Cramer v. case of Zacharias v. CoUis, 3 Phil. 176,
Crumbaugh, 3 Md. 491, 499; Caldwell "and of several others, to grant special
V. Anderson, 104 Pa. St. 199; Yardley indulgences, and to extend special protec-
ts. Cuthbertson, 15 Phila. 77 ; s. c. 108 Pa. tions to the testamentary intentions of
St. 395, 456 et seq. It makes no differ- this class of persons."

§ 34 PARTIAL AVOIDANCE OF WILL. 51

of those who arc to furiiisli tlie siipi)!}'.^ It was therefore
licld, that, although tlie statute ^ provides " that no will of any
seaman contained, pi'inted, or written in the same instrinnenf,
paper or parchment, with a warrant or letter of attc^rney, shall
be good or available in law to any intent or purpose w'hatsoever,"
yet a will was invalid when executed on a different instrument
from the power of attorney.^ Neither the relation of agent and
seaman, nor tlie indebtedness of the seaman to his agent, operates
as an absolute defeasance of the will ; but there must be clear
proof in such cases of the subscription of the deceased to the
instrument, and of his knowledge of its nature and effect : if
executed merely as a security for a debt, it shall not operate as a
testamentary disposition of the whole property ; but if there be
satisfactory evidence of an intention to dispose of the property
by will, the instrument shall be valid although there be a
debt.^

§ 34. Partial Avoidance of "Will by Undue Influence. — If undue
influence or fraud, though exercised by one legatee only, affect
the wdiole will, the whole will is void ;^ but both justice ^^;j,
and policy require that the rejection of a legacy ob- be avoided

i J ^ •> '-".•'. in part and

tained by fraud or undue influence should not invali- sustained in
date other provisions in the same will in favor of
legatees who have not resorted to improper means.^ For the like
reason, an erasure or alteration in the will, though found to have
been made after execution, does not avoid the will in toto ; if
made by a stranger, and the original legacy be known, it will
have no legal effect, the legacy wall be still recoverable, and ought
to be proved as it originally stood ; but if made by the legatee
himself, it will avoid the legacy so altered, but cannot destroy
other bequests in the will, either to such legatee or others.^
Hence a will may be valid as to some of its dispositions, and

1 Wms. Ex. [51]. * Wms. Ex. [53], citing Zacliarias v.

2 9 & 10 Will. III. c. 41, § 6; repealed Collis, supra, and Peardsley v. Fleming, 2
and re-enacted by 55 Geo. III. c. 60, § 4 ; Cas. Temp. Lee, 98.

also 1 &2 Geo.IV. c. 49, § 2: and see ^ Florey v. Floiey, 24 Ala. 241, 248.

11 Geo. IV. and 1 Will, iv! c. 20, §§ 48 « in re Welsh, 1 Redf. 238, 247;

et seq.; 28 & 29 Vict. c. 72, § 4. Raker's Will, 2 Redf. 179, 197 ; Harri-

8 Zacharias v. Collis, 3 i'liillim. 170, son's Appeal, 48 Conn. 202, 204.

citing Craig v. Lester, p. 189 ; also Moore " Smith v. Fenner, 1 Gall. C. C. 170,

V. Smart, p. 190; Hay y. MuUo, p. 194; 174.
Forbes v. Burt, p. 190.

52 INCAPACITY ARISING FROM MENTAL DISABILITIES. § 35

invalid as to others. This doctrine will he further considered in
connection with the probate of wills. ^

§ 35. Wills of Deaf, Dumb, and Blind Persons. — The imperfec-
tions of deaf, dumb, and blind persons, although in no wise in-
consistent with perfect testamentary capacity, demand

Wills of deaf, ^ , c c ■, • ■^^ -r,

dumb, and spccial precautions in the proof of their wills. Persons
n'oTnecessa-^ bom deaf, blind, and dumb were by Blackstone classed
niy void. -^yH]^ " thosc who are incapable, by reason of mental
disability, to make a will." Surrogate Bradford points out ^ that
this rule — borrowed from the civil law, which itself allowed the
testatory power where these defects were not congenital — must
of necessity be qualified by the reason of it, which was a presumed
want of capacity.^ If, therefore, a person, although deaf, dumb,
and blind, have received such education as to endow him with
ordinary intellectual powers, he may make a valid will;* a forti-
ori, where the person is blind, but not deaf and dumb,^ or deaf and
dumb, but not blind.^ In all such cases it is necessary to prove,
to the entire satisfaction of the court or jury passing
proof must upon the validity of the will, that the testator was ac-
quainted with its contents.'' It is not necessary, ordi-
narily, to prove that the will was read by or to the testator before
executing it ; ^ but if evidence be given that the testator was
blind, or could not read, or, for any reason, was unacquainted
with its contents, such evidence must be met by satisfactory proof,
either that the will was read to or by, or that the contents were
known to, the testator.^ Modern authorities go no further than
to require very great scrutiny, in such cases, into the testator's
knowledge and approval of the contents of the will ; ^^ and " it is

1 Post, § 222. ^ Because, as a general rule, the per-

2 In the case of Weir v. Fitzgerald, 2 son signing an instrument is presumed to
Bradf. 42, 68. know its contents : Androscoggin Bank

3 ". . . who, as they have always i;. Kimball, 10 Ciish. 373, 374; which rule
wanted the common inlets of understand- applies to wills as well as to other instru-
ing, are incapable of having animum tes- ments : Muniiikliuysen v. Magraw, 35
tundi, and their testaments are therefore Md. 280, 287 ; Downey v. Murphy, 1 Dev.
void " : 2 Bla. Comm. 497. & B. L. 82, 87.

* Reynolds v. Reynolds, 1 Speers, 253, 9 Harrison v. Rowan, 3 Wash. C. C.

257. 580, 585; Wampler v. Wampler, 9 Md.

6 Ray V. Hill, 3 Strobh. L. 297, 302; 540,*550; Martin v. Mitchell, 28 Ga. 382,
Wilson V. Mitchell, 101 Pa. St. 495. 385 ; Guthrie v. Price, 28 Ark. 396, 403

s Gombault v. Public Administrator, 4 et seq. ; Day v. Day, 3 N. J. Eq. 549, 552.
Bradf. 226, 230. ^" Bigelow's note 1 to 1 Jarm. on Wills,

7 Davis V. Rogers, 1 Roust. 44, 93. *34, b. p. 46.

§ 35 WILLS OF DEAF, DUMB, AND BLIND PERSONS. 53

almost superfluous to observe, that, in ])ropurt;on as tlie infirmi-
ties of a testator expose him to deception, it becomes imperatively
the duty, and should be anxiously the care, of all persons assisting
in the testamentary transaction, to be prepared with the clearest
proof that no imposition has been practised." ^

1 1 Jarm. on Wills, *34, Bigelow's note (1) ; 1 Redf. on Wills, 58.

54 FORM, EXECUTION, AND ATTESTATION OF WILLS. § 36

CHAPTER V.

FORM, EXECUTION, AND ATTESTxVTION OF WILLS.

§ 36. Absolute and Conditional Wills. — The office of a will —

more accurately called last will or testament — is to control the

disposition, in the manner desired by the testator, of

Office of wills. ^ c , . T , 1 • c 1

his property after his death, and, in many of the
States,! as under the statute of 12 Car. II. c. 24, to appoint a
guardian for his minor children.^ In its essential nature a will
Thev are am- ^^ ambulatoi'y, for it is not operative before the tes-
buiatory, tator's death, until which time it can vest no rights in

others, and may therefore be revoked or changed at the testa-
tor's pleasure.^ It is usually absolute in its provisions,

usually abso- '■ ,. . ,

lute, but may but may be made conditional upon the happenmg

be coiiditioual. „ i -\ • l^ • i ^ ^ ,

of some event, and is then void unless such event
happen.* In such case it is important to ascertain, first, whether
the intention of the testator is to make the validity of the will
dependent upon the condition, or merely to state the circum-
stances inducing him to make the testamentary provision ; and
next, whether, if the language clearly imports a condition, it

applv to the whole will, or affect only some part of

Case illus'rat- ' i .^

int? diiitiiicticn \tj> The casc of Frciich v. French^ presents some

between abso- • c , ii • ,' i -ji

lute and con- mstructivG features on this question, and may with
ditionaiwiii. p^.^p^^ ^^ noticed in extenso. The will was a holo-
graph, in the following form : " Let all men know hereby, if

1 In all of them except Iowa and Ne- the parties, is a contract inter vivos, and
braska, in the statutes of which no pro- not revoked by a subsequent will: Book
visions to this effect have been met with. v. Book, 104 Pa. St. 240.

The power is given in all cases to the * 1 Jarm. on Wills, *17 et seq. ; Mor-

father, in many of them also to the sur- row's Appeal, 116 Pa. St. 440 ; Maxwell

viving mother, and in two or three States v. Maxwell, 3 Mete. (Ky.) 101, 104 ; Jacks

the power to the father is conditioned v. Henderson, 1 Desaus. 543, 554.

upon the consent of the mother. In ^ Damon v. Damon, 8 Allen, 192, 104

Maine, New Hampshire, and Ohio, the et seq. ; Tarver v. Tarver, 9 Pet. 174, 179;

testamentary appointment operates only Ex parte Lindsay, 2 Bradf. 204, 206 ;

if held suitable by the probate court. Thompson v. Conner, 3 Bradf. 366 ;

2 Balch V. Smith, 12 N. H. 437, 440; 2 Kelleher v. Kernan, 60 Md. 440; Like-
Kent Comm. *224 et seq. field v. Likefield, 82 Ky. 689.

3 See infra, § 37. An instrument vest- ^ 14 W. Va. 458.
ing rights upon delivery, enforceable by

^ 36 ABSOLUTE AND CONDITIONAL WILLS. 55

I get drowned this morning, March 7, 1872, that I bequeath all
my ])roi)erty, personal and real, to my beloved wife, Florence.
Witness my hand and seal, 7th of March, 1872. Wm. T. French."
It was proved, on the propounding of the will, that French was
about to cross a deep river ; that his wife, being afraid that some
accident would hai)i)en, was anxious that he should not go ; that
decedent started out of the room, and then came back and wrote
the will. It also appeared in the cuusc ' that French had no chil-
dren ; that he was not drowned on the day of writing the will, but
died on the 29th of December, 1874 ; that if he had died on the
day of the date of said will, his wife would have been the sole legal
heir of her husband ; but that after that day, and before the day
of his death, the law of descent was so amended, that the father
of the deceased was his sole legal heir. It was also proved, in the
proceeding to set aside the probate of said will, that the testator
subsequently recognized the writing as a valid will ; but the court
held such testimony inadmissible.^ Upon these facts the majority
of the court, after an extensive revie^v of English and American au-
thorities bearing upon the question of contingent wills,^ reached the
conclusion that " it was the intention and puri)Ose of the decedent
that said paper writing should be his unconditional will and testa-
ment, giving to his wife Florence all of his real and personal estate
at his death, whether natural or otherwise ; and the court, in order
to give effect to the intention of the decedent, will presume that said
paper writing was executed in contemplation of any change of the
law of descents as to legal heirship which might be and was made
between the date of the said will and the death of the decedent." ^
The president of the court dissented, holding it to be self-evident
that the words of the will, " if I get drowned," &c., could not pos-
sibly mean " as I may get drowned," &c.* Four of the five judges
concurred in the majority opinion, rendered by Haymon, J.

1 Page 506 of the opinion. gram v. Strong, 2 Phill. 294 ; Jacks r.

- Mentioning, as liolding wills absolute Henderson, supra ; Sinclair v. Hone, 0 Ves.

because the contingencies were therein G07 ; Wagner i-. McDonald, 2 Harr. .& J.

mentioned as inducements, Cody v. Conly, 340 ; Todd's Will, 2 Watts & S. 145 ;

27Gratt. 313; Goods of Dobson, 1 P. & D. Maxwell v. Maxwell, supra; Dougherty

(L. R.) 88; Goods of Martin, 1 P. & D. v Dougherty, 4 Mete. (Ky.) 25; McGee

(L. R.) 380; Thome's Case, 4 Sw. & Tr. v. McNeil, 41 Miss. 17; Robnett v. Ash.

36 ; Skipwith v. Cabell, 19 Gratt. 758 ; and lock, 49 Mo. 171.

as holding wills conditional and void be- ^ Page 503 of the opinion,

cause the contingency did not happen, * Page 507.
Parsons r. Lanoe, 1 Ves. Sen. 189; In-

56 FORM, EXECUTION, AKD ATTESTATION OF WILLS. § 37

§ 87. Joint and Mutual "Wills. — It follows from the ambulatory
quality of wills, that a testator cannot by will deprive himself of
^ , his power to revoke a testamentary disposition.^ It is

Rule as to ^ . . . p ,

joint or iiiu- therefore said that the conjoint will of several testators
cannot be admitted to probate, as being unknown to
the testamentary law.^ Jarman, in the earlier editions of his work
on Wills, inclines to this vievv;^ but in the last edition he an-
nounces that two or more persons may make a joint will, which,
if properly executed by each, is, so far as his own property is
concerned, as much his will, and is as well entitled to probate
Mav be admit- upon the death of each, as if he had made a separate
ted'to probate ^ill.* It scems clcar, that if two or more persons
join in making a will, or make mutual wills dependent upon each
other, so that the mutual wills or joint will of all becomes a johit
., , , , transaction, each of the testators may, by exercising

if not revoked ' ./ 7 ./ ^

by any of the his powcr of rcvocatiou, dcstroy the testamentary

character or validity of the instrument, at least to the

extent of his interest therein.^ This follows from the revocability

„ ^ .0 , , of wills. But in so far as a joint oi" mutual will may

But II revoked •* , 1 • i 1

as a will, it rest upou a mutual agreement, according to which the

may be en- . n , . , i 1 • n i-i-

forced as a executiou of tlic instrument by one is the condition
or consideration for its execution by another, the ele-
ment of contract is superadded to the transaction ; and, as a con-
tract, the instrument is of course irrevocable without the consent
of all the parties to it.^ In this sense, the law making a will
based upon a valuable consideration binding as a contract is fully
applicable." Hence, if one of the parties to a joint or mutual will

1 " The making of a will is but the testamentary law of England. . . . How-
inception of it, and it doth not take any ever, such a will, may, it should seem, in
effect till the deatii of the devisor ; for some cases, be enforced in equity as a
omne testament' moite consummat' est, et vo- compact " : I Jarm. on Wills, 27 (2d
litntas est ambniatoria usque ad extremnm Am. ed.).

vitiB exitvm. Then it would be against * 1 Jarm. (Bigelow's 5th American

the nature of a will to be so absolute that from the 4th English edition), *18.

he who makes it, being of good and per- ^ Hobson v. Blackburn, 1 Add. 274 ;

feet memory, cannot countermand it" : Walpole v. Oxford, 3 Ves. 402, 415.

Ferse & Hembling's Case, 4 Co. 61 b. It is provided in the Code of Geor-

2 Clayton w. Liverman, 2 Dev. & B. L. gia (Code, 1882, § 2470), that even in
558; Hobson v. Blackburn, 1 Add. 274, case of mutual wills with a covenant
277 ; Walker v. Walker, 14 Oh. St 157 ; against revocation, the power of revo-
Hershey v. Clark, 35 Ark. 17, 23. cation remains.

3 So in Perkins's 2d American edition ^ Schouler on Wills, § 455.
(1849), where he says : " A joint or mu- "^ Infra, p. 58, note 8.

tual will is said to be unknown to the

§ 37 JOINT AND MUTUAL WILLS. 57

die without having revoked it, and the survivor benefit therel)}',
the will may be enforced in equity, as a compact, against revoca-
tion 1)V tlie survivor.! The doctrine announced by Jarnian in the
hiter editions seems, therefore, incontrovertible on principle, and
is sanctioned by the current of English and American decisions.
It asserts the revocability of joint and mutual wills as testamen-
tary dispositions of property, and therefore entitled to probate as
such, to be consistent with their irrevocability as contracts, and
therefore enforceable in cijuity if broken by the revocation of the
testamentary disposition.^ Accordingly, if by two j^i^t ,viii may
mutual wills, or m a ioint will, two testators will their be admitted to

' " ' , pro hate on

respective estates to the survivor of them, without death of testa-

,...,, .11 c j_i tor first dving.

further testamentary disi)osition, the will ot the one
who first dies (which is the joint will) is entitled to probate, and
the survivor may then dispose of the property devised at pleas-
ure, for the will has fully accomplished its office, and made the
property his.^ But if a joint will contains provisions for other
purposes, or legacies to other persons, it cannot take ^ . , .

^ ^ ' ° . , Joint devise to

effect as to such until it receive probate upon the third parties
death of the last surviving testator.* Surrogate Brad- St^r deaTii of
ford, in discussing this question, points out that the [eJator''"'""
decision of Sir John NichoU in Hobson v. Blackburn
has been misconceived ; that, instead of deciding that a compact
of a testamentary character could not be proved as a will because
it was a mutual or conjoint act, he only held that such an
instrument could not be set up as irrevocable against a subse-
quent will revoking it; and he also shows that this ruling is
in harmony with the civil law.^ And the Supreme Court of Ohio

1 Story Eq. § 785 , Dufour r. Pereira, Lewis v. Scofield, 26 Conn. 452, 454;
1 Dick. -119. Evans v. Smith, 28 Ga. 98, 104; Scliu-

2 See 1 Jarm. on Wills, *18, note (1), maker i'. Schmidt, 44 Ala. 4.54, 464; In
ot American annotator ; Ex parte Day, 1 res Dloz, 50 N. Y. 88, 92 ; E.x parte Day,
Bradf 476 : 1 Uedf, on Wills, 182 ; Scliou- 1 Bradt". 470 ; Bynura v. Bynum, 11 Ired.
ler on Wills, § 455, p. 4<i0 ; Gould v. Mans- L. fi.')2, 607.

field, 103 Mass. 408; Izard v. Middleton, < Schumakerr. Schmidt. SM/)m ; Goods

1 Desaus. U6 , Wyche i; Clapp. 43 Tex. of Raine, 1 S\v. & Tr. 144; Goods of

548, 548; March v. Hiiyter, 50 Tex 243, Lovetrrove, 2 Sw. & Tr. 453,455; Black

252; Breatiiitt v. Whittaker. 8 B Mon. v Riciiards, 95 Ind. 184, 189.
530 534; see also Towle r Wood,60N. H. & Ex parte Day, 1 Bradf. 476. 482,

434 (annoimcmg such to he the law, al- quoting from Eassmore v. Passmore, 1

thoiiiili tlie will was held void for want Pliill. 216 ; Masterman v. Maherly, 2

of the required formalities of execution). Haggc- 285; Domat. pt. 2, lib. 3, tit. 1.

3 The joint will, in such cases, is but See also Goods of Stracpy, Dea & Sw 6 ;
tlie will of the testator who des first: Rogers, Appellant, 11 Me. 303,305.

58 FOEM, EXECUTION, AND ATTESTATION OF WILLS. § 37

have expressly disavowed Walker v. Walker,^ in so far as the
decision of that case indicates the policy of Ohio to be opposed
to joint wills, and affirmatively hold that several persons may
dispose of their property by joint will, being in effect the will of
each, revocable by each, and subject to probate, either severally
upon the death of each testator, as his will, or jointly after the
death of all, as the wall of each and all of them.^

The will of a husband and wife, though joint in form, is not a
joint will, if the property devised belongs to the husband or wife
only ; ^ and where such a will is contingent, it is void if the con-
tingency does not happen.* But where husband and wife had
joint power to devise, and had executed it by joint will, neither of
them can revoke the joint will so made by a separate will.^

In Louisiana mutual and joint wills are prohibited by statute ; ^
in Georgia the power of revoking mutual wills is secured by stat-
ute, even if there be a covenant in such will against revocation.'^

It may be worth while to mention, in this connection, the equi-
table principle, that where an instrument, though clearly testa-
Wills upon a nientary in form and verbiage, is executed on a valuable
consideration consideration, it constitutes an irrevocable contract,

mav be en-
forced in equity which a court of equity will, as near as may be pos-
sible, specifically enforce ; ^ and this although the
agreement was by parol, if not avoided by the Statute of Frauds.^
So, also, a binding agreement between a testator and his heir at
law will be enforced, although repudiated by his will.^*^ It is well
settled that a contract to make a certain provision by will for a
particular person is valid if founded on a sufficient consideration;^^

1 14 Oh. St. 157. 8 Johnson v. Hubbell, 10 N. J. Eq. 332,

'^ Betts V. Harper, 39 Oh. St. 639, citing 385 ; Rivers v. Rivers, 3 Desaus. 190,

numerous authorities to similar effect. 194; Wright v. Tinsley, 30 Mo. 389, 396;

3 Rogers, Appellant, sM/)ra ; Kunnen i'. Parsell v. Stryker, 41 N. Y. 480, 485;

Zurline, 2 Gin. 440, 447 ; Allen v. Allen, Bolman v. Overall, 80 Ala. 451, 454 ; and

28 Kan. 18, 24. see cases mfra.

* Goods of Hugo, L. R. 2 P. D. 73. ^ Shakespeare v. Markham, 10 Hun,

5 Breathitt v. Whittaker, 8 B. Mon. 311, 322 ; Bolman v. Overall, supra ,•
530, 534. Glark, J., in Burgess v. Burgess, 109 Ta.

6 Code, art. 1565, 1572. But this pro- St. 312, 316.

hibition does not extend to the wills of i" Taylor i\ Mitcbell, 87 Pa. St. 518;

husband and wife, or of any two persons, see also Meck's Appeal, 97 Pa. St. 313,

in favor of the same beneficiary, although 316.

written out by the same party, on the ^i Wellington i\ Apthorp, 145 Ma«s.

same day, if separately attested : Wood 69. 72 ; Gaviness v. Rushton, 101 Ind.

»;. Roane, 35 La. An. 865, 869. 600.

7 Gode, 1882, § 2470.

§ 38 GENERAL llULES AS TO THE FORM OF WILLS. 59

an action will lie for the breach tluMvof,' or specific ijerf(jruiance
may be decreed,^ or if the action for specific performance is ile-
feated by the Statute of Frauds, an action on the qiumfum meruit is
maintainable to recover for the services rendered.'^ While services
rendered on a mere expectation of a legacy do not constitute a
good cause of action, yet an action lies for the breach of a [)rom-
isc to pay for services by a legacy.* And where services are
rendered by a son, under the general expectation of compensation
by will or otherwise, the mode being left to the judgment of the
father, the son is bound by any provision made by the father,
whether satisfactory or not.^

§ 38. General Rules as to the Form of Wills. — It is unimpor-
tant to notice, in this connection, the various solemnities and
formalities required in different countries and at va- c^^^,,,,,,, j^^
rious times to make a valid will or testament, because ^f 33 1i'en!viiL
this matter is regulated bv statute in each State, as and -ip car 11.

- 1 . .1 atlectiiig wills.

well as in England, and will be considered at the
proper time. But it is necessary to bear in mind the distinction
between personal and real property in connection with its testa-
mentary disposition,^ and that, while at common law real estate
could not be devised, the power of making a will of personal
property existed in England from the earliest period of its law.^
The power to devise lands, after the Conquest, was first granted,
in England, by the statute of 32 Henry YIIL, from which and
that of 29 Car. II. the American statutes regulating devises are
substantially taken.^ Although both in England and America
the formalities required to vindicate the validity of wills of both
real and personal property are now prescribed by statute,^ yet the
distinction existing between legacies (gifts of personal property)
and devises (of real estate) at the time of the enactment of the
several statutes is not wholly obliterated ; and the common law

1 Jenkins !-. Stetson, 0 Allen, 128, 132; death of the promisor: Stone r. Todd,
McKeegan v. O'Neill, 22 S. C. 454, 467, 49 N. J. L. 274, 280. Numerous cases on
citing earlier S. C. cases. tliis and cognate points are collected by

2 Parsell v. Stryker, 41 N. Y. 480, 485; the reporter in a note to the case of I'tiu-
Mauck V. Melton, 04 Ind. 414 : Ptiugar v. gar v. Pultz, 43 N. J. Eq. 440.

Pultz, 43 N. J. Eq. 440. ^ Lee's Appeal, 53 Conn. 303.

s Wallace v. Long, 105 Ind. 522, citing ^ Ante, § 12 et seq.

and commenting on numerous cases. ^ Wms. Ex. 1.

« Schutt V. Missionary Society, 41 ^ 4 Kent Comm. 504 et seq.

N. J. Eq. 115. In such case the Statute » In England, by the statute of 1 Vict,

of Limitations begins to run from the c 20.

60 FORM, EXECUTION, AND ATTESTATION OF WILLS. § 38

rules on the subject of wills remain in force as the law of most
States, in so far as they are not abrogated by American legisla-
tion. It is necessary, therefore, briefly to review the common
law m this respect, before considering the provisions of American
statutes.^

At common law,^ no particular form is necessary to constitute

a valid will of personalty ; and the same is true of all wills in

. , America, save as modified by statute.^ It is equally

No particular ' ■ , ■, i • -i

form required valid whether Written m the language used in the

at comuioii law „ . c-j ± •£ • r • ^

or under Anier- forum, or m a foreign tongue ; * it m a foreign lan-
ican statutes, g^^^ge, it should bc interpreted by persons skilled
Equally valid in the Tulcs of Interpreting wills in the country in

whetlier in . . • k » -n i i ^ i

English or for- whosc language it is written.^ A will duly executed,
eign tongue. ^^ .^^^ knowledge of its contents, is valid, though never
read by the testator,*^ or written in a language unknown to him.'^
Phraseology Nor is it important that its language or phraseology
uniuiportaut. gl^Q^|(J ]^q technically appropriate to its testamentary
character ; it is sufficient that the instrument, however irregular
in form or inartificial in expression, disclose the intention of the
testator respecting the post-mortuary disposition of his property .^
Deed or in- It may Operate as a valid will although drawn in the
mTrria-e''.et^ f^mi of a dced-poll or an indenture,^ a deed of gift,io a
tienaen?, letter, bond," marriage settlements, ^2 letters,^" drafts on bank-

1 See ante, § 15 et seq., on the influ- 160, 168; Meck's Appeal, distinguishing
ence of the feudal-tenure of lands on the between a contract inter vivos, although
American law. the price for land conveyed was payable

2 Or rather under the ecclesiastical after the grantor's death, and a testamen-
law of England, for wills of personal tary disposition : 97 Pa. St. 313, 316.
estate were cognizable exclusively in the '^ Habergham v. Vincent, 2 Ves. Jr. 204,
spiritual or otlier testamentary courts. 231, 235; Sperber v. Balster, 66 Ga. 317;

3 " Tiie Legislature has power to pre- Miller v. Holt, 68 Mo. 584, 587.

scribe the formalities to be observed in i^ Will of Belcher, 66 N. C. 51, 53 ;

the execution of a will; and by so doing Jordan v. Jordan, 65 Ala. 801, 305, and

does not interfere with the rights of an Alabama cases cited ; Turner v. Scott, 51

individual to dispose of his property as Pa. St. 126; Miller v. Holt, 68 Mo. 584,

he sees fit " : McCabe's Estate, 68 Cal. 587.
519. n Masterman v, Maberly, 2 Hagg. 235,

* Reynolds v. Kortwright, 18 Beav. 248.
417, 426; Caulfield v. Sullivan, 85 N. Y. 12 Marnell r.Walton (T. T 1796), cited

153. in Masterman v. Maberly, 2 Hagg. 247.

5 Foubert ?j. De Cresseron, Show. P. C. ^^ Leathers v. Greenacre, 53 Me. 661,
194, 197 ; Caulfield v. Sullivan, supra. 565 ; Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159,

6 Worthington v. Klemm, 144 Mass. 161 (2 Am. Prob. Hep 541), holding that a
167. letter and the inscription on the envelope,

■? Walter's Will, 64 Wis. 487. together with a promissory note contained

8 Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159, therein, constitute a valid testamentary

>8 GENERAL RULES AS TO THE FORM OF WILLS.

Gl

power of attor-
ney, may con-
stitute avalid

ers,' the assignment of a bond, note, lull, or stocks, by draft, assign-

. 1 o • . 1 i 111 nient, ])roniis

indorsenicnt,^ promissory notes and notes payable by sury note, or
executors and administrators to evade the legacy duty ,3
a power of attorney ; "* it may be in part a deed or other
contract, and in i)art a will;'' or it may be intended
to operate as a deed, bond, or other instrument of gift, and yet,
though inoperative as such, be valid as a will, if it provide for the
disposition of property after death.^ It must not be understood,
however, that any instrument is operative as a will n written rini-
which shows that there was no animus testancli;'' nor '"^ ^'^^'"" '•
that, because it cannot operate in the form in which it is drawn,
it should /or that reason be operative as a will ;^ it is essential, as
already stated ,9 that the instrument be made to depend upon the
event of death for its consummation ; for where a pa- ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^
per directs a benefit to be conferred inter vivos, with- after testator's

, death.

out expressed or implied reference to the grantor s
death, it cannot be established as testamentary. i*^

disposition of the note operating as a
codicil to the will ; Wagner v. ^IcDonakl,
2 Harr. & J. 346 ; Morrell v. Dickey, 1
Jolins. Ch. 153; Byers v. Hoppe, 61 Md.
20G. In California a letter and copy of
a deed wore together admitted as consti-
tuting a good holograpldc will : In re
Skerrett, 67 Cal. 585.

1 Bartholomew v. Henley, 3 Phillim.
317; Schad's Appeal, 88 Pa. St. HI,
113.

•2 Hunt V. Hunt, 4 N. H. 4,34, 4-38;
Musgrave v. Down (T. T. 1784), and
other cases, cited by Sir John Niclioll in
2 Hagg. 247 ; Chaworth v. Beech, 4 Ves.
550, 565.

2 Longstaff v. Eennison, 1 Drew. 28,
35. In Moore v. Stephens, 97 Ind. 271, a
pnper reading " at my death, my estate
shall pay to A. . . . two hundred dollars,"
&c., was held testamentary in its charac-
ter, and void for want of proper attesta-
tion ; to same elFect, Cover v. Stem, 67
Md. 449.

* Rose V. Quick, 30 Pa. St. 225.

5 Robinson v. Schly, 6 Ga. 515, 529 ;
Dudley (;. Mallery, 4 Ga. 52, 04 ; Shep-
herd V. Nabors, 6 Ala. 631, 636; Dawson
V. Dawson, 2 Strobh. Eq. .34, 38; Castor
V. Jones, 86 Ind. 289 ; Reed v. Hazleton,
37 Kans. 321.

6 Grain v. Grain, 21 Tex. 790, 796.

7 Swett I'. Boardman, 1 Mass. 258, 262
et scq. ; Combs v. Jolly, 3 N. J. Eq. 625,
028.

s Cover V. Stem, 67 Md. 449 ; Edwards
V. Smith, 35 Miss. 197, 200. Williams, in
his treatise on E.xecutors and Administra-
tors, deduces from the authorities these
rules : 1. That if it was the writer's in-
tention to convey benefits which would
be conveyed if the paper were a will, and
that such conveyance should take effect
only in case of his death, then, whatever
be tiie form, it may be admitted to pro-
bate as testamentary. (Singleton r.
Bremar, 4 McCord, 12, 14.) 2. That in-
struments in their terms dispositive are
entitled to probate unless proved not to
liave been executed animo teMancli, while
such as are equivocal in character must
be proved to have been executed animo
tfstondi: Wms. Ex. [106], and authorities
cited.

9 See ante, § 36.

1" Wms. Ex. [107], and authorities ;
Wareham v. Sellers. 9 Gill & J. 98;
Wheeler v. Durant, 3 Rich. Eq. 452, 454,
citing Dawson v. Dawson, Rice Eq. 243,
and Jaggers v. Estes, 2 Strobh. Eq. 343;
Symmes v. Arnold, 10 Ga. 506. See also
Book V. Book, 104 Pa. St. 240. " If an

62 FORM, EXECUTION, AND ATTESTATION OF WILLS. § 38

May be writ- A will maj bc written or printed, or partly written
[',"vrvc?o'r and partly printed, engraved, or lithographed.^ Blank
lithographed. ^j^r^^Q^ |eft in thc wiU do not necessarily invalidate it;^
but it is better to avoid them, because they facilitate fraudulent
interlineations.^ The writing may be in ink or in pen-
be Vnpfnci'^^ cil ; * but when a question arises whether the testator
or in ink. jntcndcd the paper as testamentary, or merely prepar-

atory to a more formal disposition, the material with which it is
written becomes a most important circumstance,-^ and the general
presumption and probability is held to be, that, where alterations
are made in pencil, they are deliberative ; where in ink, they are
final and absolute.*' A will written on a slate has been held void ; ^
An entry in ac- but holographic entries in a diary ,» or an entry in
count-book or account-book, containing a full disposition of the

diary may be " -^^^^ ■> r> i

a valid will. property and appointment of an executor, dated eight
months before the testatrix's death, subscribed and carefully pre-
served, was admitted to probate, although it contained the words,
" I intend this as a sketch of my will, which I intend making on
my return home." ^ So a paper written and subscribed by the
testator, with the intention of making it his will, thereby be-
comes his will, although he may not have deemed it a completed
paper by reason of a mistaken notion that the law required
a witness.i*^ It must be remembered in this connection, that
before the enactment of the Wills Act (St. 1 Vict. c. 26) wills

instrument passes a present interest, standing blank spaces left for names

although the right to its possession and of legatees, but the majority held that

enjoyment may not accrue until some they indicated that the voluntas testandi

future time, it is a deed or contract ; but was not complete : 4 Harr. & J. 156,

if the instrument does not pass an interest 172.

or right until the death of the maker, it * Myers v. Vanderbelt, 84 Pa. St. 510,

is a will or testamentary paper": Reed f. 513; Philbrick i'. Spangler, 15La. An. 46.
Hazleton, 37 Kans. 321, 325; Cover v. ^ Patterson f. English, 71 Pa. St. 454 ;

Stem, 67 Md. 449. Kell v. Charmer, 23 Beav. 195.

1 in the Goods of Wotton, L. R. ^ in the Goods of Adams, L. R. 2 P. &

3 P. & D. 159, 160; 1 Jarm. on Wills, D. 367, 368; In the Goods of Hall, L. R.

*18. 2 P. & D. 256, 257.

2 Corneby v. Gibbons, 1 Rob. 705, 708 ; ' Reed i-. Woodward, 11 Phila. 541.
In the Goods of Kirby, 1 Rob. 709. ^ Although made at different times:

3 Where there was unnecessary and Reagan »•. Stanley, 11 Lea, 316.
unreasonable space between the conclu- ^ Hattatt v. Hattatt, 4 Hagg. 211.
sionof the will and the testator's signa- ^o Toebbe v. Williams, 80 Ky. 661.
ture, it has been held not legally executed : This principle has, of course, validity in
Soward v. Soward, 1 Duv. 126, 134. See those States only in which holographic
also Tilghman v. Steuart, in which two wills are held valid without being at-
of the judges held the will valid, notwith- tested.

§ 39 THE SIGNATURE. 63

of personal estate in England needed neither witnesses to their
publication,^ nor signature,- nor solemnity of any kind.'^

§ 39. The Signature. — Under the English Statute of Frauds
all devises of lands and tenements were required to be in writing,
and signed by the party devising the same, or by „,.,,

•^ . . . . ^^ '" "T'^t be

some person in his presence and by his express direc- si^'ncd by tes-
tion. This provision is incorporated into the statutes
regulating wills in nearly all the States,* and a declaration is
added in many of them, that unless so signed no will shall be
valid. In Pennsylvania an exception is allowed where the testa-
tor is prevented from either signing or directing some other person
to sign for him ; ^ and it is there held that, if a will be put in
writing during the testator's lifetime, according to his directions,
it will be held good without his signature, upon proof by two
competent witnesses that he was })revcnted from signing under
the circumstances mentioned in the statute.^

The making of a mark by the testator was held suflficient as a
signature under the Statute of Frauds, without reference to the
question whether he could write at the time ; " it is m^ ^-,3^1^ is a
held equally sufficient under the Wills Act,^ and in go^-t' signature.
the several States.^ The mark of the testator has been held
a proper signature, although the name was improperly written by
the scrivener ; ^*^ a stamp, which had been used by the stamp issuffi-
testator in place of his signature to letters and other *="^"'^-
documents, was held a sufficient execution by mark.^^ Seal not usu-
But a seal cannot be used in place of a signature,^^ ^ -^ necessary.

1 Custody is a sufficient publication : ^ In the Goods of Bryce, 2 Curt. 325,

Miller v. Brown, 2 Hagg 209, 211. 326, in which the name of the testatrix

'■^ Salmon r. Haj's. 4 Hagg. 382, 385 appeared in no part of the will.

3 Wms. Ex. [68] et sec/. 9 Except in Pennsylvania, for the

* In Georgia both real and personal reason stated supra.

property may pass by nuncupative will : ^^ In the Goods of Douce, 2 Sw. & Tr.

Code, 1882, § 2482. 593, in which the testator's name, Thomts

" Bright. Purd. Dig. 1883. p. 1709, § fi. Douce, was written throughout John

6 Blocher v. Hostetter, 2 Gr. Cas. 288, Douce ; In tlie Goods of Clarke, where

291. The courts in Pennsylvania hold the testatrix's maiden name. Barrel!, had

proponents to a very strict compliance been written instead of the name stie bore

with the literal requirements of the statute after her marringe, Clarke: 1 8w. «& Tr.

in this respect ; Knoff's Appeal, 26 Pa. St. 22 ; In tlie Goods of Glover, where the

219 ; Showers v. Showers, 27 Pa. St. 485, testatrix wrote the name she bore of a

491 ; Grabill v. Barr, 5 Pa St. 441, 445; previous husband : 5 Notes of Cas. 553;

Greenough v. Grcenough, 11 Pa. St. 489, Bailey ;• Bailey, 35 Ala. 687, 690.

496 ; Snyder v. Bull, 17 Pa. St. 54, 60. " Jenkins r. Gaisford, 3 Sw.&Tr. 93,96.

" Baker v Dening, 8 Ad. & El. 04, 97 12 Smith v Evans, 1 Wils. 313 In

elscq Nevada (Gen. St. 1885, § 3002) and Now

64 FORM, EXECUTION, AND ATTESTATION OF WILLS. § 39

althoiigli it was at one time so held under the Statute of Frauds.
Nor is a seal necessary, although mentioned in the testatum

clause.^

In the statutes of Arkansas,^ California,^ Kansas,* Kentucky,^

Minnesota,^ New York," Ohio,^ and Pennsylvania,^ it is provided,

that the will shall be signed "at the end thereof"; a

Signature _

must, ill some provision evidently designed to do away with the rule

States, beat . i Oi j p ^^ i ji j_ j_i

the end of the of constructiou Under the fetatute or 1' rands, tliat the
name of the testator written in the commencement, —
thus, " I, A. B., do make, &c.," — or in any other part of the
will, was a sufficient signature.'^ It is held, under these statutes,
that any disposition, following under or after the testator's signa-
ture, of the property mentioned in the will, not again signed by
the testator, invalidates the whole instrument as a will.^^ But
where the portion preceding the signature constitutes a complete
will, it may be admitted to probate. ^^ Signing below the attesta-
tion clause,^'^ or before the date,^* or after a blank space,^^ does
Signature suffi- "ot invalidate the will. In the other States, where the
cient, in other position of the signature is not fixed by the statute,

states, m any i o ./ '

part of the will, the rulc adopted in England under the Statute of
Frauds is still generally observed : where every part of the will
is written by the testator himself, or acknowledged by him to the
attesting witnesses, the name appearing in the body, or as the

Hampshire (Gen. L. 1878, p. 455, § 6) the dum, stating his reasons for niakinsr the

statute requires the testator to atiix his will, after his signature), 413 ; lU^ O'Neil,

seal to the will, in addition to his signa- 27 Hun, 180, 183. But in Baker' s Ap-

ture. peal, 107 Pa. St. 381, it is held that a will

^ Ketchum v. Stearns, 8 Mo. App. 66 ; need not be .-igned at the end in point of

the unnecessary addition of a seal does space, if so in point of fact,

not change the essential character of the '- Estate of McCuUough, Myr. 76.

instrument: Wuesthoff v. Germania Ins. But " the court would not be justified in

Co., 107 N. Y. 580, 592. fi.xing upon a signature in the midst of

- Dig. 1884, § 6492. what the testator intended as iiis will, and

3 Civ. Code, § 1276. treating it as an execution of all that pre-

4 Dass. St. 1885, ch. 117, § 2. ceded, and granting probate of so much
6 Jones V. Jones, 3 Mete. (Ky.) 266, 268. of the will to the disregard of the remain-
E St. 1878, p. 568, § 5. der " : Margary v. Kobinson, 12 Prob.
1 3 Banks & Br. Rev. St., 7th ed., p. Div. 8, 13, quoting from Sweetland v.

2285, § 40. Sweetland, 4 Sw. & Tr. 6.

8 Rev. St. 1880, § 5916. ^" Cohen's Will, Tuck. 286; Younger

9 Bright. Purd. Dig. 1883, p. 1709, § 6. v. Duffie, 94 N. Y. 635.

w 1 Jarm. on Wills, *105. " Flood v. Pragoff, 79 Ky. G07.

" Wineland's Appeal, 12 Atl. R. (Pa.) i^ Nothing intervening between the in-
801 ; Glancey v. Glancey, 17 Oh. St. 134; strument and signature : Gilnian v. Gil-
Hays V. Harden, 6 Pa. St. 409 (although man, 1 Redf. 354, -365; In re Collins, 5
the testator only appended a memoran- Redf. 20, 25.

§ 39 THE SIGNATURE. 65

usual exordium, — "I, A. !>., do make," &c., — is a sufficient sij^n-
ing,^ if the testator so considered it.^ Dut it has also been held,
where the will was not written nor subscribed by the testator,
that the name in the exordium does not satisfy the statute re-
quiring the will to be signed.^ Where the will is written on
separate pieces or sheets of paper, not physically connected, it is
sufficient for the probate thereof that it be signed on one ol
them, if it appear by the contents, or by other proof, that the
testator included all of them as constituting the will when lie
signed.* But words of reference will not suffice to incorporate
into it the contents of an extraneous paper, unless it can be
clearly shown that, at the time su6h will was executed, such paper
was actually in existence.^

By the terms of the statutes in all the States, it is believed,
except New Jersey and New York, the signature may be written
by another person, in the presence and by the express gip,„jjt„re may
direction of the testator. It is held that the testator's be written by"

another person,

hand mav be guided to make the mark, or write his or hand of tes-

- . T 1 • J. 1 tator guided.

name, and that this constitutes a valid signature by
the testator ; ^ and the acknowledgment of the execution of the
instrument as a will is a sufficient direction, although signed by
another.^ But if the testator direct another person to sign for
him, and intends to affix his mark in completion of the signature,
the will is not properly signed unless such mark is made;^ and
where the statute requires the person who writes the testator's
name to add his own as a witness, and to state that he wrote the
testator's name at his request, as it does in some of the States,^

1 Armstrong v. Armstrong, 29 Ala. cited in 1 Show. 69; Baker's Appeal, 107

538, 540, citing English and American Pa. St. .381.

authorities; Allen v. Everett, 12 B. Mon. 5 Webb v. Day, 2 Dem. 459, 461.

371, 378; Adams v. Field, 21 Vt. 256, ? Vandruff r. Rinehart, 29 Pa. St. 2-32,

266. 2.34 ; Cozzens's Will, 61 Pa. St. 196, 201 :

■•2 Miles's Will, 4 Dana, 1, 2 ; Martin Stevens v. Vancleve, 4 Wash. C. C 26J.

I'. Hamlin, 4 Strobh. 188, 190 ; Roy v. 269 ; Van Hanswyck v. Wiese, 44 Barb

Roy, 16 (Iratt. 418 (held insufficient under 494, 497 ; McMechen v. McMechen, 17

the evidence). W. Va. 683, 711.

3 Catlett V. Catlett, 55 Mo. 330, 3.39 ^ Herbert v. Berrier, 81 Ind. 1.

et seq. 8 Main v. Ryder, 84 Pa. St. 217, 223.

* Martin v. Hamlin, 4 Strobh. 188; ^ For instance, in Arkansas (Dig. 1884,

Ela V. Edwards, 16 Gray, 91. 99, citing § 649.3) ; California (Code. § 1-J78) ; New

Bond V. Seawell, 3 Burr. 1773, Gass v. York (3 Banks & Bro. Rev. St. 1882,

Gass. 3 Humph. 278, and Wikoffs Ap- p. 2286, § 41) ; and Oregon (Code, 1887,

peal, 15 Pa. St. 281, 290 ; Essex's case, § 3070).
VOL. I. — 5

66 FORM, EXECCTTION', AND ATTESTATION OF WILLS. § 40

the will is invalid if this is omitted, although the testator affix his
mark in person.^

In New Jersey and New York it is held that the statute
Except in requires the signature to be made by the testator
anTNew^^ in pcrsou, either by writing his name, or making a
York. mark, or acknowledging it to be his signature.^

§ 40. Attestation. — The English statute of frauds required the
attestation of wills by " three or four credible witnesses," by sub-
scribing the same in the presence of the testator. A
attesting similar provision is incorporated into the statutes of
m.der'En-- all the States, varying, however, as to the number of
lish statute, ^itucsscs required, and as to the further requirement
thnt the witnesses shall subscribe " in the presence of each other."
Wills devising real estate are required to be attested by " two or
more," or " at least two " witnesses, in Alabama,^ Ar-
qulringtt kansas,* California,'^ Colorado,^ Delaware,'^ Illinois,^ In-
least two. (jiana,9 Iowa,io Kansas,ii Kentucky ,i^ Michigan,!^ Minne-
sota,''* Mississippi,^^ Missouri,i^ Nebraska,^' Nevada,'^ New Jersey ,1^
New York,20 North Carolina,^! Ohio,^^ Oregon,^^ Pennsylvania,^*
Rhode Island,25 Tennessee,^^ Texas,^' Virginiaj'-^^ West Virginia,^^

1 Northcutt V. Northcutt, 20 Mo. 266 " Dassler's St. 1885, ch. 117, § 2.

(this and some other Missouri cases hold- ^^ Qgn_ gt. 1883, p. 8.32.

ing the same doctrine were conditioned i^ How. St. 1882, § 5789.

by a statute now repealed) ; Will of Cor- i* St. 1878, p. 568, § 5.

nelius, 14 Ark. 675, 683 '' Rev. Code, 1880, § 1262.

2 In re McElwaine, 18 N. J. Eq. 499, 502 ; 16 Rev. St. 1879, § 3962.

Robyns v. Coryell, 27 Barb. 556, 558 ; " Comp. St. 1885, p. 300, § 127.

Chaffee v. Baptist Missionary Convention, ^8 Rgv. St. 1885, § 3002.

10 Pai. 85, 91. See remarks of Wash- i^ Rev. 1877, p. 1247, § 22.

ington, J., in Stevens v. Vancleve, 4 ^n 3 Banks & Br. Rev. St. (7th ed.),

Wash. 262, 269. Unless the mark be p. 2285, § 40.

made under decedent's direction and af- ^^ Code of 1883, § 2136.

tervvards acknowledged as his signature : '■^^ Rev. St. 1880, § 5916.

Knapp V. ReiUy, 3 Dem. 427, 431, and 23 Code, 1887, § 3069.

New York cases cited. '^* Bright. Purd. Dig. 1883, p. 1709,

3 Code, 1886, § 1966. § 6. But the witnesses in this State

* Dig. 1884, § 6492. are not required to subscribe the will.

5 Civ. Code, § 1276. Frew v. Clarke, 80 Pa. St. 170, 178,

6 Gen. St. 1883, § 3482. and numerous Pennsylvania cases there
' Rev. Code, 1874, p. 508. cited.

8 St. & Curt. St. 1885, p. 2466, § 2. A ^^ Pub. St. 1882, p. 471, § 4.
writing not attested bv witnesses is not ^6 Code, 1884, § 3003.

a will : Highland v. Highland, 109 III. 27 Pag^h. Dig. 187-5, § 5361.
366, 374. -8 Code, 1887, § 2514.

9 Rev. 1881, § 2576. 29 Code, 1887, ch. 77, § 3.
w Laws, 1886, § 2326.

§ 40 ATTESTATION, 67

and Wisconsin ; ^ by three or more in Connecticut,^ g^^^^^^ ^^_
Florida,^ Geortna,'' Maine,^ Massachusetts,*^ New Hamp- quiring at

o o -1 r I 1 "^^^^^ three.

sliire,' South Carolina,^ and Vermont.^ In Maryland
tlie languaj^e of the En,i>lisli Statute of Frauds, " three or four,"
is retained.^*' In Louisiana the forms of the civil law are followed
to some extent, and three resident or five non-resident witnesses
are required for nuncupative or" open" testaments, while a " mys-
tic," "secret," or " closed" testament must be delivered to a no-
tary public in a sealed envelope, and attested by seven witnesses,
who, tofjether with the notary and the testator, are required to
sign the " act of superscription " drawn up by the notary, after
the declaration by the testator, in the i)rescnce of the notary and
witnesses, that the enclosed paper contains his testament.^^

With the exception of Arkansas,^^ and New York,^'^ whose stat-
utes are held not to require attestation by signinyj in the presence
of the testator, and of Fennsylvania,^'* where it is held Attesting
that the witnesses are not required to subscribe their witnesses

^ . subscribe m

names at all, and with the exception of holographic presence of
wills, authorized in some of the States without attesta-
tion,^^ the attesting witnesses are required to subscribe the will in
the presence of the testator. It seems to be unnecessary to cite
any of the numerous cases so holding.^^ To constitute " pres-
ence " in the sense of the English Statute of Frauds and of the
American statutes on the subject of wills, it is essential that the
testator should be mentally capable of recognizing the act which
is being performed before him ; for if this power be wanting, his
corporeal presence would not suffice.^^ It is not essential that the

1 Rev. St. 1878, § 2282. '« It is not enou<jh that the witness

2 Gen. St. 1888, § 538. subsequently acknowledges his signature
^ McClell. Dig. 1881, p. 985. in the testator's presence, if affixed in his

4 Code, 1882, § 2414. absence : Pawtucket v. Ballon, 15 R. I.

5 Rev. St. 1883, p. 608, § 1. 58; Chase v. Kittredge, 11 Allen, 49.

« Pub. St. 1882, p. 747, § 1. " " Thus, if the testator, after having

■^ Gen. L. 1878, p. 455, § 6. signed and published his will, and he-

8 Rev. St. 1882, § 1854. fore the witnesses have subscribed thoir

9 Rev. L. 1880, § 2042. names, falls into a state of insensibility
1" Rev. Code, 1878, p. 420, § 4. (whether permanent or temporary), the

11 Code, art. 1574 ft seq. attestation is insufficient " : 1 Jarm. on

12 Rogers v. Diamond, 13 Ark. 474, 486; Wills, *87, citing Right v. Price, 1 Dougl.
Abraham v. Wilkins, 17 Ark. 292, 325. 241, and other English authorities. "It

1'^ Lyon V. Smith, 11 Barb. 124,126; would seem that a lunatic or person sleep-

Ruddon v. McDonald, 1 Bradf. 352. ing could not be considered present " :

n Frew V. Clarke, 80 Pa. St. 170. Lacy, J., in Baldwin v. Baldwin, 81 Va.

15 As to which see post, § 43. 405, 410.

68

FORM, EXECUTION, AND ATTESTATION OF WILLS.

40

testator should actually see the witnesses attest the will ; but he
must be in such a situation that he might see, and it will then be
presumed that he did see.^ Tlie design of the statute is said to
be to prevent the substitution of a surreptitious will.^

In Connecticut,^ Louisiana,* South Carolina,^ and Vermont,^ the
statute requires the attesting witnesses to subscribe, not only in
nut in most ^^® presence of the testator, but also of each other ;
States not ne- and in Ncw Jersey the statute requiring publication in

ce^sanly in the "^ , i o i

presence of the prescucc of two witucsscs " present at the same
time, who shall subscribe their names thereto as wit-
nesses in presence of the testator," is held to require that all shall
be together when the declaration is made.' The same construc-
tion has been given to the word " presence " in respect of the
witnesses between themselves, as to that of the testator ;^ and in
the absence of a statutory provision to that effect it is not neces-
sary that they shoiild sign in each other's presence.^ In the
absence of clear proof that the witness or witnesses signed before
the signing of the testator, it should be presumed that the testa-
tor signed first.^*^

It is required by statute in some States that the. subscription

1 " An attestation made in the same
room with the testator is prima facie
good ; and where the attestation is shown
to liave taken place in a diflerent apart-
ment, it is prima facie had " : Watson v.
Pipes, .32 Miss. 451, 467 ft seq. ; see also
Edelen v. Hardey, 7 Harr. & J. 61, 67;
Grflham v. Graham, 10 Ired. L. 219, 221 ;
Wriffht V. Lewis, 5 Rich. 212, 217 ; Lamb
V. Girtman, 33 Ga. 289, 291, 298 ; Spaul-
dins V. Gibbons, 5 Redf. 316, 319; Allen's
Will, 25 Minn. 39; Riggs v. Riggs, 135
Mass. 2.38; Etchison v. Etchison, 53 Md.
348, 357 ; Maynard v. Vinton, 59 Mich.
139; Baldwin v. Baldwin, 81 Va. 405;
Ayers v. Ayers, 43 N. J. Eq. 565.

2 Hill V. Barge, 12 Ala. 687, 696 ; Cra-
vens V. Faulconer, 28 Mo. 19, 21 ; Ambre
V. Weishaar, 74 111. 109, 113; Nock v.
Nock, 10 Gratt. 106, 112; Swift v. Wiley, 1
B. Mon. 114, 117, distinguishing between
the " attesting " and the " subscribing " of
a will ; Reynolds v. Reynolds, 1 Speers,
253, 255 : Ayers v. Ayers, 43 N. J. Eq. 565.

3 Gen. St. 1875, p. 369, § 2. No longer
necessary by St. of 1888, § 538.

* Code, art. 1681, 1584.

5 Rev. St. 1882, § 1854.

6 Rev. L. 1880, § 2042.

■^ Ludlow V. Ludlow, 36 N. J. Eq. 597,
599; Ayers v. Ayers, 43 N, J. Eq. 565,
569.

* " It is sufficient if the testator and
witnesses are all in the same room wlien
the signatures of all the witnesses are
made, and are there for the purpose of
taking part in the execution of the will,
and have an opportunity to see all the
witnesses sign the will, if they clioose to
turn their eyes in that direction " : sylla-
bus in Blanchard i'. Blanchard, 32 Vt. 62.

3 Cravens v. Faulconer, 28 Mo. 19, 21 ;
Parramore v. Taylor, 11 Gratt. 220, 249 ;
Abraham v. Wilkins, 17 Ark. 292, 324
et seq. ; Gaylor's Appeal, 43 Conn. 82, 84
et seq. ; Hoysrodt v. Kingman, 22 N. Y.
372, 373; Dewey v. Dewey, 1 Mete.
(Mass.) 349, 351 ; Flinn v. Owen, 58 III.
Ill, 114; Hoffman v. Hoffman, 26 Ala.
535, 546; Moore v. Spier, 80 Ala. 129,
1.33; Smith's Will, 52 Wis. 543, 547;
Welch V. Adams, 63 N. H. 344 ; Johnson
V. Johnson, 106 Ind. 475.

10 Allen V. Griffin, 69 Wis. 529, 533.

Testator must
sif^ii or ac-
knowledge
sitriiature in

§ 40 ATTESTATION. 69

of the attesting witnesses, like that of the testator, be at the end
of the instrument. Where such is the law, the will
becomes void if the testator, after proper signature ^^^A^^l^anv
and attestation, adds a disuosin"; clause, which is again P'^";' "f t''« w'l,

' ID' o unless statute

signed by him, but not attested.' In the absence of requires it to be

, . . . . , at the end.

statutory direction, it is not material m what part of
a will the subscribing witnesses sign their names, if it is done
after the subscription and acknowledgment by the testator, and
with the purpose of attesting it as subscribing witnesses.^

Under the English Statute of Frauds it was held sufficient that
tiie witnesses subscribed their names as such, at the testator's
request, without seeing his signature or being informed
of the nature of the instrument.^ But by the Wills
Act, and under American statutes generally, it is
required that the testator shall sign, or acknowledge pre^^enceof

_ ' ° ' ® witnesses.

his signature, in presence of the attesting witnesses ;
and it is held in England that where the attesting witnesses are
unable to see the signature, and the testator gives no explanation
of the instrument, the signature is not properly acknowledged.*

In most of the States they must know, also, that he signed the
•instrument as and for his last will ; to which end it is enacted by
statute in Arkansas,^ California,*' Georgia,'^ Nebraska, New Jersey,^
and New York,^ that, in addition to the acknowledg- And declare
ment of his signature, the testator must publish or characteroZ
declare in the presence of the attesting witnesses that instrument.
the instrument by him executed is intended as his will.^*^ In

1 Hewitt V. Hewitt, 5 Redf. 271, 274, e Civ. Code, § 1276.

afBrmed in Hewitt's Will, 91 N. Y. 261 ; ^ But acknowledgment of the signa-

Re Case, 4 Dem. 124. ture is a sufficient publication : Webb v.

- Fowler o. Stagner, 55 Tex. 393, 400 ; Fleming, 30 Ga. 808.

Roberts v. Phillips, 4 El. & Bl. 450, 453 ; « Rev. 1877, p. 1247, § 22.

Peake I'. Jenkins, ><0 Va. 293, 290; Franks 9 3 Banks & Bro. Rev. St. (7th ed.) p.

V. Cliapman, 64 Tex. 159. 2285, § 40.

^ Wms. Ex. [87], with English author- i* It is held under these statutes, that

ities. such publication may be made sponta-

* Goods of Hammond, 3 Sw. & Tr. 90, neously, or by answering questions put

92. See Lewis v. Lewis, 13 Barb. 17, and by the scrivener or others, or in any way,

English cases there cited and commented by signs or gestures, or circumstances,

on. In America, by the terms of the conmiunicating to the witnesses tliat lie so

statutes in many States, it is necessary understands it : Rogers v. Diamond, 13

that the attesting witnesses should either Ark. 474 ; Denny v. Pinney, 12 Atl. Rep.

see the testator sign the instrument, or (Vt.) 108, 110; Briiickerhoof v. Remsen,

that he should acknowledge his signature 8 Pni. 488, 497 et seq. ; Lewis r. Lewis,

to them. 13 Barb. 17, 24; Tunison v. Tunison. 4

5 Dig. 1884, § 6492. Bradf. 138, 144; McKinley v. Lamb, 64

70

FORM, EXECUTION, AND ATTESTATION OF WILLS.

§40

Attesting wit- tliGSG and other States it is held that the attesting wit-
nesses sign «Mi- ., ,1 • • J.J. J. T ^
mo attestandi. ncsscs uiust subscFibe their names ammo attestandi,'^

but that no affirmative declaration to that end is necessary ; any
indication by the testator to the witnesses of his knowledge that
the instrument to be attested by them is meant for liis last will,
is sufficient.2 In Georgia,^ Illinois,* Indiana,^ lowa,^ Massachu-
setts,^ South Carolina,^ and Virginia,^ it is held that publication
to the witnesses is not necessary to the validity of the will. The
rule in England, both before ^^ and after" the statute of 1 Vict,
c. 26, is clearly established, that the witnesses need not know the
character of the paper attested by them ; the theory being that
the attestation was to the signature, not to the documeyit pro-
posed as a will. The same doctrine is held in Connecticut,^^
Georgia,i3 Indiana,!"' lowa,!^ Maine,!^ Maryland, i" Minnesota,!^
Pennsylvania,!^ South Carolina,^^ Virginia,^! and Wisconsin.^^

Barb. 199,203 et seq. ; Compton v. Mitton,
12 N. J. L. 70, 73 et seq. ; Ludlow v. Lud-
low, 36 N. J. Eq. 597; especially when
written by the testatrix : Re Beckett, 103
N. Y. 167 ; and it may be made on differ-
ent occasions and when tlie witnesses are
apart from each other : Barry v. Brown
2 Deni. 309 ; but the testamentary charac-
ter of the paper must not be inferred
from previous conversation ; the declara-
tion must be made at the time of making
or acknowledging the signature: Walsh
V. LafEan, 2 Dem. 498, citing numerous
N. Y. cases ; unless such previous conver-
sation be so referred to by the testator,
at the time of the execution, as to make
them an essential part of the comtnunica-
tion: In re Beckett, 103 N.Y. 167,176. In
Matter of Mackey, 44 Hun, 571, it is said
that it is impossible under the statute to
acknowledge the testator's signature, un-
less the witness see the signature sought
to be acknowledged : s. c. HON. Y. 611.

1 As in Louisiana : Buntin v. John-
son, 28 La. An. 796; Vermont : Roberts w.
Welch, 46 Vt. 164, 168 ; Virginia : Peake
V. Jenkins, 80 Va. 293.

2 So held in Arkansas : Rogers v. Dia-
mond, 13 Ark. 474; Delaware: Smith r.
Dolby, 4 Harr. 350, 351 ; Kentucky : Ray
V. Walton, 2 A. K. Marsh. 71, 74; Up-
church V. Upchurch, 16 B. Mon. 102, 112,
citing earlier Kentucky cases ; Maine :
Cilley V. Cilley, 34 Me. 162, 164 ; Mis-
souri : Odenwaelder v. Schorr, 8 Mo. App.

458, New Jersey: Ayers v. Ayers, 43
N. J. Eq. 565, 571 ; New York : Matter of
Hunt, no N. Y. 278, 281 ; Lane v Lane,
95 N. Y. 494 ; Matter of Austin, 45 Him,
1; Ohio: Randebaugh v. Shelley, 6 Oii.
St. .307, 315 ; Vermont : Dean v. Dean, 27
Vt. 746, 751.

8 Webb V. Fleming, 80 Ga. 808, 812.

4 Dickie v. Carter, 42 111. 376, 386 et seq.

5 Brown v. McAlister, 34 Ind. 375;
Turner v. Cook, .36 Ind. 129, 136.

6 Hulse's Will, 52 Iowa, 6(>2.

I Osburn V. Cook, 11 Cusli. 532.

8 Vcrdier v. Verdier, 8 Rich. 135, 142.

9 Beane v. Yerby. 12 Gratt. 239, 244.
10 Wyndham v. Chetwynd, 1 Burr.

414, 421 ; Wright v. Wright, 7 Bing. 457.

II Keigwin v. Keigwin, 3 Curt. 607;
Faulds V. Jackson, 6 Notes Cas. Sup. 1.

12 Canada's Appeal, 47 Conn. 450.

13 Webb V. Fleming, 30 Ga. 808.

1* Brown v. McAlister, 34 Ind. 375.
i» Hulse's Will, 52 Iowa, 662, criticising
Lorieux !-. Keller, 5 Iowa, 196.
le Cilley v. Cilley, .34 Me. 162.

17 Higgins V. Carlton, 28 Md. 115;
Etchison v. Etchison, 53 Md. 348.

18 Allen's Will, 25 Minn. 39.

19 Loy V. Kennedy, 1 W. & S. 396;
Miller v. McNeill, 35 Pa. St. 217.

2) Verdier v. Verdier, 8 Rich. L. l:'5.

21 Beane v. Yerby, 12 Gratt. 239 ;
Young V Barnett, 27 Gratt. 96.

22 Allen I'. Griffin, 69 Wis. 629, 535.

§ 40 ATTESTATION. 71

It is not necessary to use any particular form iu the attestation ; ^
the omission altogether of an attestation clause is not j^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^_
fatal to the will,'-^ and its recitals mav be contradict- testation ne-

' cessary.

ed by parol evidence, if erroneous.^ The witnesses,
like the testator, may subscribe by mark,* or by their initials,'^
if intended for their mark ; or if they cannot write. Attestation
the hand may be guided by another person.'' liut pru- nl'lrk, or'mi-
dence requires that the attesting witnesses should ^"*''*"
be selected 'among persons who can read and write, and that the
attestation clause should recite all the formalities required in the
execution and attestation of a will, because, in the absence of
proof on these points, compliance with them may be inferred from
their recital in the attestation clause;" and such recital may also
furnish protection against the lack of memory or wilful fraud of
attesting witnesses.^

The date is not an absolutely essential part of a will ; ^ it may
be held valid, though it has no date, or a wrong one. If the
actual date of its execution becomes material, it may Date notes-
be established by parol proof.^'^ Where the will is sentiai.
dated, the presumption is that it was made at the time of its date.^^
Nor is it essential that the will should show the place where it

1 Lea3-craft i". Simmons, 3 Bradf. 35, 39 N. J. L. 113; Lewis v. Lewis, 13 Barb.
37; Fatheree ». Lawrence, 33 Miss. 585, 17, 25; Rugg v. Rugg, 83 N. Y. 5'J2 ;
623; Ela v. Edwards, IG Gray, 91, 90; Meurer's Will, 44 Wise. 392, 399; 1 Am.
Chaffee v. Baptist Convention, 10 Pai. Pr. R. 518, citing numerous New York
85; Crittenden's Estate, Myr. 50. cases ; in New Jersey it was held that tlie

2 Fry's Will, 2 R. I. 88, 91 ; Taylor v. statement of facts in the attestation clause
Brodhead, 5 Redf. 624, 626, citing Bas- throws the burden of disproving them
kin V. Baskin, 48 Barb. 200 ; Re Philips upon the opponents of the will : Tappen
Will, 1 How. Pr. (n.s.) 291 ; s. c. 98 N. Y. v. Davidson, 27 N. .1. Eq. 459, citing
267. Wright v. Rogers, L. R. 1 P. & D. 678.

3 Chaffee v. Baptist Convention, 10 8 McMeekin v. McMeekin, 2 Hush, 79
Pai. 85, 89 ; Taylor r. Brodhead, .sm/j/yi. (in this case all the attesting witnesses

* Thompson v. Davitte, 59 Ga. 472, testified that the testator had not a dis-

481; Compton v. Mitton, 12 N. .7. L. 70, posing mind) ; Brown v. Clark, 77 N. Y.

73; Jesse v. Parker, 6 Gratt. 57, 63; 369; and see cases post,^ 218, on the

Meehan v. Rourke, 2 Bradf. 385, 392; subject of probate of wills.

Pridgen v. Pridgen, 13 Ired. L. 259; Ford 9 Flood r. Pragoff. 79 Ky. 607 ; Austin

V. Ford, 7 Humph. 92, 96 ; Montgomery v. Fielder, 40 Ark. 144.

V. Perkins, 2 Mete. (Ky.) 448; Derry's i« Wright v. Wright, 5 Ind. 389, 392;

Estate, Myr. 202. Deakins i: Hollis, 7 Gill & J. 311, 316.

» Adams v. Chaplin, 1 Hill (S. C.) Eq. But a holographic will must, according

265, 2ti6. to the statute of California, be dated by

•> Campbell v. Logan, 2 Bradf. 90, 97. the testator : Estate of Martin, 58 Cal.

1 Nelson v. McGiffert, 3 Barb. Ch. 158, 530, 532.

162 ; Hall r. Hall, 18 Ga. 40, 46 : Allaire " Sawyer v. Sawyer, 7 Jones L. 134.
V. Allaire, 37 N. J. L. 312, 325, affirmed iu

72 FORM, EXECUTION, AND ATTESTATION OF WILLS. § 41

was made ; this is a matter dehors the will, which may be proved
like any other fact.^ But the importance of showing in the will
itself both its date and place of making is obvious : its validity
may depend upon either of these facts, and if no proof can be
made of them it may lead to its rejection.^

§ 41. Competency of Attesting Witnesses. — The statutes mostly
require the witnesses to be " credible " or " competent" ; by which
is meant that they must be competent persons to testify in a court
of justice, not being disqualified by mental imbecility, interest, or
Competency crimc.^ That the competency of the witnesses as at-
thSorattes- testing witnesses must refer to the time of attestation
tation. seems clear enough on principle ; else the validity of

the will would be made dependent on circumstances beyond the
control of the testator, and enable the attesting witnesses, by ren-
dering themselves incompetent, to defeat it.* It is so enacted in
most of the States ; ° and where not enacted by statute, it is nev-
ertheless generally so held by the courts.^

It was held under the English Statute of Frauds, that a benefi-
cial interest under the will disqualified the legatee as an attesting
Persons witncss,' wliich led to the enactment of a statute to rem-

dafL ^atllt ^^y ^ ^^^ which " alarmed many purchasers and cred-
incompefent itors, and threatened to shake most of the titles in the

as attesting t • i mi )> i

witnesses. kingdom that depended upon devises by will, because
it " would not allow any legatee, nor by consequence a creditor,

1 Succession of Hall, 28 La. An. 57. ^ For instance, in Alabama, California,

2 Phipps V. Earl of Anglesey, 7 Br. Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Massachu-
P. C. 443, holding that two inconsistent setts,Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ver-
wills of the same date, neither of which niont, and Wisconsin. In Georgia the corn-
can be proved to have been last executed, petency mentioned relates to the time of
must both be rejected on the ground of testifying; but it is also provided that sub-
uncertainty, sequent disability of attesting witnesses

3 Carlton v. Carlton, 40 N. H. 14. 17 ; constitutes no bar to the probate of the
Sullivan v. Sullivan, 106 Mass. 474 ; will. In Louisiana women are declared
Comb's Appeal. 10.5 Pa. St. 155 ; Fuller incompetent as attesting witnesses, but
V. Fuller, 83 Ky. .345. A wife is not a may prove the handwriting of a testator
competent witness to her husband's will : when necessary to prove a testament :
Pease v. Allis, 110 Mass. 157; nor a Succession of Roth, 31 La. An. 315, 321.
husband to his wife's will: Dickinson v. « Noble v. Burnett, 10 Rich. 505, 518
Dickinson, 61 Pa. St. 401. et seq. ; Stewart v. Harriman, 56 N. H.

* O'Neill, J., dissenting, in Workman 25, 27 ; Rucker v. Lambdin, 12 Sm. & M.

«. Dominick, 3 Strobh. 589, 593; Patten 230, 250; Frink v. Pond, 46 N. H. 125,

V. Tallman, 27 Me. 17, 27 ; Haven t'. Hil- 126.

hard, 23 Pick. 10, 18; Morton v. Ingram. ' Holdfast v. Dowsing, 2 Stra. 1253.

11 Ired. L. 368; Higgins v. Carlton, 28 Trotters v. Winchester, 1 Mo. (413).
Md. 116, 140.

§ 41 COMPETENCY OF ATTESTING WITNESSES. 73

Avhere the legacies were charged upon real estate, to l)c a compe-
tent witness to the devise." ^ This statute ^ provided that any
attesting witness to whom a beneficial devise, gift, or Attesting
interest (except charges on lands for payment of "l^'^'^^^^^l^
debts) was thereby made or given, should be admitted [l-^j*','^^',!!;^^;^^
as a witness to the will ; and " such devise, legacy, then, made
estate, interest, gift, or appointment shall, so far only
as concerned such person attesting the execution of such will, or
any person claiming under him, be utterly null and void"; and
that charges of debts upon lands should not render the creditor
an incompetent witness. The provisions of this statute are sub-
stantially enacted in most of the States ;3 hence, in them, interest
in the probate of a will docs not disqualify an attesting witness,
but the fact of attesting disqualifies the witness from being a
beneficiary legatee or devisee; it destroys his interest in tlie will.*
That such is the intention with wliich these statutes were enacted,
is evidenced in many of them by affirmatively providing that such
witnesses may be compelled to testify.^

It is also provided by the statutes of most of the States, that
where an attesting witness is also heir at law of the testator, as
well as legatee, so that he would be entitled to a dis- ^^^^^^ ^^ ^^
tributive share of the estate in case the will were not heirs who

woiila itiKe

established, he is not only a competent witness, but without the
may take under the wnll so much that would come
to him by descent or distribution as may not exceed the amount
of the devise or legacy to him.^ The same view is taken by

1 2 Bla. Comm. 377. general object of the law changing the

2 25 Geo. II. c. 6. competency of all witnesses as affected
8 In Arkansas, California, Colorado, by interest. Hence, in Alabama, legatees

Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, and devisees are competent attesting wit-
Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, nesses : Kuri:ipe v. Coons, 63 Ala. 448, 453.
Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebras- * Fowler i'. Stagner, 55 Tex. 393, 3',»8;
ka, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Giddings i-. Turgcon, 58 Vt. 106, 111.
North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, » So in the statutes of Arkansas, Colo-
South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Vir- rado, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky. New
ginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. In York, North Carolina, Rhode Island,
Alabama the statute avoiding a legacy Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and West
to an attesting witness was repealed in Virginia.

1867; and it is there held that the com- 6 <^o in Arkansas, California, Colorailo,

nion law rule as to the competency of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,

legatees and devisees as attesting wit- Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebras-

nesses was not revived by such repeal, ka, New York, Oregon, South Carolina,

but that they were thereby made com- Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wis-

petent witnesses, in accordance with the consin. In Connecticut the devise to an

74 FORM, EXECUTION, AND ATTESTATION OF WILLS. § 41

courts in the absence of a statutory provision,^ and, a fortiori, a
legatee is a competent witness against a will.^

Where a will contains a devise or legacy to an attesting wit-
ness, but is attested by a sufficient number of competent witnesses
in addition to such devisee or legatee, it may be proved
anestrnK*^ without his testimony, and the will held good, including
undeJ will, if the gift to the attesting witness.^ It is so enacted by
proved with- statute in Arkansas,'' California,^ Colorado,^ Connect-
out his sig- icut,' Illinois,^ rndiana,^ lowa,^^ Kansas,ii Kentucky ,^2
Massachusetts,!^ Michigan,^* Minnesota,!^ Missouri,!^ Ne-
braska,i7 Nevada,!^ New Hampshire,!^ New York,20 Oregon,^i Wis-
consin.22 In Maine ^3 the statute provides for attestation by three
credible witnesses not beneficially interested ; and in Texas,^^ if
one of the attesting witnesses be a devisee or legatee, the will
may be proved by the corroboration of one or more other " disin-
terested and credible" witnesses, and will then be good, including
the gift to the attesting witness.

It was a question under the statute of frauds whether a witness
rendered incompetent by reason of his interest under the will
Witness could bc rcstorcd to competency by destroying his

incompetent . , r- i j_ i r j.

becomes interest by means of a release or payment before tes-

attesting heir at law is good : Gen. St. held unnecessary, and hence a legacy to

1888, p. 134, § 539. So held in Fortune v. him is not thereby avoided : Cornwell v.

Buck, 23 Conn. 1, 6 ; two judges dissent- Woolley, 47 Barb. 327.

ing, holding that the statute held devise * Dig. 1884, § 6537.

good only to the extent of the inherit- - ^ Civ. Code, § 1282.

ance (p. 9). In Vermont the heir at law « Gen. St. 1883, § 3485 (2792).

is excepted from the provision affecting "^ Gen. St. 1888, § 539.

devises to attesting witnesses : Rev. L. ^ St. & Curt. St. 1885, p. 2471, § 8.

1880, § 2046. In Tennessee the statute ^ Rev. St. 1881, § 2586.

provides that the will shall be attested ^ Code, 1886, § 2327.

by two witnesses at least, no one of ii Dass. St. 1885, eh. 117, § 11.

which shall be interested in the devised 12 Gen. St. 1883, p. 835, § 13.

lands ; and it is held that a legatee of 13 -pwh. St. 1882, p. 748, § 3.

personalty, who is also an heir at law, " How. St. 1882, § 5791.

but takes no interest in the land under i^ gt, i878, p. 568, § 7.

the will, is a competent witness : Walker 16 jXev. St. 1879, § 3997.

V. Skeene, 3 Head, 1, 4. " Comp. St. 1885, ch. 23, § 130.

1 Graham v. O'Fallon, 4 Mo. 601 ; is Gen. St. § 3003.
Dickey v. Malechi, 6 Mo. 177 ; Comstock i9 Gen. L. 1878, p. 455, § 8.

i;. Hadlyme Society, 8 Conn. 254. 2° 3 Banks & Bro. Rev. St. (7th ed.)

2 Leslie v. Sims, 39 Ala. 161. p. 2287, § 50.

8 Where, as in New York, the will 21 Code, 1887, § 3087.

may be proved by the remaining wit- 22 Rev. St. 1878, § 2284.

nesses if one of them be a non-resident, 23 fjgv. St. 1883, p. 608, § 1.

the testimony of such non-resident is 24 Rgv. St. 1879, §§ 4872, 4873.

§ 41 COMPETENCY OF ATTESTING WITNESSES. 75

tifying ; and it seems that the hiw was finally so held.^ rvTI-asin
But such a witness is not rendered competent by an bisinierust.
assignment of his interest ; it must be by release.^ This subject is
re,L!;uhited by statute in Arkansas,^ Missouri,* Oregon,^ and Rliode
Island.^ In North Carolina it has been held that a release will
not render competent an attesting witness.'^

The interest disipialiiying a devisee or legatee is a beneficial
interest ; hence a gift to the husband or wife of an attesting wit-
ness renders such witness incompetent, unless, imder ^., ^ ^

' Gift to hus-

the law, such gift is void.^ ]t was held in England band or wife

. _^ _, TT T 1 , • -I Ti i disqualifies,

that the statute of 25 Geo. 11. did not avoid a giit to
the husband or wife of an attesting witness ;9 in consequence
whereof, by the Wills Act, the disqualification to take beneficially
was extended to the husband or wife of an attesting but not if
witness. This feature of the English act is incorpo- avoids such
rated into the statutes of Connecticut,^"^ Georgia,^! Mas- s'^*-
sachusetts,^2 South Carolina,^^ Virginia,^* and West Virginia.^^ In
Iowa, under a general statute making husband and wife compe-
tent witnesses for each other, the wife of a legatee is held to be a
competent attesting witness ; ^"^and so also the husband of a devisee.^^

1 1 Jarm. on Wills, *70 : Peakins v. the devise ; and that therefore the per-
HoUis, 7 Gill & J. 311, 315; Kerns v. son benefited by a devise, not himself
Soxnian, 16 Serg. & K. 315, 317; Cook or herself the devisee, is not a competent
I'. Grant, 16 Serg. & H. 198, '208 ; Weems attesting witness. In the latter case,
V Weems, 19 Md. 334, 344; Nixon v. Gray, J., cites the cases of Jackson v.
Armstrong, 38 Tex. 29i). Woods, 1 Johns. Cas. 163, Jackson v.

2 Haus V. Palmer, 21 Pa. St. 296, 209, Darland, 2 Johns. Cas. 314, and Winslow
overruling Search's -Appeal, 13 Pa. St. v. Kimball, 25 Me. 493, all of them hold-
1U8. ing that the unity of husband and wife

3 Dig. 1884, § 6539, by release; or if is such that, if either be a witness to a
legatee die before testator, or before re- will containing a devise to the other,
ceiving his legacy, his attestation will be such devise is void, and the witness
legal : § 6540. therefore competent, dissenting from this

4 Rev. St. 1879, § 3999. view.

5 Code, 1887, § 3089. 9 Hatfield v. Thorp, 5 B. & Aid. 589,

6 Attestation becomes valid if legatee 595.

die before probate of will : Pub. St. ^ Gen. St. 1888, § 539.

1882, p. 472, § 17. " In this State the husband may attest

' Allison i'. Allison, 4 Hawks, 141, 174, a will devising separate property to his

Morton c. Ingram, 11 Ired. L. .368, 370. wife, but his credibility is submitted to

8 Giddiiigs V. Turgeon, 58 Vt. 106, the jury : Code, 1882, § 2417.

Ill ; Sullivan v. Sullivan, 106 Mass. 474 ; »2 Pub. St. 1882, p. 748, § 3.

both cases holding that the statutes (but ^^ ^pv. St. 1882, § 1857.

which have since been amended in this ^* Code, 1887, § 2529.

respect) avoid only beneficiary gifts to i* Code, 1887, p. 642, § 18.

the attesting witnesses, not to any other ^'' Hawkins v. Hawkins, 54 Iowa, 443

person, although the attesting witness (2 Am. Prob. 11. 401).

might incidentally take some benefit from ^1 Bates v. Officer, 70 Iowa, 343.

76 FORM, EXECUTION, AND ATTESTATION OF WILLS. § 42

For the same reason, a devise or bequest not beneficial to the
Gift not attesting witness does not disqualify him. A devise in
does n^of trust to Sell, or the devise of a power, does not consti-
disquaiify. ^^^g gyd^ an interest in the devisee as will either
render him incompetent or avoid the devise.^ Whether a per-
son nominated in the will as executor is a competent

Executors as . .

attesting attesting Witness, or general witness to prove the will,
is negatived in Alabama,^ Delaware,^ and North Caro-
lina;* but affirmed, either on the ground that the commissions to
which they are entitled constitute no " beneficial legacy," but are
given as compensation for services rendered, or because they are
rendered incompetent to assume the office, in Connecticut,^ Flori-
da,^ Kentucky,' Maine,^ Maryland,^ Massachusetts,^^ Mississippi/^
Missouri,^^ New Hampshire,^^ New York,^* Pennsylvania,^^ South
Carolina,^^ and Vermont.^'^ In Kentucky it was held that a remote
contingent interest in the provisions of a will does not disqualify
an attesting witness from proving it ; the interest in such case
goes to the credit, and not to the competency, of the witness. ^^
In Maine neither a tax-paying inhabitant of a town to which a
legacy is given, nor a stockholder of a corporation which is a
legatee, is incompetent as a subscribing witness to the will.^^

§ 42. Wills valid as to Personal, but not as to Real Property. —
In most States the statutes make no distinction in respect of

1 Tucker v. Tucker, 5 Ired. L. 161, a general witness, having renounced tlie
165; Feral ta u. Castro, 6 Cal. 354, 359; executorship); Estep v. Morris, 38 Md.
Hogan V. Wyman, 2 Oreg. 302. 417, 423.

2 Gilbert v. Gilbert, 22 Ala. 529, 532, KJ Wyman v. Symmes, 10 Allen, 153.
on the ground that as the propounder he " Rucker v. Lambdin, 12 Sm. & M.
may be liable for costs. 230, 254 ; Kelly v. Miller, 39 Miss. 17, 59.

s Davis V. Rogers, 1 Houst. 44, 6.3. ^'^ Murphy v. Murphy, 24 Mo. 526.

4 Morton r. Ingram, 11 Ired. L. 368, i^ Stewart d. Harriman, 56 N. H 25,27,

370, holding that a renunciation of the holding wife of executor also competent-
trust will not remove the disqualification. ^* McDonough v. Loughlin, 20 Barb.

The same rule is applied in this State to 238, 245, approved in In re Wilson, 103

the wife of an executor : Huie v. McCon- N. Y. 374, 376.

nell, 2 Jones, L. 455, 457, overruluig is prew t-.Clarke, 80 Pa. St. 170, 179, af-

Daniel v. Proctor, 1 Uev. 428. firming Bowenu. Goranflo, 73 Pa. St 357.

° Havvley v. Brown, 1 Root, 494 (e.xec- ^^ Harleston v. Corbett, 12 Rich. 604;

utor having renounced). Noble v. Burnett, 10 Rich. 505. 519, hold-

6 Meyer v. Fogg, 7 Fla. 292, 294. ing the statute of 25 Geo. II. to apply,

'' Orndorf v. Hummer, 12 B. Mon. 619. avoiding any beneficial interest of the

8 Jones V. Tibbetts, 57 Me. 572 ; Jones executor

V. Larrabee, 47 Me. 474, 480. For the ^^ Richardson v. Richardson, 35 Vt.

same reason, the wife of an executor is 238, 240.

a competent attesting witness; Piper v ^^ Berry v. Hamilton, 10 B Mon. 129,

Moulton, 72 Me. 1-55, 158. 138.

9 Dorsey i;. Warfield, 7 Md. 65, 75 (as J* Marston, Petitioner, 79 Me 25, 45, 50.

§ 42 WILLS VALID AS TO PERSONAL PROPERTY. 77

form between wills disposing of personal and those

disposing of real jjroperty, except as to holographic wiii^mav'be^^

and nuncin)ativo wills, which will be considered here- ■^'"'''l »« '" I'^.r-

'- _ soiial, aiul Void

after ; ^ but in some of them personal property may '^^ "^ ■"'=''1 ^'''
be l)cqueathed by nuncui)ative will.^ In Maryland^
and Tennessee,* there is no statute on the subject of wills of per-
sonalty, hence the common law is applicable to them in these
States ; and it follows that, as in England before the statute of
1 Vict., so in these States, a will held inoperative to convey real
estate for want of the requisite formalities may yet be good to
bequeath personal property.^ Thus a will conveying both real
and personal property, left in an unfinished state, is void as to
either class of property if it appear that the testator left it unfin-
ished while he was still deliberating upon its contents ; but if it
appear that he intended the paper, in the form in which it was
found, to constitute his will, and was prevented from comj)lcting
it by the act of God alone, then it may operate as a valid will of
personal property, although no real property can pass by it.*'

In many of the States personal property to a limited amount
may be bequeathed by will differing in essential respects as to
attestation, form, etc. from wills devising real estate, or be-
queathing personal estate of greater value. These will be con-
sidered in connection with nuncupative wills.'^

The distinction between wills disposing of real and such as
dispose of personal property is important also in connection with
the domicil of the testator ; for while the former must conform
to the lex rei sitce, the latter are in most States held good if in
accordance with the law of the testator's domicil, or of the State

1 The States making no distinction in guished from testaments (gifts of mova-

tlie form and execution of wills of real bles or otlier personal property) : Ilinck.

and of personal property are Alabama, Test. L. § 69. Tlie common law of En?-

Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Dela- land is in force as to tlie testamentary

ware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, disposition of personal property : lb. § 85.
Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Mich- •• Moore v. Steele, 10 Humph. 562,

igan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, 505; Williams v. Saunders, 5 Cold w. 60,

Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New 69. See compilers' note, Stat, of Tenn.,

Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Code, 1884, § 3003.

Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, ^ Guthrie i'. Owen, 2 Humph. 202, 217 ;

SouthCarolina.Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Byers v. Hoppe, 61 Md. 206.
West Virginia, and Wisconsin. ^ Ilevecmon v. Devecmon, 43 Md.

" As to which see post, § 44. 335, 344 et seq.

8 In this State wills (for the gift of " See post, % ii.

lands and other real estate) are distin-

78 rORM, EXECUTION, AND ATTESTATION OF WILLS. § 43

or country where made, or where the property may be found.
This aspect of the subject is discussed elsewhere.^ V

§ 43. Holographic Wills. — Holographic (or olographic) wills,
written wholly by the testator in person, differ from ordinary
States aiiowin ^ills Only in requiring less or no formality of attesta-
wiiis written tiou. Provisiou is made for such in the statutes of

by tlie testator

without attes- many States. They are admitted to probate upon
proof of having been written by the testator in Arkan-
sas,2 California,^ Kentucky,* Louisiana,** Mississippi,^ North Car-
olina,' Tennessee,^ Texas,^ Virginia,^*^ and West Yirginia.^^

The validity of holographic wills without attestation of any

kind renders it difficult, sometimes, to determine whether the

deceased intended the paper propounded for probate

fectiug validity to constltute his last will in the form in which it is

of such wills. „ . . • T 1 • 1 c XT 1

found. Hence it is provided in the statutes of North
Carolina and Tennessee that such wills, to be valid, must be
found among the valuable papers of the deceased, or lodged with
some person for safe- keeping. ^^ jf the paper is imperfect, as
where it contains an attestation clause not signed, or leaving
blanks, the presumption is against its validity ; but proof of
intention may be given, in rebuttal of such presumption, that the
deceased abandoned the intention he once had of giving effect to

1 See pout, ch. xvii. ; also § 226. handwriting of the deceased in all its parts :

2 Dig. 1884, § 6492. Proof of hand- Code, 1883, § 2136; Brown v. Eaton, 91
writing must be made by three disinter- N. C. 26.

ested witnesses. 8 Rev. St. 1884, § 3004. Under same

^ Civ. Codes, § 1277 ; without other conditions as in North Carolina ; see su-

formality, whether it be made within or pra, note 7.

out of the State. 9 Rev. St. 1879, art. 4859, excepting

* Gen. St. 1883, p. 8.32, § 5, excepting holographic will from requirement of

holographic wills from the requirement attestation,

of attestation. But such a will must be ^ Code, 1887, § 2514.

signed by tlie testator at its conclusion " Code, 1887, ch. 77, § 3.

like an ordinary will : Jones v. Jones, 3 12 Supra, notes 7 and 8. It must be

Mete. (Ky.) 266, 270. proved, in addition thereto, that the pa-

^ Code, art. 1581. The only require- per was so deposited or lodged for safe

ment is, whether made in or out of the keeping v)it!i the intent that it should oper-

State, that it must be entirely written, ate as his will; and by three witnesses,

dated, and signed by the testator. not only that it is in the handwriting

6 Kev. Code, 1880, § 1262, excepting of the deceased, but also that his hand-
holographic wills signed by the testator writing was generally known among his
from the requirement of attestation. acquaintances: Hooper v. McQuary, 5

^ If found among the valuable papers Coldw. 129, 1-10 ct seq. ; Marr v. Marr,

and effects of the deceased, or lodged with 2 Head, ."03; Tate v. Tate, 11 Humph,

some person for safe keeping, and proved 465; Crutcher v. Crutcher, 11 Humph,

by three credible witnesses to be in the 377, 380.

§ 44 HOLOGRAPHIC WILLS. 79

the paper, or tliat he meant it to operate in its then condition, or
that he was in the progress of finishing it, and prevented by the
act of Ood.^

It is held in Louisiana, that the fact of names of witnesses
being ajjpcndcd to the will neither invalidates it nor deprives it
of its holographic character ; - and that the probate of it must be
that required for holographic wills.^ And in California, if the
name of the testator ap[)car in the opening part of the will, it is
valid without being subscribed;'* but that a paper printed in the
form of a stationer's blank, with the vacant spaces filled in de-
ceased's handwriting, is not a holographic will in whole or in
part;^ nor is the statute complied with, if a part of the date is
printed.^

§ 44. Nuncupative Wills. — Nuncupative wills, or testamentary-
declarations in presence of witnesses without any writing by the
testator, were at common law of equal validitv with writ- ,,

. . . " Nuncupative

ten wuls for the disposition of personal property.'^ By wills affected
the Statute of Frauds several restrictions were placed statute of
upon them, " for the prevention of fraudulent prac- '^^^'^^'
tices in setting up nuncupative wills, which have been the occa-
sion of much perjury."^ The provisions of this statute, although
rendered inoperative in England by the statute of 1 Vict. c. 26,
which does away with nuncupative wills altogether, except as to
soldiers and mariners in actual service, are still in force in most
of the American States, with more or less modification.

The English Statute of Frauds affected such nuncupative wills
only as disposed of property exceeding <£50 in value ; where the
property bequeathed amounted to less, the common law « ^^ • .-
still governed. In a number of States this principle was "f "'e statute
adopted, limiting the statutory restrictions on nuncupa- beriuests ex-
tive wills to such as bequeath property exceeding a cer- tain amounts
tain value; namely, !$300 in Maryland 9; -$250 in Ten- ""'-^•
nesseei^ 1150 in Nebraska^i and Wisconsin ^2. uqO in Maine,^^

1 Forbes v. Gordon, 3 PliiU. 614, 628; « Estate of Billings, 64 Cal. 427.
Hill V. Bell, Phillips L. 122, 124, citing Har- ■? Wms. Ex. [116].

risen v. Burgess, 1 Hawks, 384, and Brown * 29 Car. II. c. 3, § 19.

V. Beaver, 3 Jones, 516, to same effect. 9 Hinek. Test. L. § 315; Code, 1878, p.

2 Andrews v. Andrews, 12 Mart. 713. 421, art. 49, § 10.

8 Succession of Roth, 31 La. An. 315, i'^ Code, 1884, § 3006.

317. " Comp. St. 1881, p. .300, § 128.

* Johnson's Estate, Myr. 5. 12 -[{ev. St. 1878, § 2202.

6 Estate of Rand, 61 Cal. 468. !» Rev. St. 1883, p. 610, § 20.

80

FORM, EXECUTION, AND ATTESTATION OP WILLS. § 44

Mississippi/ New Hampshire,^ and Pennsylvania^ ; $80 in New
Jersey-*; $50 in South Carolina^; and $30 in Texas.^ But in
some of these States slight changes from the common law af-
fect all nuncupative wills, particularly in the mode of probate,
which will appear in connection with the consideration of that
subject^

In other States nuncupative wills are permitted only for prop-
erty not exceeding a certain value, fixed at $1000 in California^
Nuncupative and Nevada^ ; at $500 in Alabama ^^ and Arkansas ^^ ;
wills prohib- .|.gQQ jj^ iowa,»2 aiid Michigan 13; $200 in Delaware,^*

itecl i(ir prop- ^ ' o '

erty exceed- Missouri,^^ and Vermont ^^ ; and $100 in Indiana.^" In

ing certain n n ■, •

value. these States, by force of their statutes, a nuncupative

will disposing of property in excess of the amount so limited has
been lield void in toto?^ In others again there is no limit to the
amount of personal property which may be bequeathed by unwrit-
ten wills under the conditions imposed in the statutes. These are
Colorado,i9 Florida,20 Illinois,2i Kansas,22 Ohio,^^ North Carolina,24
Pennsylv^nia,25 South Carolina,^^ Tennessee^ Texas,^^ and Wis-
consin."-^^ Yet others limit the power to soldiers in actual service
and mariners at sea; for instance, Kentucky ,^0 Massachusetts,^^
Minnesota,32 New York,33 Oregon,^* Rhode Island,^^ Virginia,36 and

1 Rev. Code, 1880, § 1266.

2 Gen. L. 1878, p. 456, § 16.

8 Bright. Purd. Dig. 1883, p. 1710, § 8.
* Rev. 1877, p. 1245, § 13.
6 Rev. St. 1882, § 1876.

6 Rev. St. 1879, § 4862.

7 PoM, §§ 45, 224.

8 Civ. Code, § 1289.

9 Gen. St. 1885, § 3004.

10 Code, 1886, § 1970.

11 Code, 1884, § 6504.

12 Rev. Code, 1880, § 2.324.

13 2 How. St. 1882, § 5790.

14 Laws, 1874, p. 509, § 5.

15 Rev. St. 1879, § .3984.

16 Rev. L. 1880, § 204,3.
" Rev. St. 1881, § 2577.

18 Erwin v. Humner, 27 Ala. 296, 299 ;
Strieker v. Oldenburgh, 39 Iowa, 653.
But a later Iowa case holds the will good
for all but tiie excess : Mulligan v. Leon-
ard. 46 Iowa, 692, 694.

19 Gen. St. 1883, § 3483.

2'5 Except slaves, which before their
emancipation by President Lincoln were

treated as real property: McLeod v. Dell,
9 Fla. 451, 455.

21 St. & Curt. St. 1885, p. 2478. 1 15.

22 Dass. Comp. L. 1885, ch. 117, §69.

23 Rev. St. 1880, § 5991.

24 Code, 1883, § 2148, 1 3.

25 Bright. Purd. Dig. 1883, p. 1710, § 8.

26 Rev. St. 1882, § 1876.
2T Code, 1884, § 3006.

2S Rev. St. 1879, art. 4862.
29 Rev. St. 1878, § 2292.
8^ Gen. St. 1883, p. 834, § 7.
81 Pub. St. 1882, p. 748, § 6.

32 St. of 1878, p. 568, § 6.

33 3 Banks & Bro. Rev. St. (7th ed.) p.
2285, § 22.

31 There is a provision in the statutes
of Oregon for nuncupative wills, which
seems applicable to the common law
wills authorized to soldiers and mariners :
see Hill's Ann. L. 1887, § 3079 ; also
§§ .3080, 3081.

35 Pub. St. 1882, p. 472, § 10.

36 Code, 1887, § 2516. ■

§ 45 NUNCUPATIVE WILLS. 81

West Virginia.! But in Georgia^ the statute expressly authori/.cs
all property, whether real or jjersonal, to pass by verbal will;-^
and so in Louisiana,^ whose testamentary system is largely bor-
rowed from the civil law. The Texas statute providing for the
disposition of " property " by nuncupative will, is construed not
to extend to real property.^

§ 45. Statutory Regulations in Respect of Nuncupative Wills. —
The requisites for nuncupative wills arc imi)orted from the Eng-
lish Statute of Frauds into the statutes of most of the

^ . , Tn .• i i. Nuncupative

American States, with modifications to a greater or ^iiis must be

less extent. It is necessary that the words spoken by ^["^g^' wi^o'""''

the testator be proved on oath by competent witnesses,^ ;;,*';''Xi;'f„'g| ""^

" who were present at the making thereof." Most of

them also require that the testator " bid the persons present, or

some of them, bear witness that such was his will, or to that

effect."'

That the ro(jatio testium, or request of the testator to bear wit-
ness to the will he is about to pronounce, is an essential feature of
all nuncupative wills, is nowhere doubted, even where

. . , ,1 , £ Testator must

the statute contains no express provision to that ei- request wit-
feet.^ But wdiile it cannot be supplied by inference uesfhis^'S."
from the nuncupation itself,^ it is not necessary that
particular words be used, or a literal compliance with the statute
shown ; any form of expression, however imperfectly uttered, so
that it conveys to the minds of those to whom it is addressed the

^ Code, 1887, cli. 77, § 5. tially, as spoken, and on a contest it may

2 Code, 1882, § 2482. be proved tliat the words spoken were

3 Brown t-. Carroll, 36 Ga. 568 ; Cara- different from those written by tliem, in
way V. Smith, 28 Ga. 541. which case the will is void : Bolles v.

* Code, art. 1570. See Wood v. Roane, Harris, 34 Oh. St. 38, 40.

35 La. An. 865 ; Pfarr v. Belmont, 39 La. " This requirement seems to be omitted

An. 294. in California, Iowa, Massachusetts, Mich-

5 Moffett V. Moffett, 67 Tex. 612. igan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Oregon,

6 E.xcept in Florida, Georgia, Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and
Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, West Virginia. It is contained, subst;in-
South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin, in tially in the language of the English
which States three witnesses are still re- statute, in tlie other States.

quired, the number is in others reduced ^ Ridley r. Coleman, 1 Sneed, 616, 618 ;

to two. In Alabama and Vermont the Brown r. Brown, 2 Murphy, 350 ; Broach

statute does not mention tlie number of r. Sing, 67 Miss. 115, 116 ; and see

witnesses in connection with nuncupative authorities in notes, infra.
wills. In Louisana from three to seven " Ilinck. Test. L. § 320; Biddle v.

are required under the various circuni- Biildle, 3^ Md. 630, 643 e^w/. .• Sampson

stances mentioned in the statute. The i'. Browning, 22 Ga. 293, 301; Dawson s

witnesses must prove the words, substan- Appeal, 23 Wise. 69, 88.

VOL. I, — 6

82 FORM, EXECUTION, AND ATTESTATION OF WILLS. § 45

idea that he desires them, or some of them, to bear witness to the
disposition he is about to make of his property, is sufficient.^ It
has been decided in Pennsylvania, that a look is not a sufficient ro-
gatio testium} The a7timo testandi must be proved as clearly, and
with the same certainty, at least, as in wills written and attested
in writing.^ In some of the States the witnesses are expressly re-
quired by the statute to prove affirmatively that the testator, at the
time of speaking the testamentary words, was of sound mind.'*

" That such nuncupative will was made in the time of the last
sickness of the deceased, in the house of his habitation or dwell-
Must be made ing, or whcrc he or she hath been resident for the
in last sickness gp^ce of ten davs or more next before the making of

at testator s Ir "

dwelling. such will, cxccpt where such person was surprised or

taken sick being from his own home, and died before he returned
to the place of his or her dwelling." This provision has, of course,
no application to soldiers or mariners ; but with this exception
has been substantially incorporated into the statutes of nearly all
the States.5 The phrase " last sickness," in Illinois, is construed
not to mean in extremis;^ but otherwise in Pennsylvania,'^ Mary-
land,^ and New Jersey.^ In Delaware such a will must be made
within three days before the testator's death, or under circum-
stances rendering it impossible to make a written will.^^

The Statute of Frauds prohibits the introduction of any testi-
mony to prove testamentary words after the expiration of six
Must be ad- months from the time they were spoken, " except the
mitted to pro- g^^j^j testimony, or the substance thereof, were com-

bate within a •' ' i c xi i • £

certain time, mittcd to Writing witliiu SIX days alter the making oi

1 Weir V. Chidester, 63 111 453, 455 ; v. Stevens, 78 111. 287, as holding that

Arnett v. Arnett, 27 111. 247, 249; Mulli- the statute as to nuncupative wills must

gan V Leonard, 46 Iowa, 692, 694 et seq. ; receive a rigid and strict construction.
Parkison v. Parkison, 12 Sm. & M. 672, '^ Boyer v. Frick, 4 Watts & S. 357,

«78 • Hatcher v. Millard, 2 Coldw. 30, 33 360, where it is said that a nuncupative

et scq. ; Smith v. Smith, 63 N. C. 637, 639 will is allowed only if made in such ex-

fl/.sf9. .•Bourkei;.Wilson,38La.An..320. tremity of last sickness as precludes a

■i Will of Meisenhelter, 15 Phila. 651. written one ; Yarnall's Will, 4 Rawle, 46,

3 Gibson v. Gibson, Walk. 364 ; Phipps 65. See the case of Prince v. Hazleton,

V. Hope, 16 Oh. St. 586, 595 ; Lucas v. 20 Johns. 502, 510 et seq., for a review of

Goff 3.3 Miss. 629, 645. the law of nuncupative wills on this point,

1 So in Colorado, Illinois, Kansas, and befdre the restriction of such wills in

qjjJq New York to soldiers and mariners.

5 The only exceptions, apparently, are ^ O'Neill r. Smith, 33 Md. 569, 573.
Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, and Vermont. ^ Carroll v. Bonham, 42 N. J. Eq. 625,

6 Harrington v. Steer, 82 111. 50, 54, 627.

Breese, J., dissenting, and citing Morgan i» Laws, 1874, p. 509, § 6.

§ 45 NrNCL'PATlVE WILLS. 83

said will." Wliiki tlie substance of this provision is embodied in
the statutes of most States, there is considerable diversity as to
the time allowed for the reduction of the testamentary words
into writing. The Statute of Frauds is precisely followed, in this
respect, in Alabama,^ Florida,^ Maine,^ Mississippi,'* Nebraska,^
New Hampshire,^ New Jersey," South Carolina,^ Texas,^ and Wis-
consin.i'^ In North Carolina and Tennessee ten days are allowed
for its reduction to writing ; in Georgia, thirty days. In some of
the States there can be no probate after six months, nor unless
the words be reduced to writing within a certain time, varying
from three to thirty days.^^ In Nevada there can be no probate
after three months. The provisions that there must There must be
be notice to the parties in interest (widow or next of and^next"[)f°^
kin), and that " no letters testamentary or probate of '''"•
any nuncupative will shall pass the seal of any court till fourteen
days at the least after the death of the testator be fully expired," ^^
are generally applicable in all the States.

Nuncupative wills are watched by the courts with a jealous eye.
Aside from the statutory restrictions placed upon them, the ease
with which frauds may be accomplished in establish-
ing them demands close scrutiny of the testimony wills n<.t ia-
offercd, and strict proof of every fact upon which their
vali<lity is made to depend. ^'^ Where several witnesses are re-
quired by the statute, each one must prove all the facts,i^ and all
must be present at the same time.^^

It has sometimes been held, that instructions for the drawino-
of a written will, declared before the requisite number of wit-
nesses, may constitute a valid nuncupative will where the testator

1 Code, 1886, § 1973. mont. In Pennsylvania within six days:

2 MeCIell. Dig. 1881, p. 988, § 11. Taylor's Appeal, 47 Pa. St. 31, 36.
8 Rev. St. 1883, p. 610, § 19. 12 § 2I of 29 Car. IL c. 8.

4 Rev. Code, 1880, § 1267. '3 Dorsey v. Shepnard, 12 Gill & J. 102,

6 Comp. St. 1881, p. 300, § 129. 198: Werkheiser I'.AVcrkheiser, 6 Watts

6 Gen. L. 1878, p. 456, § 16. & S. 184, 189 ; Parsons v. Parsons, 2 Me.

T Rev. 1877, p. 1246, § 14. 298, 300.

8 Rev. St. 1882, § 1877. In this State i" Morgan v. Stevens. 78 111. 287 ;
there can be no probate of a nuncupative Mitchell r. Vickers, 20 Tex. 377, 884 ;
will after the expiration of twelvemonths Haus v. Palmer, 21 Pa. St. 296, 299;
from its speaking. Lucas v. Goff, 33 Miss. 629, 645.

9 Rev. St. 1879, art. 4865. 1° Tally i-. Butterworth, 10 Yerg. 501.
i» Rev. St. 1878, § 2293. But see, contra, Portwood v. Hunter, 6 B.
" So in Arkansas, California, Georgia, Mon. 538.

Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, Ohio, and Ver-

84 FORM, EXECUTION, AND ATTESTATION OF WILLS. § 46

is by the act of God rendered incapable of completing it in the
mode contemplated by him ; ^ at least where it appears from all
the circumstances in the case that it contains the final wish and
intention of the testator respecting the property bequeathed.^
But this doctrine — which is but the statement of the common law
rule in regard to wills of personal property (not required to be
in writing) whereby the presumption arising against an unfin-
ished written will might be rebutted ^ — must be understood as
being governed by the statutory provisions on the subject, and
not as giving effect to an incomplete written will, or to the memo-
randum of a scrivener, or the proof by witnesses of instructions
received for the preparation of such, unless all the formalities
prescribed for a nuncupative will have also been complied with.*

§ 46. Wills of Soldiers and Mariners. — Wills made by soldiers

in actual military service and mariners at sea are construed with

greater liberality than nuncupative wills of other per-

Sg^in^'.ervice so^s. By the civil law the ordinary formalities of

and mariners executiuo; nuncupative wills were dispensed with in

at sea con- o i i ^

strued witb favor of soldicrs ; their wills were held valid, although
they should neither call the legal number of witnesses,
nor observe any other of the ordinary solemnities in the execution
of such instruments.^ This privilege was also extended to the
naval service ; ^ and has been generally adopted among civilized
nations, coming to us through the common law, left substantially
unaffected by the English Statute of Frauds. The war of the rebel-
lion has given rise to numerous cases involving the validity of sol-
diers' wills, and it may be said that courts look upon them with as
much favor as with disfavor upon the unwritten wills of others.

In the absence of statutory regulations on the subject, the
Conditions to usual Conditions to nuncupative wills are not appli-
nuncupative cable to the wills of soldiers or mariners : the sin-

wills not ap-
plicable, gie question being whether the deceased comes within

1 Mason v. Dunman, 1 Munf. 456, 5 i Rgrlf. on Wills, 193, pi. 18, citing

459; Offiitt V. Offutt, 3 B. Mon. 162; Inst. lib. 2, tit. 11.

Boofter v. Rogers, 9 Gill, 44, 53 ; Phoebe « Ex parte Thompson, 4 Bradf. 154,

V. Boggess, 1 Gratt. 129, 142. 157. The opinion in this case contains

' Frierson v. Beall, 7 Ga. 438, 441. a concise review of the history of nun-

3 Wnis. Ex. [69]. cupatory wills by Surrogate Bradford,

* Dockum V. Robinson, 26 N. H. 372, which may be consulted with profit by

381 et aeq. ; Repse v. Hawthorn, 10 Gratt. those interested in the question of un-

548, 550; Hebdeii's Will, 20 N J. Eq written wills.

473, 476.

or manner.

§ 47 WILLS OF SOLDIERS AND MARINERS. 85

the class of persons under consideration ; namely, whetlicr he was
a soldier in actual service or a mariner at sea.^ It is who is a sol-
held on this })()int, that the term *' soldier " eml)races <^''^'"'
every grade, from the private to the highest officer, and includes
the gunner, the surgeon, or the general ;2 and the
term "mariner" ajiplies to every person in the naval
service, from the common seaman to the captain or admiral.^
But it does not include mariners, though at sea, who are so as
passengers,^ nor soldiers in time of peace, or when not in actual
service.^ But by actual service is not meant that he should be
engaged in or on the eve of a battle ; if he is in the enemy's
country, or under military orders, whether in camp or campaign
service, he is in actual military service ;^ and so if he be at the
time in a hospital^

It may be repeated here, that, in the absence of statutory pro-
visions to the contrary, the nuncupative will of soldiers and mari-
ners may be proved, like wills of personalty at common law, by
one witness.^

§ 47. Codicils. — A codicil is some addition to or qualification
of a last will. Whatever may have been the origin of this species
of testamentary disposition, they have, in America, no what is a
other function or office, and are governed by the same '=°'^'^''-
rules, and must be executed with the same formalities, as the
wills themselves of which they form a constituent part.^ It is

1 Ex parte Thompson, supra, p. 158. see Smith's Will, 6 Phila. 104, holding

^ Ex parte Thompson, supra, p. 159, that a soldier at home on furlough is not

citing In the Goods of Donaldson, 2 within the statute.

Curt. 38tj ; Shearman v. Pyke, reported 6 Van Deuzer v. Gordon, .39 Vt. Ill,

in Drummond v. Parish, 3 Curt. 539; Re 119.
Prendergast, 5 Notes of Cas. 92. 7 Gould v. Safford, 39 Vt. 498, -507.

3 Ex parte Thompson, supra, citing » Goods of White, 22 L. Kep. 110,

Morrell i'. Morrell, 1 Hagg. 61; In the 114; Gould v. Safford, 39 Vt. 498; Ex

Goods of Hayes, 2 Curt. 338. Including parte Thompson, 4 Bradf. 159.
a cook : 4 Bradf. 159. 9 " A codicil, duly executed, is an

* Warren v. Harding, 2 R. I. 183, 1.38; addition or supplement to a will, and is
a mariner is "at sea "on a coasting vessel, no revocation thereof except in the i)re-
though anchored in an arm of the sea cise degree in which it is inconsistent
where the tide ebhs and flows: Hubbard therewith, unless there be words of revo-
lt. Hubbard, 8 N. Y. 196, 199 ; but not on cation. And it is an established prima
the Mississippi River: Gwin's Will, 1 facie rule of construction, that an ad-
Tuck. 44. ditional legacy given by a codicil is

° Leathers v. Greenacre, 53 Me. 561, attended with the same incidents and

571, citing Drummond v. Parish, 3 Curt, qualities as the original legacy. Upon

522: White v. Repton, 3 Curt. 818; In the same principle, a devise upon condi-

the Goods of Hill, 1 Robertson, 27G. And tion that the devisee shall comply with

86 FORM, EXECUTION, AND ATTESTATION OF WILLS. § 47

prima facie dependent upon the will ; the destruction or mutila-
tion of the will is an implied revocation of the codicil.^

One of the most important offices which a codicil may perform,
as part of a pre-existing will, is the effect ascribed to it of confirm-
Effectof i^^o or republishing such will. Being, in law, part of

codicil. j^ man's will, whether so described in the codi(;il or

not, or whether or not expressly cpnfirmatory of it, it furnishes
conclusive evidence of the testator's considering his will as then
existing,^ whether cancelled by obliteration (if it continues to be
legible) or otherwise.^ And for the same reason it operates to
establish a will which would be void for want of compliance with
the law regulating its execution and attestation,* because the
codicil, speaking and operating from the time of its execution,
brings the will to it and makes it a will from the date of the
codicil.^ The codicil, to have such effect, must self-
attached to evidently refer to the will with sufficient certainty to
the will. identify it ; ^ but it is not essential that the two papers

be annexed together, or that the codicil be written on the same
paper or parchment with the will.'' But if there are several wills
of different dates, the circumstance of annexation is powerful to
show that it was intended as a codicil to the will to which it is
annexed, and to no other.^ If not annexed to any will, the codi-
cil, where no express date is mentioned, refers to the will latest
in date ; if there is, to that of the date expressed.^

The presumptions pointed out yield, of course, to any express

what is enjoined upon him by the will Murfield's Estate, 38 N. W. Rep. (lo.)

must be construed, prima facie, to be 170.

upon condition that the devisee shall ^ Murray v. Oliver, 6 Ired. Eq. 55 ;

also comply with what may be enjoined Stover v. Kendall, 1 Coldw. 557, 500 ;

upon him by any codicil": Tilden v. Payne ?>. Payne, 18 Cal.291,302; Jones

Tilden, 13 Gray, 103, 108. v. Shewmaker, .35 Ga. 151, 156, approved

1 Wms. Ex. [154], and authorities. in Burge v. Hamilton, 72 Ga. 568; Ha-

2 Wms. Ex. [212], with numerous ven r. Foster, 14 Pick. 534, 540; York
English authorities. v. Walker, 12 Mees. & W. 591, 599 ;

3 A will revoked by a later will may Cliett v. Cliett, 1 Tex. Unrep. Cas. 408,
be republished by a codicil executed with 417 et seq. ; Canfield v. Crandall, 4 Dem.
the ceremonies required by the statute: 111, 119.

Ruffin, C. J , in Love v. Johnston, 12 « Utterton v. Robins, 1 Ad. & El. 423,

Ired. L. 855, 362; Jones v. Hartley, 2 427.

Whart. 103, 110, citing Havard v. Davis, 7 Harvey v. Chouteau, 14 Mo. 587,

2 Binn. 406, 414, 418; Brown v. Clark, 595, citing numerous English and Anier-

77 N. Y. 369, 374. lean authorities.

* Rose V. Drayton, 4 Rich. Eq. 260 ; » Rogers v. Pittis, 1 Add. .30, 41.

Burge V. Hamilton, 72 Ga. 568, 622, 626 ; ^ Crosbie v. McDoual, 4 Ves. 610, G15.
McCurdy v. Neall, 42 N- J. Eq. 333, 336 ;

§47

CODICILS.

or plainly inferable intention of the testutor. A codicil docs
not republish any part of a will which is inconsistent with the
codicil;^ but necessarily revokes it ;'^ nor does it necessarily
operate as if the will had originally been made at the date of the
codicil.^

1 Per Gould, J., in Simmons v. Sim-
mons, 26 Barb. 68, 75 : " Between a codi-
cil and a subsequent will there is tliis
difference of construction : a codicil is a
republication and ratification of so much
of the prior will as it does not revoke ;
whereas a new will, (if it provides for
a full disposition of all the testator's es-
tate,) though inconsistent but in part
with the former will, and absolutely
agreeing in part, revokes tlie w'hole of
the prior will, by substituting a new and

last disposition for the former one."
Brant v. Willson, 8 Cow. 56, 57 ; Lar-
rabee v. Larrabee, 28 Vt. 274, 278 ; Neff's
Ajipeal, 48 Pa. St. 501, 507; Jones r.
Jones, 2 Dev. Eq. 387, 390.

2 Snowliill V. Snowhill, 23 N. J. L.
447, 454.

8 Per Lord Chancellor Campbell in
Hopwood i;. Hopwood, 7 H. L. Cas. 728,
740; Kendall v. Kendall, 5 Munf. 272,
275 ; Appeal of Carl, 106 Pa. St. 635.

88 OF THE llEVOCATION OF WILLS. § 48

CHAPTER VI.

OF THE REVOCATION OF WILLS.

§ 48. Revocation by Cancelling, Obliterating, Burning, etc. — The
power to revoke a will is self-evidently coextensive with the
power to make one. It follows from the ambulatory
revokes a quality of the instrument, that a later will supplants a
former one precisely to the extent to which the later
is inconsistent with the former. It is always the last will and
testament which is valid.

But revocation may be effected by other means, if the testator
do nut wish a mere alteration or change in the shape of his testa-
Revocation mentary disposition, but an entire revocation, leaving
tion^or de-^ it to the law to rcgulatc the descent of his property,
struction. jj^ Quoh. case the revocation is accomplished by the can-
cellation or destruction of the will, without more.

Revocation also follows, by operation of law, from any subse-
quent act of the testator inconsistent with the devise or bequest,
Bv opeiadon o^* from changcs in the family relations of the testator
of law. arising after the execution of the will, unless by some

act of the testator or provision in the original will the presump-
tion of law is rebutted. Hence the subject of revocation of wills,
whether by act of the testator himself or by operation of law, is
the occasion of many statutory enactments and legal rules, and
occupies much space in the books treating of wills.

The statutory enactments in most States follow the language,
or re-enact the substance, of the English Statute of Frauds in
statutorv rcspcct of the revocation of wills by act of the testator,
provisions. whicli providcs that "no devise in writing of any lands,
tenements, or hereditaments, nor any clause thereof, shall be revo-
cable otherwise than by some other will or codicil in writing, or
other writing declaring the same, or by burning, cancelling, tear-
ing, or obliterating the same by the testator himself, or in his
presence and by his direction or consent," etc.^

1 29 Car. II. c. 3, § 6.

§48

REVOCATION BY CANCELLING, BURNING, ETC.

89

No revoca-
tion by testa-
tor witliout
intention to
revoke.

To effect a revocation by cancelling, burning, etc., it must, of
course, be done with the intention and for the purpose of revok-
ing. This is so expressed in the statutes of most
States authorizing a revocation in this method. If,
therefore, the act of destruction was not committed
animo revocandi, but by accident,^ mistake,^ during a
fit of insanity,^ or where the destruction is the effect of handling
or wear,-* it is not the testator's act, and does not affect the valid-
ity of the will destroyed, if its contents can be ascertained.^ For
the same reason, a revocation obtained by undue influence on the
mind of the testator is inoperative, and leaves the will in full
force.^ Nor is the intention, purpose, or desire to re-
voke an existing will of any effect on its validity,
unless the desire is carried into effect by some act
done, recognized in law as a sufficient indication of
the testator's will."

Cancellation by the testator raises the presumption cancellation
that the act was animo revocandi,^ which may, however, on^^eiuioa^
be rebutted by proof of circumstances inconsistent with *° revoke.

Nor by mere
intention,
witiiout
act of revo-
cation.

1 Biirtonshaw v. Gilbert, 1 Cowp. 49,
52 ; Giles v. Warren. L. R. 2 P. & D. 40L

2 Burns v. Burns, 4 Serg. &, R. 295.

8 An insane person can have no ani-
mus revocandi: Lang's Estate, tj5 Cal. 19.
Smith V. Wait, 4 Barb. 28, 30; Ford v.
Ford, 7 Humph. 92, 102; Forman's Will,
54 Barb. 274, 298 ; Forbing v. Weber, 99
lud. 588.

4 1 Redf. on Wills, 314, pi. 21, citing
Bigge t'. Bigge, 3 Notes of Cas. 601, 603 ;
Clarke i;. Scijjps, 2 Hob. 563.

^ As to the proof necessary to estab-
lish a lost will, see post, § 221. Rhodes
V. Vinson, 9 Gill, 169. Proof of the
whole contents must be clear and satis-
factory : Davis v. Sigourney, 8 Mete.
(.Mass.) 487 ; Jaques v. Horton, 70 Ala.
238, 245.

« Rich V. Gilkey, 73 Me. 595, 601.

' Runkle v. Gates, 11 Ind. 95, 99
Clark V. Smith, 34 Barb. 140, 142 et seq.
Gains v. Gains, 2 A. K. Marsh. 190
Means v. Moore, 3 McC. 282, 286 ; Hoitt
V. Hoitt, 63 N. H. 475, 495; Wright v.
Wright, 5 Ind. 389 ; Delafield i-. Parish,
25 N Y. 9, 21 ; Boyd v. Cook, 3 Leigh,

32; Blanchard v. Blanchard, .32 Vt. 62,
64; Hise v. Fincher, 10 Ired. L. 139;
Mundy v. Mundy, 15 N. J. Eq. 290 ;
WoodfiU V. Patton, 76 Ind. 575, 579.
Hence it is not a sufficient revocation
for the testator to write upon the will
" I revoke this will," and signing his
name thereto with the date, unless such
writing is also attested by witnesses, as
required for the execution of wills : Will
of Ladd, 60 Wise. 187. So there is no
revocation althougli a devisee kill the
testator in order to prevent it ; such
devisee takes under the will : Preston v.
Palmer, 42 Hun, 368 ; the cancelling of
two parts of a triplicate will is however
a revocation of the whole will : Biggs v.
Angus, 3 Dem. 93; and the destruction,
amino revocandi, of one of the two origi-
nals of a will executed in duplicate,
there being no proof that the other was
in the possession of the maker, destroys
the whole will : Asinari v. Bangs, 3 Dem.
385.

8 Smock V. Smock, 11 N. J. Eq. 156,
citing numerous English authorities.

90

OF THE REVOCATION OF WILLS.

§48

Declarations guc]^ intention,^ and the declarations of the testator at

competent to i . <. , mi

explain can- any time after the making of the will are competent
But^ioTto fo^' t^^^^ purpose.2 But where the statute provides the
contravene a u^auner in which a will may be revoked, that manner

statutory •'

provision. must be pursucd ; ^ and the drawing of a line over the
signature, neither obliterating it nor rendering it illegible, has
been held not to constitute a destruction of the will under a stat-
ute authorizing a revocation by cancelling, the cancellation being
witnessed in the same manner as the making of a new will,* and
in such case the declarations of the testator are not admissible to
prove a revocation.^

So the cancellation of a will, or of part of a will,
made with the intention to execute a new will, (as
a step in the process of effecting a change in the
testamentary disposition already made,) will not be
deemed a revocation, if the purpose of the testator
fails.6 This principle is stated by Williams to have resulted in
" the doctrine of dependent relative revocations, in which the act
of cancellino;, etc., being done with reference to another

Dependent &? ? & _ _

relative act, meant to be an effectual disposition, will be a rev-

ocation or not, according as the relative act be effica-
cious or not." "^ It has been extended to include, as inoperative,

Cancellation
as a step
toward a new
will which
fails, deemed
no revo-
cation.

1 Goods of Colberg, 2 Curt. 8-32 ;
Perkes v. Perkes, 3 B. & Al. 489 ; Idley
V. Bowen, 11 Wend. 227, 236; Wolf v.
Bolinger, 62 111. 368, 372.

2 Patterson v. Hit-key, 32 Ga. 156,
160; Lawyer v. Snnith, 8 Mich. 411, 423;
Collagan v. Burns, 57 Me. 449, 458 et aeq. ;
Tynan v. Paschall, 27 Tex. 286, 300;
Johnson's Will, 40 Conn. 587 ; Youndt v.
Youndt, 8 Grant's Cas. 140 ; Law v. Law,
83 Ala. 432, 434, holding such evidence
admissible to show a revocation of the
whole, but not of a part of the will, and
commenting on the difference between the
Alabama and the English statute.

3 Gay V. Gay, 60 Iowa, 415, citing
Wright V. Wright, 5 Ind. 391 ; Runkle
V. Gates, 11 Ind. 95; Blanchard v. Blan-
chard, 32 Vt. 62 ; Gains v. Gains, 2 A. K.
Marsh. 190.

* Gay V. Gay, supra, citing English
authorities.

5 Ibid., citing Jackson v. Kniffen, 2
Johns. 31, and other authorities.

6 " It is fairly inferable, where the
act of cancellation is associated with an-
other upon which it is dependent, and
which fails of effect, the prima facie pre-
sumption of an intent to revoke is re-
butted, and another presumption arises,
' that the cancellation or obliteraton
would not have been done, but in sub-
serviency to the different testamentary
disposition, which has failed'": Per
Smith, C. J., in Hairston v. Hairston, 30
Miss. 276, 305 ; Onions v. Tyrer, 2 Vern.
741 ; Hyde v. Hyde, 1 Eq. Cas. Air. 409 ;
Johnson v. Brailsford, 2 Nott & McC.
272, 276 ; Pringle v. McPherson, 2 Brev.
279,289; Wolf v. Bollinger, 62 111. 3ii8,
373; Wilbourn v. Shell, 59 Miss. 205,
207 ; Williams, C. J., in Youse v. Formnn,
5 Bush, 337, 345; Dower v. Seeds, 28 W.
Va. 113, 138.

' Wms. Ex. [148], with English and
American authorities by Perkins ; and
see 1 Jarm. on Wills, *135, and Bigelow's
note (3) with numerous American cases.

§ 48 REVOCATION BY CANCELLING, BURNING, ETC. 91

cancellations made under the influence of a mistake in . ,. ,

Applied to

point of law, as well as in point of a fact.^ This seems cancuiiaiion
to carry the doctrine as far as the most lenient indul- take of law
gencc and anxious solicitude to give effect to the inten-
tion of testators, unlearned in the law or misled as to facts, can
safely permit. It is obvious, that to ignore a plain act of cancella-
tion upon the ground that the testator coupled it with an intention
to make some other will, is to destroy the testator's right and to
ignore his will ; for it is none the less his will to undo what he
has done in a former will, because he contemplates giving a dif-
ferent effect, by some later action, to the direct consequence of a
simple revocation. If a testator, for instance, coming to the con-
clusion that the legatee in his will is undeserving of his bounty,
contemplates the substitution of some other person as legatee, but
cancels his will before determining who such person shall be, it
would not only be making a will for the testator, if the cancella-
tion were held inoperative, but to make such a will contrary to
the expressed intention of the testator. The testator, by his act
of cancellation, has substituted the heir at law, or it may be a
residuary legatee, for the legatee whose legacy he has cancelled ;
but if the cancellation is inoperative, the legacy will go to the
very person to whom the testator intends it not to iro. „

■' ' _ ^ ^ But not in

Hence American courts will not refuse to give effect America, where

11, ■ 1 .11. . „ ,. tlie act of caQ-

to cancellations made with the intention of making ceiiation is
some other will, provision, or codicil, where the can- '^°°^P'^^'
ceiiation constitutes a complete act by itself.^

The presumption of destruction animo revocandi arises also
when a will, which has been traced to the testator's wiii not found
possession, cannot be found after his death or is deaThpresumed
found torn ; but this presumption may be rebutted *° ^^ revoked.
by evidence showing a contrary or different purpose.^

1 Perrott v. Perrott, 14 East, 423, 438 cident, but with the intention of making
et seq. ; and see cases cited in Wms. on a new will ; Hairston v. Hairston, 30
Ex. [153], note 7i. Miss. 276.

2 Banks v. Banks, 65 Mo. 4-32, 434; 3 Minor v. Guthrie, 4 S. W. R. (Ky.)
Bohanon v. Walcot, 1 How. (Miss.) 336, 179; Minkier v. Minkler, 14 Vt. 125,
339; Semmes t>. Semmes, 7 Har. & J. 127; Beaumont v. Keim, 50 Mo. 28, 29;
388, 390, distinguisiiing between tlie Appling r Eades, 1 Gratt. 286; Holland y.
cancellation of a will under the mis- Ferris, 2 Rradf. 334 ; Weeks v. McBeth,
taken supposition that the testator had 14 Ala. 474 ; Dawson v. Smith, 3 Hou.'st.
made another valid will, and a delibei- 335, 341 ; Legare v. A.<lie, 1 Bay, 464 ;
ate cancellation without mistake or ac- Clark's Will, Tuck. 445, 452; Baptist

92 OP THE REVOCATION OF WILLS. § 48

The destruction of a will by a person other than the testator,
Destruction or without liis knowledge and direction, does not, of
otSof"no^ course, affect the legal validity of such instrument,
effect ^ fortiori^ if the destruction took place after his de-

cease ; 1 but this can be true only if the will can be established in
its original form. If, for instance, a legacy be oblit-

if its original *= ' . , , , . ' .

provisions can cratcd by a straugcr, or inserted by interlineation, or
8 prove . changed in effect or amount, and the original legacy
be known, it may be proved as it originally stood. If made by
the legatee himself, it will avoid the legacy so altered, but it can-
not destroy other bequests, either to such legatee or other persons.^
„ , „ It is enacted by the statutes of some States, that revo-

Proof of testa- •' . ' .

tor's direction catiou, where it is done by the burning, tearing, etc.

if will is torn, , , ,-, • ji j- j_i

or burned, etc. 01 the Will by othcr pcrsous m the presence oi the
y ot ers. tcstator and by his direction, must be proved by at
least two witnesses ; ^ where there is no statutory provision to
such effect, it must clearly appeai* in evidence that the act of can-
cellation, if done by a person other than the testator, was in his
presence, and by his direction.^

It is not essential, however, that the destruction, obliteration,
or cancellation be entire or complete ; if it be as complete as was
in the power of the testator, it is sufficient to operate
suificientto as a revocation.^ Where a testator directs the de-
revo e. gtruction of his will, and delivers it to some person for

this purpose, who fraudulently preserves it, the fraud may be

Church V. Eobbarts, 2 Pa. St. 110 : Fos- able " : Smith v. Fenner, 1 Gall. C. C.

ter's Appeal, 87 Pa. St. 67,75; Scogjjins ?;. 170, 175. See also Malin v. Malin, 1

Turner, 98 N. 0.135; Hamersley y Lock- Wend. 625, 659; Jackson v. Malin, 15

man, 2 Dem. 524, 533 ; Jaques v. Horton, Johns. 293, 297 ; Doane v. Hadlock, 42

76 Ala. 238, 245 ; Bauskett v. Keitt, 22 S. C. Me. 72, 76. The case In re Wilson, 8

187 ; Collyer v. Collyer. 110 N. Y. 481. Wis. 171, 179, apparently contradicting

1 1 Jarm. on Wills, *130, citing Haines this doctrine, by avoiding a will in toio
V. Haines, 2 Vern. 441 ; the destruction because it was altered by the legatee,
in this case consisted in tearing the will will upon examination he found to rest on
into small pieces, which were picked up agreement of counsel, because this point
and sewed together agnin. was not material in their case. Com-

2 " The object is to carry the will into pare the remarks of Cole, J., p. 179, with
effect, and not merely to attend to the those of tiie judge at ni«p?-»/s, p. 177.
merits or demerits of those who claim ^ So in Alabama, Arkansas, Califor-
under it. If any alteration in a will nia, Iowa, and New York.

would avoid it, the executor before pro- * Clingan v. Mitcheltree, 31 Pa. St.

bate miglit, by such alteration, destroy 25. .33. See Dower v. Seeds, 28 VV. Va.

the rights of all third persons, which 113, 138.
would be in the highest degree unreason- * Sweet v. Sweet, 1 Redf 451, 454.

§ 49 PARTIAL REVOCATION BY CANCELLING, ETC. 93

proved by parol ; and if the revocation by parol be authorized \)y
the law, this will constitute a revocation. ^

§ '1 9. Partial Revocation by Cancelling, Obliterating, etc. — A will
may be revoked in part by cancelling or obliterating a portion
thereof, leaving the unoblitcratcd portions in force.^ ,

^ '■ Revocation of

Even where a portion of the will is cut out of it, with apart by ob-
the intention of annulling such part only, the re-
mainder, if enough is left to constitute an intelligible disposi-
tion, is a valid will.^ In some States, however, a different rule is
established by statute.* Thus it is held in Alabama^ that a will
cannot be partially revoked, by a cancellation of the name of one
or more legatees, without codicil, or new signing and attestation.^
So in New York there can be no partial revocation by cancellation.'^
Interlineations do not affect the validity of a will,
whether they be established by new publication and
attestation or not ; ^ but with respect to partial obliterations, if
made with the intention of substituting other words

niTi' ••(■ 1 Dependent

for those cancelled, and such mtention is frustrated, relative can-
the same rule holds good that is applied to cancella-
tions with the intention of making a new will.^ Such cancella-
tions are held to constitute no revocation.^^

It is obvious, however, that the obliteration, cancellation, or
destruction of any essential formal part of a will, without which
such will would be inoperative, constitutes a revoca- Cancellation of
tion of the whole will ; such act is inconsistent with f"rm ^"vokes
any other intention than that of destroying the va- '*^''"^® ^''^•

1 Card V. Grinman, 5 Conn. 164, IfiS; « See Code, 1886, § 1968.

Smiley I'. Gambill, 2 Head, 164; Pryor y. ^ l^w v. Law, 83 Ala. 432, holdinj;:

Coggin, 17 Ga. 444, 448 ; Wiiite v. Casten, the declarations of the testator competent

1 .Jones L. 193; see authorities, sup7-a, p. to sliow that he intended tiie cancellation

89, note 7. to revoke the whole will, but inoperative

■^ Kirkpatrick's Will, 22 N. J. Eq. 463, for any purpose if showing an intention

465, citing numerous English authorities ; to partially revoke.

Cogbill V. Cogbill, 2 Hen. & Munf. 407, ■ Lovell v. Quitman, 88 N. Y. 377, 381,

507 ; Bigelow v. Gillott, 123 Mass. 102, overruling McPherson v. Clark, 3 Bradf.

106; McPherson v. Clark, 3 Bradf. 92, 92.

97, reviewing numerous cases, but over- 8 Dixon's Appeal, 55 Pa. St. 424,

ruled in Lovell v. Quitman, 88 N. Y. 377, 427 ; Doane v. Hadlock, 42 Me. 72, 75 ;

holding that cancellation is not valid un- Wheeler v. Bent, 7 Pick. 61 ; Wells v.

less executed and attested anew ; Bockes, Wells, 4 T. B. Mon. 152, 155.

J., dissenting in Lovell v. Quitman, 25 ^ See ante, § 48.

Hun, 5.S7, 539; Cliinmark's Estate, Myr. ^'^ McPherson v. Clark, 3 Bradf. 92;

128, 129. Short ••. Smith, 4 East,* 419; Jackson v.

3 Brown's Will, 1 B. Mon. 56, 67. Hollnway, 7 Johns. 394, 398; Bethell v.

* See /n/)a, referring to English statute. Moore, 2 Dev. & B. L. 311, 316.

9-4 OF THE REVOCATION OF WILLS. § 49

lidity of tlie instrument in its entirety.'' So the tearing of a
seal from a will, although a seal is not essential to its valid-
ity, is deemed a revocation, because the testator, deeming it essen-
tial, indicated his intention of destroying the will by tearing off
the seal .2 And where the signature is cut out of a will atiimo
revocandi, pasting it into its former place will not revive the will.-^
But drawing a scroll over the signature so as not to obliterate
it nor render it illegible was held in Iowa not to constitute a revo-
cation, unless the cancellation is witnessed in the same manner as
a new will.*

Since all interlineations and additions to a will not contained

in it at the time of execution and attestation depend for their

validity upon being themselves published and attested,

Presumptions j i o

as to interiiii- it is important to ascertam whether they were made
a'aditious. before or after attestation.^ The ordinary presump-
tions in cases of deeds and other instruments are said
not to apply to wills.^ It is held in Pennsylvania, that alterations
in the testator's handwriting are presumed to have been made
before its execution ; or, if afterward, and there be codicils, then
before the execution of the last codicil;^ and in New Hampshire,
that they have been made after execution ; ^ but more usually,
in respect of instruments generally, courts incline to the view of
no presumption, imposing upon the propounder of the instrument
the burden of explaining all suspicious alterations.^

In England, where the statute regulating wills ^^ avoids all
erasures and interlineations not specially signed by the testator
and attested by the witnesses, the presumption is held to be, inde-
pendent of the statute, that erasures and interlineations were
made after execution, and are therefore void unless proved by
some evidence to have been made before.^ ^

1 Evans's Appeal. 58 Pa. St. 238, 244 ; ^ Linnard's Appeal, 93 Pa. St. 313 ;
Semmes v. Semmes, 7 Har. & J. 388, 390 ; Wikoff's Appeal, 15 Pa. St 281.
Woodfill V. Patton, 76 Ind. 575, 583 ; Sue- » Burnhani v. Ayer, 35 N. H. 351, 354.
cession of Miih, 35 La. An. 394, 397 ; ^ North River Meadow Co. v. Shrews-
Goods of Morton, L. R. 12 Prob. D. 141. bury Church, 22 N. J. L. 424 ; Millikin v.

■^ Avery v. Pixley, 4 Mass. 460, 462 ; Martin, 66 111. 13 ; Smith v United States,

and a fortiori where a seal is required ; 2 Wall. 219, 232 ; Bailey v. Taylor, 11

Wiiite's Will, 25 N. J. Eq. 501. Conn. 531, 534.

3 Bell V. Fothergill, L. R. 2 P. & D. i" 1 Vict. c. 26, § 1.

148. 11 Cooper v. Bockett, 10 Jur. 931,

* Gay r. Gay, 60 Iowa, 415. 986; Simmons v. Rudall, 1 Sim. (x. s.)

5 Wilson's Will. 8 Wis. 171. 180. 115, 136 ; Burgoyne v. Showier, 1 Rob.

6 1 Redf. on Wills, 315, pi. 23. 6, 13

§ 50 REVOCATION BY SUBSEQUENT WILL. 95

§ 50. Revocation by Subsequent "Will. — It is lisual to insert in
wills, sometimes even where the testator has made no prior will,
a clause revoking all former wills. But whether there

.... , . J.1 J. Revoking will

be an express revocation or not, it is obvious that a must be exe-
will executed under the formalities prescribed by stat- game formaii-
utc to authorize a valid disposition of the property Jif^'^^^X'^
which it devises or bequeaths must operate to revoke
and annul all previous inconsistent testamentary dispositions.^
And it may hapi)en that a will may effectually revoke a prior
will, although itself be inoperative as a dispositive instrument ; as
where a will executed and attested with the necessary formalities
to bequeath personal estate, but not to devise realty, revokes a
prior will disposing of personal property, and devises real estate ;
such will is sufficient to revoke the former will, but not sufficient
to devise real estate. Or where a testator, having devised prop-
erty to a person, subsequently devises it to another person who is
incapable of taking ; the devise in the latter will must fail, but it
is sufficient to revoke the former devise.^ Or a will may be made
for the sole purpose of revoking a former will.^ It follows from
what lias been said, that, to constitute a sufficient revoking will, it
must be executed and attested with the formalities prescribed by
the statute for the testamentary disposition of the class of prop-
erty disposed of in the former will;^ and an instrument pur-
porting to be a will, containing a revocatory clause, cannot be
offered in evidence as a revocation merely, without probate
thereof.^ Thus a verbal will is insufficient to revoke a written
will, unless the statute authorize the disposition of the subject of
the written will by parol ; and where the statute creates a differ-
ence in the execution and attestation between wills of realty and
of personalty, a will executed with the necessary formalities for
one, but not for the other of these classes, is not sufficient to

1 Ante, § 48 ; Reese v. Probate Court, so as to authorize proof of the intention

9 R. I. 434. of tlie testator to revoke his will : Davis

■2 Hairston v. Hairston, 30 Miss. 276, v. Kin^, 89 N. C. 441.
302; Canfield i>. Crandall, 4 Dem. 111. ^ Stickney v. Hammond, 1-38 Mass.

a 1 Redf. on Wills, 346. 116, 120 ; Sevvall v. Robbins, 139 Mass.

* Caenian v. Van Harke, 33 Kan. .3.33, 104, 1G7. So where the probate of a will

336 In North Carolina it was decided is revoked, declaring it inoperative, such

that the adoption of an illegitimate child will cannot be relied on as a revocation

by proceedings under the statute does of a former will, even by heirs who were

not itself operate to revoke a former will, not parties to the proceedings to set aside

nor can the petition in such proceeding such subsequent will: Dower v. Seeds,

be looked upon as a testamentary paper, 28 W. Va. 113, 133.

96 OF THE REVOCATION OF WILLS. § 51

revoke a will of the other class.^ In England and in some of
the American States this principle is enacted by statute.^

What has been said of wills has self-evidently full application
to codicils,^ An unexecuted codicil has no more effect to revoke
a duly executed will, than an unexecuted will could have ;* and a
properly executed codicil revokes so much of previous wills as is
inconsistent with the dispositions made in the codicil.''

§ 51. Effect of Subsequent upon Prior Wills. — A will or codi-
cil containing a revocatory clause sufficiently attested, together
Will mav be "^^'i^li ^^^w testamentary dispositions, revokes the prior
valid to revoke will, whether its owu dispositious are valid or not;^

and invalid as ™ . ,

to new disposi- if not Sufficiently attested as a revoking will, but valid
as to some or all of its testamentary dispositions, it
revokes all former dispositions pro tanto ; "^ but if its revocatory
clause be valid, and all other dispositions invalid, its effect will
be to render the testator intestate, as if he had made no will at
all.^ But where the principle of dependent relative revocation is
applicable,^ that is, if the revocation is conditional, dependent
upon the efficacy of the attempted new disposition, and that fails,
the revocation also fails, leaving the prior will in full force. ^^ But
it should be remembered that this principle does not apply where
the new devise fails, not from the infirmity of the instrument,
but from the incapacity of the devisee ; ^^ nor where the testator
is aware of the insufficiency of the new disposition.^^

1 Reid V. Borland, 14 Mass. 208; Hoi- 158, 164 ; the specific devise in a codicil
lingshead v. Sturgis, 21 La. An. 450, hold- revokes a power to sell the same land
ing, as many of the cases do, that the act conferred by the will : Derby v. Derby,
by which a testamentary disposition is 4 R. I. 414, 429.

revoked must be made in one of tlie ^ Newton v. Newton, 12 Ir. Ch. 118,

forms prescribed for testaments, and 124, 130 ; Brown v. Brown, 8 El. & Bl.

clothed with the same formalities; Vin- 875,885. See Biggs t?. Angus, 3 Dem. 93.

ing V. Hall, 40 Miss 83, 107; Will of 9 yl»te, § 48.

Ladd, 60 Wis. 187 ; Barry v. Brown, 2 '^'^ " The purpose to revoke being con-

Dem. .309. sidered to be not a distinct independent

2 1 Vict. c. 26, § 22. intention, but subservient to the purpose

3 See ante, § 47. of making a new disposition of the prop-
* Heise v. Heise, 31 Pa. St. 246, 249 ; erty ; the testator meaning to do the one

Magoohan's Appeal, 117 Pa. St. 238. so far only as he succeeds in doinj; the

5 Jones V. Earle, 1 Gill, 395, 400; other": 1 Jarm. on Wills, *169 ; Barks-
Boyle V. Parker, 3 Md. Ch. 42, 44 ; Rei- dale v. Barksdale, 12 Leigh, 535, 540.
chard's Appeal, 116 Pa. St. 2.32. ^ 1 Jarm. on Wills, *169, citing Eng-

6 Smith V. McChesney, 15 N. J. Eq. lish cases; also Quinn v. Butler, L. R.
359, .362 ; Cunningham v. Somerville, 36 6 Eq Cas. 225, 227 ; Goods of Gentry,
N. W. (Minn.) 269. L. R. 3 P. & D. 80, 83.

'' Boudinot V. Bradford, 2 Dall. 266, 12 See ante, § 48.
268; Nelson v. McGiffert, 8 Barb. Ch.

§ 51 EFFECT OF SUBSEQUENT UPON PKIOR WILLS. 97

The familiar quotation from Swinburne, that no man can die
with two testaments,! jg ^q ]jq understood as applying to the
conclusiveness of the last testamentary dispositions Last will may
made by the testator; for "any number of instru- ^^"ccSfve'ini"
mcnts, whatever be their relative date, or in whatever sfuments.
form they may be (so as they be all clearly testamentary), may
be admitted to probate as together containing the last will of
the deceased." ^ A subsequent will revokes only so much of a
former will as is inconsistent with the last instrument;^ if, there-
fore, the later or latest will dispose of the whole of a testator's
estate, all former wills arc thereby revoked ; "* but if, in the ab-
sence of an express revocation, a partial disposition of the estate
is thereby made, consistent with the dispositions made in the
prior will or wills, or with a portion of them, they may both or
all stand as the last will of the testator, to the extent to which
the latter do not exclude the former.° And where a second will
appoints a fresh executor, and the wills are not inconsistent, pro-
bate may be granted to both executors.^ The old English cases
are of little value as authority on this point, because the appoint-
ment of an executor there constituted a disposition of the whole
of the personal property of the testator, the residue going to the
executor appointed if not otherwise disposed of ; and even under
the statutes giving the residue to the next of kin in the absence of
its testamentary disposition,' it belongs to the executor when there
are no next of kin, and the testator makes no disposition of it.^

1 " Concerning the making of a latter v. Gilbert, 9 Moo. P. C. 131, as overruling
testament, so large and ample is the liberty Plenty v West, 1 Rob. Ecc. 264, and
of making testaments, that a man may, similar cases (holding that the words
as oft as he will make a new testament " last will " in a testamentary paper
even until the last breath ; neither is there necessarily import a revocation of pre-
any cautel under the sun to prevent this vious instruments), and pronouncing for
liberty: but no man can die with two the validity of two wills offered for pro
testaments, and therefore the last and bate ; Goods of Graham, 3 Sw. & Tr. 69,
newest is of force : so that if there were 71 ; Bartholomew's Appeal, 75 Pa. St.
a thousand testaments, the last of all is 169, 173 ; Succession of Mercer, 28 La.
the best of all, and raaketh void the An. 564.

former": Swinb. pt. 7, s. 14, pi. 1. ^ Goods of Leese, 2 Sw. & Tr. 442,

2 Wms. Ex. [162]. 444.

8 Brant v. Willson, 8 Cow. 56; Picker- * 11 Geo. IV. and 1 Will. IV. c. 40.

ing f. Langdcui, 22 Me. 413, 426. » Wms. Ex. [1477], citing Taylor u.

4 Simmons v. Simmons, 26 Barb. 68, Haygarth, 14 Sim. 8, 15 (but in this case

75; In re Fisher, 4 Wis. 254,264. the Chancellor directed the residue of

6 Price V. Maxwell, 28 Pa. St. 23, 38 ; personal property to vest in the crown in

Lemage v. Goodban, L. U. 1 P. & D. 57, the absence of next of kin, giving to the

61, in which Sir J. P. Wilde cites Cutto executors the proceeds of sale of real

VOL. I. — 7

98 OF THE KEVOCATION OF WILLS. § 51

Every will, therefore, in which an executor was appointed, consti-
tuted a complete disposition of the testator's personal property.

The rule, in America at least, is clear, that it is the duty of
courts to give effect to every part of every will of the testator, if
the several dispositions can he reconciled ; the rule of construc-
tion being substantially the same where there arc several wills to
be harmonized, as where there are several clauses in the same
will, or in a will and codicils. Subsequent wills, indeed, perform
the office of codicils.^

It is held that the revocation of a will may be proved by prov-
ing the execution of a subsequent will by the testator, which is
Revocation by lost, and has not been, therefore, admitted to pro-
^v'iif not'^pro- bate.^ This rule is necessarily confined to cases where
duced. ^|jg subsequent will either expressly revokes the for-

mer, or contains an inconsistent disposition of the whole estate,
as by appointment of an executor and residuary legatee ; ^ and
the evidence to establish its execution, as well as its inconsist-
ency with the former will, should be clear and satisfactory,
and, particularly if by parol, it must be stringent and conclusive.*
There can be no revocation by a later will of which the con-
tents are unknown ; the words " this is my last will " are held
not to import an inconsistency of disposition between the two
instruments.^

As an insufficiently attested codicil or later will cannot operate
as a revocation of a valid disposition, so a former will or part of
Subsequent be- ^ ^ill canuot be dccmcd revoked by a subsequent be-
ciem^i "wonTed ^^^^^ ^^ imperfectly worded as not to admit of cer-
no revocation, taiuty of its meaning;^ but a codicil directing that
in a certain contingency the first, otherwise the last, of two prior

estate); Russell v. Clowes, 2 Coll. 648, Havard y. Davis, 2 Bin 406,417; and see

and other autliorities. as to proof of lost wills, post, § 221; also

1 Price V. Maxwell, 28 Pa. St, 23, 38. Steele v Price, 5 B. Mon. 58 ; Kearns v

2 In re Cunningham, 36 N. W. R. 269 ; Kearns, 4 Harr. 83; Southworth v Adams,
see cases infra. 11 Biss, 256, 262.

3 Wms. Ex. [161], citing Helyar ik Hel- ^ Cutto v. Gilbert, supra^ reversing the
yar, 1 Cas. Temp. Lee, 472; Jones v. doctrine annoimced in Plenty?'. West, 1
Murphy, 8 Watts & S. 275, 291, 295; Rob. Ecc. 264 ; Hylton ?■. Hylton, 1 Gratt,
Brown v. Brown, 8 El. & Bl. 876, 885 ; 161, 165 ; Nelson v. McGiffert, 3 Barb. Ch.
Legare v. Ashe, 1 Bay, 464, 465 ; Dawson 158, 164.

V. Smith, 3Houst. 335,337,339; Caeman 6 i Redf. on Wills, 356, pi. 23, citing

V. Van Harke, 33 Kan. 333, 336. Goblet v. Beechey, 2 Russ. & Myl. 624;

1 Cutto V. Gilbert, 9 Moo. P. C. 131, Baldwin v. Baldwin, 22 Beav. 413.
140 ; 1 Redf. on Wills, 348, pi. 9, citing

§ o2 EEVIVAL BY REVOCATION OF A LATER WILL. 99

wills should take effect, Avas held valid, and upon the happening
of the contingency the first will and the codicil took effect
together.! Where the validity of a later will revoking a former
one is denied by the projjonent of the first will, on the ground
of incapacity in the testator, his declarations that he wished the
former will to stand are incompetent.^

S 52. Revival of a Prior by the Revocation of a Later Will. — It
is a much disputed question whether the revocation of a revoking
will restored the validity of the will first revoked. It Revocation of
is so asserted upon the ground that wills, being ambu- a revoking will,
latory in their nature, cannot take effect before the death of the
testator, and hence the revocation is itself ambulatory, and may be
cancelled before it becomes operative.^ In the common ^^,^5 ^^
law courts of England it was so held as an absolute England,
proposition, excluding all question of intention, that the former will
shall revive,* while the ecclesiastical courts inclined to a different
doctrine, holding that the presumption is against the revival of
the prior will, and throwing the onus on the party setting it up
to rebut this presumption.^ A third view was finally adopted,
according to which it is regarded as a question of intention, to be
collected from all the circumstances of the case, unaided and
unembarrassed by any legal presumption,^ until the question Avas
made the subject of parliamentary action in the new Wills Act,"
providing that no will or codicil, or any part thereof, which shall
be in any manner revoked, shall be revived otherwise than by re-
execution, or by a codicil executed as required by the act, and
showing an intention to revive the same. The language of this
statute, says Williams, is not calculated to exclude all contro-
versy on the subject.^

1 Bradish v. McClellan, 100 Pa. St. 607. * Wms. Ex. [178], citing Gooclright v.

2 Wurzell V. Beckman, 52 Mich. 478. Glazier, 4 Burr. 2512, Harwood r. Good-
8 1 Redf. on Wilis, 308, pi. 12, citing right,! Cowp. 87, 91,and Moored. Moore,

English cases and Colvin v. Warford, "20 1 Pliillim. 406, 419.

Md. 357. See Peck's Appeal, 50 Conn. & Wms. Ex. [179], citing Moore v.

562, 565, drawing the distinction between Moore, supra, and the cases there men-

the revocatory effect of a will which, tioned.

being operative as a written declaration, <^ lb., citing Usticlce v. Bawden, 2
accomplishes the revocation as such, at Add. 116; but see Hooton v. Head, 3
once, and is not itself ambulatory or IMiillim. 26, .32 ; Moore v. De La Torre,
dependent upon the testator's death for 1 Phillim. 375 ; Wilson v. Wilson, 3 Phil-
its validity, and one which, to become lim. 543, 554.
valid, must itself be a will or codicil, ex- ' 1 Vict. c. 26, § 22.
ecuted with all the formalities required « 1 Wms. Ex. [181]; " Because it was
for such instruments. put by Lord Mansfield, in Goodright v.

100

OF THE REVOCATION OF WILLS.

§52

The American States are arraigned on different sides of the
question. Chancellor Kent does not give a decided opinion ;i but
„ , . Judue Rcdiield says, •■' The general rule seems to be

KUles 111 ~ J } a

America. firmly established from an early day, that a later will

revoked will not prevent an earlier and inconsistent one from
remaining in force ; and it makes no difference whether the later
will contained an express clause of revocation or not."^ His
authorities, however, are all English, except the case of Colvin v.
Warford, from Maryland.^ Decisions to the same effect in other
States are not wanting ;* nor such as hold the contrary doctrine.^
In Massachusetts it is held, as in England before the act of 1 Vict.
c. 26, that it is a question of intention ; and the oral declara-
tions of the testator, after the cancelling of a will, are held ad-
missible to show whether or not he intended to revive an earlier
will.^ So in Tennessee.^

A number of States have incorporated in their statutes the pro-
visions of the English statute expressly providing that no will

Glazier, that the second will is ambula-
tory till the death of the testator. If he
lets it stand till he dies, it is liis will; if
he does not, it is not his will, and has no ef-
fect, no operation ; it is no will at all, being
cancelled before his death. If, therefore,
such cancellation totally prevents its oper-
ation, it may be argued that the previous
will remains valid, because it has not
been in any maimer revoked, inasmuch
as the subsequent will in its ambulatory
state has no effect whatever." See i7ifra,
p. 101, n. 2.

1 " If the first will be not actually
cancelled, or destroyed, or expressly re-
voked, on making a second, and the
second will be afterward cancelled, the
first will is said to be revived " : 4 Kent
Comm. 531.

2 1 Eedf. on Wills, 308, pi. 12.

3 20 Md. 357.

* As in Kentucky : Linginfetter i\ Lin-
ginfetter, Hardin, 119 ; Maryland : Colvin
V. Warford, supra ; New Jersey : Randall
V. Beatty, 31 N. J. Eq. 643, 645 ; North
Carolina : (intimated, but not decided in)
Marsh v. Marsh, 3 Jones L. 77, 78 ; Penn-
sylvania : Flintham v. Bradford, 10 Pa.
St. 82, 01 ; Rudy r. Ulrich, 69 Pa. St.
177, 182 ; South Carolina : Taylor v.
Taylor, 2 Nott & McC. 482.

5 In Connecticut : James v. Marvin, 3
Conn. 576. But see Peck's Appeal, 50
Conn. 562, in which the principle laid
down in James v. Marvin is attributed to
the statute authorizing the revocation of
a will by a writing not executed with the
formalities of a will ; and holding that
where the statute requires the revocation
(other than by burning, cancelling, tear-
ing, or obliterating) to be by "a later
will or codicil," such later will is neces-
sarily ambulatory, and although it con-
tain a clause expressly revoking former
wills, must take effect as a will before
the revoking clause can be operative "
(p. 565). The destruction or revocation
of the second will would therefore neces-
sarily revive, or rather leave in force, the
first. Georgia : Lively v. Harwell, 29
Ga. 509, 514 ; Barksdale v. Hopkins, 28
Ga. 332, 340; Michigan: Scott v. Fink,
45 Mich. 241, 244; Stevens v. Hope, 52
Mich. 65, 69 ; Mississippi : Bohannon v.
Walcott, 1 How. (Miss.) 336, 339; New
York : Biggs v. Angus, 3 Dem 93 ; Vir-
ginia : Rudisill v. Bodes, 29 Gratt. 147.

6 Pickens V. Davis, 134 Mass. 252 ;
Williams v. Williams, 142 Mass. 515.

T McClure v. McClure, 6 Southw. R.
44, 46.

§ 53 INCONSISTENT DISPOSITION OF TESTAMENTARY GIFT. 101

revoked by a later will shall be revived by the destruc- g^^^^^^^g
tioii or revocation of the later will alone.^ Under these
statutes it was held, in England, that there is no way of reviving
a will expressly revoked by a later will but that of re-execution,
(the destruction or revocation of the revoking instrument does
not constitute a re-execution, and is therefore insufficient,^) and
in some of the American States, that it may be accomplished by
an expressed intention to that effect.^ In New York a distinc-
tion is drawn between an inconsistent codicil, revoking part of the
Avill by implication, and the revocation by will : the cancellation
of the inconsistent codicil leaves the will in force, or revives the
part revoked by implication, while the destruction of a revoking
will is not sufficient to revive the will revoked.*

A difficulty is sometimes experienced in determining the revo-
catory effect upon intermediate codicils or wills of a later codicil,
republishing a former will. This question is one which must be
determined by the intention of the testator, to be gathered from all
the circumstances accessible to the judge of probate;^ the indul-
gence in artificial presumptions, such as that, where a testator by
a codicil confirms his will, the will together with all previous cod-
icils is taken to be affirmed, as is in some cases asserted,^ — or that
the omission to mention a particular codicil in a clause of repub-
lication, in which prior codicils are mentioned, constitutes a revo-
cation of the codicil omitted, as has been held in others,'' — seems
better calculated to mislead than to assist in arriving at the testa-
tor's purpose.^

§ 53. Revocation by Inconsistent Disposition of the Testamentary-
Gift. — A will once executed with the formalities requisite to give

1 For instance, in Alabama, Arkansas, 235; In re De La Saussaj-e, L. R. 3 P. &
California, Connecticut, Georgia, Indi- D. 42; see also Wade v. Nazer, 1 Rob.
ana, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Nevada, Eccl. 627, 632 ; Gordon v. Lord Reay, 5
New York, Ohio, Virginia, and West Sim. 274, 280; Upfill i;. Marsliall, 3 Curt.
Virginia. Eccl. 630, 640.

2 Major r. Williams, 3 Curt. 432, 434. -< Wikoff's Appeal, 15 Pa. St. 281,
8 Beaumont v. Keim, 50 Mo. 28, 20 ; 201 ; Neff 's Appeal, 48 Pa. St. 501 ; see

Rudisill V. Rodes, 29 Gratt. 147, 148 ; also Burton v. Newbery, L. R. 1 Ch. D.

Simmons v. Simmons, 26 Barb. 68, 76. 234, 240 ; Farrar v. St. Catharine's Col-

* In re Simpson, 56 How. Pr. 125, lege, L. R. 16 Eq. 19, 23; In re Reynolds,

131. L. R. 3 Pr. & D. 35; In re Hastings, 26

5 Wikoff 's Appeal, 15 Pa. St., 281, ap- L. T. R. (n. s.) 715.

proving Smith v. Cunningham, 1 Add. ^ See, on this subject, post, § 56, on

448, 455. the republication of wills.

6 Green v. Tribe, L. R. 9 Ch. D. 281,

102 OF THE REVOCATION OF WILLS. § 53

r, c it validity remains in force until revoked by act of

Conveyance of -^ •'

subject of gift the testator.^ The act of revocation, however, may

operates revo- n , i • i i i •

cation although be performed by the testator without his conscious
iftfetimrof'" intention to that effect, if he does something from
testator. which the law presumes, or infers, the animum re-

vocandi. Such acts, constituting an implied revocation, may
consist of a disposition of property devised or bequeathed in a
manner inconsistent with the testamentary disposition. At the
common law and under early English statutes the devise of such
land only passed under the will as the testator owned at the time
of making it,^ and continued to own until his death ; if, therefore,
a testator aliened the devised land, although he subsequently
acquired a new freehold interest therein, yet the devise was void.^
In equity a valid agreement or covenant to convey operates as a
revocation of a former devise of the same estate, as effectually as
an executed conveyance at law.^

But the law has been changed, in this respect, both in England
and in nearly all of the American States. The English Statute
o. . . of Wills ^ provides that no conveyance of real estate

Statutory pro- ^ •'

visions: Will made after the execution of a will, or other act in re-
operates upon ,■ £
ail property in latiou to such estate, shall prevent the operation oi

Unirof'testa- the will upou such portion of the estate as the testa-
tor's death. ^^^. ^^^ Y^^^Q power to dispose of at his death,*^ and
provisions to the same effect, or validating the devise of lands
acquired after the will was made, are contained in the statutes of
most States, which will be enumerated in connection with the
subject of construing wills.''

The conveyance of real estate after a devise thereof operates,

1 Wms. on Ex. [187], quoting Swin- ^ Real estate acquired by the tes-

burne, pt. 7, § 15, pi. 2 : "All these things tator after making his will goes to the

concurring, viz., the long time, the in- heir. Coulson v. Holmes, 5 Sawy. 279,

crease of the testator's wealth, and the 281 ; Jackson v. Potter, 9 Johns. 312,

prejudice of such as are to have the 314.

administration of the testator's goods, ^ \ jarm. on Wills, *147. See post,

the testament is not presumed to be § 419, on the change produced by stat-

revoked. And albeit the testament be utes in this respect.
made in time of sickness, and peril of * Although the estate reverts by the

death, when the testator does not hope same instrument: Walton v. Walton, 7

for life, and afterward the testator re- Johns. Ch. 258, 268, citing English au-

cover health, yet is not the testament thorities.
revoked by such recovery : or albeit the ^ 1 Vict, c 26, § 23

testator make his testament by reason ^ 1 Redf on Wills, 333, pi. 2.

of some great journey, yet it is not ^ Post, § 419,

revoked by the return of the testator."

§ 53 INCONSISTENT DlSrOSITlON OF TESTAMENTARY GIFT. 103

both at common law and under the statutes, as a revocation of
the devise to the extent of the estate conveyed.^ Purchase
Where tlie estate devised is contracted to be con- devisedlui"'^
veycd, and the purchase money remains unpaid, either tertato"r'to be
wholly or in part, it i^oes to the personal representa- ^oid goes to

. '■ '■ personal repre-

tive, and not to the devisee, because under the doctrine sentative.
of equitable conversion the purchaser is regarded as a trustee
of the purchase money for the vendor.^ In this latter respect,
however, provision is made in many of the American States that
the purchase money shall 0:0 to the devisee ; thus, by ,, ,

1 <• » 1 9*1 A \ Unless other-

the statutes of Alabama,*^ Arkansas,* California,'^ wise provided
Indiana,^ Kansas," Missouri,^ Nevada,^ New York,^*^ "
Ohio,^^ and Oregon,^^ [^ [^ enacted substantially that a contract or
bond for the conveyance of real estate previously devised shall
not be deemed a revocation of the devise, unless such intention
shall clearly appear, but such property shall pass to the devisee
subject to the right of the purchaser to enforce specific perform-
ance of the contract of sale to the same extent as it would be
subject to as against the heirs ; and all purchase money unpaid at

1 Webster v. Webster, 105 Mass. 538,
542 ; Hawes v. Humplirey, 9 Pick. 350,
361 (citing Toller, 19; Clarke r. Berkeley,
2 Vern. 720 ; Coke v. Bullock, Cro. Jac.
49; 1 Roll. Abr. 61G; Harkness v. Bailey,
Free. Ch. 514; Tucker v. Thurstan, 17
Ves. 131) ; see also Terry i'. Edminster,
reported in 9 Pick. 355, note, citing Viner,
Devise, R. 6 ; Emery v. Union Society,
79 Me. 334, holding tliat the proceeds of
the sale in such case do not go to the
devisee of the land conveyed, but to the
residuum, p. 342 ; Cozzens i\ Jamison,
12 Mo. App. 452, 457. But the sworn
statement of the person claiming to be
the grantee in such conveyance, unsup-
ported by other evidence, is not sufficient
to deprive the devisee of his interest, if
the deed is lost and has never been re-
corded : Napton v. Leaton, 71 Mo. 358,
364. The conveyance by the testator of
land devised in a will also bequeathing
personalty does not affect the legacy :
Warren v. Ta3'lor, 56 Iowa, 182 ; nor
does the conveyance of a part of the
land devised affect the validity of the
devise of the remainder . Swails v.

Swails, 98 Ind. 511, 513; Hoitt v. Hoitt,
63 N. H. 475, 497. "A specific devise
of real estate can only be revoked by
the destruction of the will or the execu-
tion of another, or by alienation of the
estate during the testator's life": Burn-
ham V. Comfort, 108 N. Y. 535.

'^ Farrar v. Winterton, 5 Beav. 1, 8 ;
Moor V. Raisbeck, 12 Sim. 123, 138;
Gale V. Gale, 21 Beav. 349, 353; 1 Redf.
on Wills, *335, pi. 7 ; Donohoo v. Lea, 1
Swan, 119, 121.

3 Code, 1886, § 1958. It is held, under
this statute, that not only the unpaid
purchase money, but also the right to
vacate a deed obtained by fraud, passes
to the devisee : Powell v. Powell, 30 Ala.
697, 704.

< Dig. 1884, § 6497.

5 Civ. Code, § 1301.

6 Rev. St. 1881, § 2563.

^ Comp. L. 1885, § 6599 et seq.

8 Rev. St. 1879, §'.3966.

9 Comp. L. 1873, § 823.

1" 3 Banks & Bro., p. 2286, § 45.
" Rev. St. 1880, § 5954.
1- Code, 1887, § 3073.

104 OF THE REVOCATION OF WILLS. § 54

the time of the testator's death goes to the devisee, and may be
recovered by him from the executor if paid to him.

A similar provision exists in many States touching charges or
incumbrances by the testator upon devised real estate, which are
declared not to constitute revocations of the devise, unless it ap-
pear from the will or the instrument creating the charge to be so
intended ; ^ but the consideration of this subject, as well as that of
the ademption of legacies in the testator's lifetime, will be more
appropriately taken up in connection with the effect of legacies
and marshalling of assets.^

Where property is held by a trustee, with power in the cestui
Will of a cestui 5'Me trust to bequeath the same by will, the bequest of
r"vokeTby°act ^^^^^ property is not revoked by the investment of
of the trustee. ^\^q game in real estate, subsequent to the date of the
will, although the testatrix and her legatee, who is also her hus-
band, occupy the same until she dies.

§ 54. Revocation by Marriage. — At common law, the marriage
of a feme sole works the revocation of any will previously made
,, . - by her, although she survive her husband,^ and al-

Marriage of a •' ' *=> '

feme sole testa- thougli the liusbaud, at the time of her marriage,

trix revokes i i i ^c i -n ^i

her will at agreed that the marriage should not anect the will.*
The rule does not necessarily apply to a will made by
a feme sole, and operating as an appointment under a power to
declare uses.^

As early as 1682 the rule of the civil law,'^ that where a man
made his will, and afterward married and had issue, and died

1 The property in such cases passes dies before his wife without having ex-
to the devisee subject to tlie incura- ercised liis marital riglits respecting the
brance: so provided in Alabama, Arkan- property disposed of by the will, its va-
sas, California, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, hdity is thereby restored: Morton v.
Nevada, New York, Ohio, and Oregon. Onion, 45 Vt. 145, 152. And so where

2 Post, § 450. See also, as to the ex- the husband acquires no right over the
oneration of such incumbrances, post, wife's property by marriage, the rule
§§ 494, 497. ceases with its reason : In re TuUer, 79

3 The reason of this rule is said to III. 99, 101 ; Fellows v. Allen, 60 N. H.
rest on the disability created by the gov- 4o9, 442 ; Webb v. Jones, 36 N. J. Eq.
erture to dispose of the property devised 163 ; Noyes v. Southworth, 55 Mich. 173.
or bequeathed, whereby the ambulatory * Carey's Estate, 49 Vt. 236, 244.
quality of the will — one of its essen- 5 IJarm. *122 ; 1 Wms. [192] ; 1 Redf.
tial features — is destroyed : Hodsden v. on Wills, 294 e^ se^.

Lloyd, 2 Bro. Ch. R. 534, 544 ; Morey v. ^ 1 Redf. on Wills, 294, citing Just.

Sohier, 63 N. H. 507, 510 ; it would fol- Inst. lib. 2, cap. 13, § 5.
low from this view, that, if the husband

§ 54 REVOCATION BY MARRIAGE. 105

without cxi)rcssly revoking his will, leaving issue and jiarria^e and
wife uni)rovided for, this should be considered as an birth of issue

I ' 1 • I revokes will

implied revocation of his will, was introduced into the of testator at
courts of England,! and subsequently adopted in the
common law courts.^ Marriage alone of a testator, apart from
the existence of issue subsequent to the making of the will, was
not considered as having the effect of revoking it.^ The rule in-
cludes not only testators unmarried at the time of making the
will ; it also applies to the case of one whose wife subsequently
dies, but who marries again, and has issue of his subsequent mar-
riage.^ But it has been held that the birth of a child alone does
not revoke a will made after marriage, since a married man must
be supposed to contcmi)latc such event; and that the circum-
stance that the testator left his wife enceinte without knowing it,
did not impart to the posthumous birth any revoking effect.^ But
the birth of issue, without subsequent marriage, in conjunction
with other alterations in the testator's circumstances, has been
held sufficient to establish an implied revocation of the will.^

It was the source of considerable dissension between the ecclesi-
astical and common law courts, whether the presumption of revo-
cation rested upon the implied intention of the testator to meet
the duties devolving on him from the new state of circumstances,
or upon a rule of law tacitly annexed to the execution of the will,
resulting in a revocation upon marriage and birth of issue inde-
pendently of his intention. The latter view was announced in
the case of Marston v. Roe," by all the judges of England (except
Lord Penman, who was absent), and Williams says that there
seems to be no doubt that the principle of this case would in

1 Overbury v. Overbury, 2 Sliow. 242. law bad made for the wife a provision

2 1 Wms. [192] ; 1 Jarm. *123 ; 1 independently of the act of tlie husband,
Redf. on Wills, 293, pi 2 ; Wilcox r. by means of dower " : 1 Jarm. *123.
Rootes, 1 Wash. (Va.) 140; Brush r. Wil- •* 1 Redf. on Wills, 293, pi. 2, citing
kins, 4 Johns. Ch. 50G, 510 ; Bloomer v. Christopher v. Ciiristopher, Dick. 445,
Bloomer, 2 Bradf. 339, 345. See the case also cited in 4 Burr. 2182; Baldwin v.
of Johnston v. Johnston, 1 Phillim. 447, Sprigiis, (55 Md. 373, 379.

468, in which Sir John Nicholl reviews ^ i Jarm. *122, citing Doe v. Barford,

the origin of the rule, and the history of 4 M. & Sel. 10. But the rule of the

its adoption in England, reaching the con- civil law was that the birth of a child,

elusion that subsequent marriage is not not foreseen by the testator, operated as

an essential ingredient in the circumstan- a revocation of the entire testament :

ces raising the presumption of revoca- Bloomer v. Bloomer, 2 Bradf. 339, 344.

tion. And it seems that such was the ^ Delafield v. Parish, 1 Redf. 1, 106;

civil law : supra, p. 104, note 7. Sherry v. Lozier, 1 Bradf 437, 453. .

3 " On the ground, probably, that the "^ 8 Ad. & El. 14, 54.

106 OF THE REVOCATION OF WILLS. § 54

future be applied for the decision of cases of this description in
the ecclesiastical as well as the temporal courts.^ The impor-
tance of the distinction arises out of the consequence that in the
former case evidence was admissible in support of the will to
rebut the presumed intention,^ while in the latter it was finally
settled that no evidence of the testator's intention that his will
should not be revoked was admissible to rebut the presumption of
the law.^

Marriage and the birth of issue do not at common law produce
revocation of a will, if provision be made for the wife and chil-

^ , . dren by the will itself, or, it is conceived, by settle-
But marriage •' ^ ' ' _ .

and issue pro- mcut cxccutcd previously to the will. But it follows
tion if child be from the doctriuc that revocation is presumed by the
piovi e or. j^^ from marriage and the birth of issue, that a pro-
vision for wife and children under a settlement executed after the
will cannot prevent revocation, as it might have done if the ques-
tion had been one merely of intention.^ Nor is provision for
the wife alone sufficient, though made before the will ; nor, per-
haps, a provision for children alone, though made before the will ;
it seems that the exception is confined to a case where both wife
and children are provided for.^

Several dicta ^ intimate the opinion that revocation does not
take place where the will disposes of less than the whole estate ;
but it has never been so decided, and, considering that the inquiry
is not what the testator intended, but whether the wife and chil-
dren be in fact provided for, it seems that revocation would in all
cases follow where there is no actual provision, although there
might be an intended or professed one.''

1 Wms. Ex. [195], citing Israeli v. 2 Hagg. Eccl. 561, 564; Ex parte Ilches-
Rodon, 2 Moore P. C. 51, 63, 64 ; Walker ter, 7 Ves. 848, 365.

V. Walker, 2 Curt. 854 ; Matson v. Ma- ^ x Jarm. *124, citing Marston v. Fox,

grath, 1 Robert 680. supra, and Kenebel v. Scrafton, 2 East,

2 Brush V. W^ilkins, 4 Johns. Ch. 506, 530, 541.

510, reviewing the English authorities; ^ By Lord Mansfield in Brady i'. Cubit,

Yerby v. Yerby, 3 Call, 3.34, 338 et seq. ; 1 Doug. 31, 39; Lord EUenborough, in

Havens v. Van Den Burgh, 1 Denio, Kenebel v. Scrafton, 2 East, 541 ; and

27, 32. Tindal, C. J., in Marston v. Roe, 8 Ad.

3 Marston v. Roe, 8 Ad. & El. mfra; & El. 57.

Sherry v. Lozier, 1 Bradf. 437, 453 ; "^ 1 Jarm. *125. So property acquired

Baldwin v. Spriggs, 65 Md. 373; Nutt v. after the execution of the will, and which

Norton, 142 Mass. 242, 245. is unaffected thereby, is not a provision

* 1 Jarm. *r24, citing Israelii-. Rodon, for the afterborn children, so as to pre-

2 Moo. P. C. 51, as overruling Talbot vent revocation: Baldwin v. Spriggs, 65

V. Talbot, 1 Hagg. 705 ; Johnson v. Wells, Md. 373.

§ 55 REVOCATION BY MARRIAGE. 107

A will once revoked by marriage and the ])irth of issue is not
revived by the death of the child or children in the lifetime of
the testator.^

§ 55. Revocation by Marriage and Birth of Issue under English
and American Statutes. — The question of implied revocation by a
change in the condition or circumstances of the testa-

~ _ Uimer the

tor is now determined by statute, both in England En^'iisii stat-

„ , , . r>. . mi -n T 1 lite of Wills.

and in most of the American States, ihe Lnghsh
statute of 1837 provides, in this respect, " that every will made
by a man or woman shall be revoked by his or her marriage,"
except a will made in exercise of a power of appointment. (§ 18.)
And " that no will shall be revoked by any presumption of an
intention on the ground of an alteration in circumstances." (§ 19.)
And " no will or codicil, or any part thereof, shall be revoked
otherwise than as aforesaid" (by marriage), "or by another will
or codicil executed in manner hereinbefore required, or by some
writing declaring an intention to revoke the same, and executed
in the manner in which a will is hereinbefore required to be
executed, or by the burning, tearing, or otherwise destroying the
same by the testator, or by some person in his presence and by
his direction, with the intention to revoke the same." (§ 20.)

The American statutes vary greatly on this point. In Conneeti-
cut,2 Georgia,^ Illinois,'* Kentucky ,5 North Carolina,'^ Rhode Island,"

1 1 Jarm. *126, relying on Helyar v. tator disposing of the whole of his estate

Helyar, cited in 1 Pliillim. 413; Sullivan without making provision in contempla-

V. Sullivan, cited in 1 Pliillim. 343 ; Emer- tion of the relations arising out of it,

eon V. Boville, cited in 1 Phillim. 324. because under the law of Illinois husband

■^ Since 1885, the act not being retro- and wife inherited from each other in

spective : Goodsell's Appeal, 55 Conn. 171. default of children : American Board v.

3 Code, 1882, § 2477. The language Nelson, 72 III. 564, affirming Tyler v.
is : " In all cases tiie marriage of a testa- Tyler, 19 III. 151, and affirmed in Duryea
tor, or the birth of a child to him, subse- v. Duryea, 85 111. 41, 50. Since the act of
quent to the making of a will, in which 1872, marriage, whether of a man or wo-
no provision is made in contemplation of man, operates per se as a revocation of
such an event, shall be a revocation of a prior will : McAnnulty v. McAnnulty,
the will." This is held to mean that the 120 111. 26.
provision is made by the will; the pro- ° Gen. St. 1887, ch. 113, § 9.
vision for the wife or child otherwise than ^ Code, 1883, § 2177.
by the will lias nothing to do with the ■ Pub. St. 1882, p. 471, § 6. Tlie Ian-
question : Deupree v. Deupree, 45 Ga. guagc of the statute is : " No devise . . .
414, 439. shall be revocable otherwise than by a

* St. & Curt. St. 1885, p. 883, par. 10. marriage of the testator subsequent to the

In this State it had been lield, before the date thereof, or," etc. This is held to

enactment of this statute, that marriage mean, that the acts and instruments speci-

alone revoked the previous will of a tes- fied shall be competent to revoke a will,

108 OF THE REVOCATION OF WILLS. § 55

Under Amcri- Virginia,^ and West Virginia,2 the marriage of a
can statutes. TcanTi ov womaii is declared to revoke a previous
will made by him or her; in Alabama,^ Arkansas,* California,^
Indiana,'^ Missouri,''' Nevada,^ New York,^ Oregon,^*^ and Pennsyl-
vania,^^ tlie marriage of a feme sole is declared to revoke her
previous will; the statute in California and Pennsylvania also pro-
viding that the death of the husband before that of the testatrix
shall not have the effect to revive her will. In Ohio,^^ on the con-
trary, the statute provides that the marriage of a testatrix shall
not revoke her will previously made ; and in New Jersey and
Michigan it is so held, on the ground of the removal of the disa-
bilities of married women.^^ In Nevada^* the marriage of a man
revokes a will previously made, if the wife survives him and no
provision has been made for her ; and in Georgia ^^ and South
Carolina,^^ if the will contains no provision for the future wife and
childi'cn, if any.

In quite a number of States, in which the statute prescribes
the manner in which a will may be revoked, a saving clause is
introduced, declaring that the statute shall not be understood as
controlling or negativing a revocation, implied or presumed, upon
the ground of a change in the testator's circumstances ; for
instance, in Kansas,^' Maine,^^ Massachusetts,!^ Michigan,^^ Minne-
sota,2iNebraska,22New Hampshire,^^ Ohio,-* Vermont,^^ and Wiscon-
sin.26 The statute of North Carolina, on the contrary, provides

not that they shall absolutely have that " Bright. Purd. Dig. 1883, p. 1712, § 19.

effect : Wheeler v. Wheeler, I R. I. 364, i'^ Rev. St. 1880, § 5958.

373. Hence marriage constitutes a pre- ^^ Webb v. Jones, 36 N. J. Eq. 168 ;

sumptive revocation only, which may be Noyes v. Southworth, 55 Mich. 173.

rebutted by extrinsic evidence : Miller v. " Comp. L. 1873, § 821.

Phillips, 9 R I. 141, 144. 15 Code, 1882, § 2477.

1 Code, 1887, § 2517. is Gen. St. 1882, § 1860.

2 Kelly's Rev. St. 1879, p. 1169, § 6. i' Dass. St. 1885, ch. 117, § 37.

3 Code, 1886, § 1954. is Rev. St. 1883, p. 608, § 3.

4 Dig. 1884, § 6496. i^ Pub. St. 1882, p. 748, § 8; under

5 Civ. Code, § 1300. this statute, it is held that the will of a
s Rev. St. 1881, § 2562. feme sole is revoked by her subsequent
"i Rev. St. 1879, § 3965. marriage : Swan v. Hammond, 138 Mass.

8 Comp. L. 1873, § 822, 45.

9 3 Banks & Bro., 7th ed., p. 2286, § 44. 20 How. St. 1882, § 5793.
The subsequent statute authorizing mar- 21 Qpn. St. 1878, p. 568, § 9.
ried women to make wills does not change 22 Comp. St. 1887, ch. 23, § 132.
the rule that the will of a feme sole is re- 23 Gen. L. 1878, p. 456, § 15.
voked by her marriage : Brown v. Clark, 24 Rgy. St. 1880, § 5953.

77 N. Y. 369, 372. 25 Rgy. L. 1880, § 2047.

10 Code, 1887, § 3072. 26 Rev. St. 1878, § 2290. In this State

§ 55

REVOCATION BY MARRIAGE.

109

that no will shall he revoked by any presumption of an intention
on the j^round oi' an alteration in circumstances.^

The natural effect of these saving clauses seems to be, that in
the States whose statutes so provide the doctrine of the common
law on this subject'-^ is affirmatively recog-nized, and its rules must
determine the circumstances under which a revocation is to be
presumed.^

The will of a testator disposing of the whole of his estate, who
marries after making it, and dies leaving issue of such marriage
unprovided for in the will, and not mentioned therein in such
way as to show his intention not to make such provision, is
declared to be revoked by the statutes of Alabama,* Arkansas,^
California,*^ Missouri,' New York,^ Oregon.^ The birth of legiti-
mate issue after making a will, for whom no provision is made,
revokes the will without reference to the question of marriage
under the statutes of Connecticut,^*^ Delaware,^^ Georgia,i- Indi-
ana,^3 Kansas/"* New Jersey ,^° and Ohio.^^

the will of a married woman in favor of
her children by a former husband is not
revoked by her marriage with a third
after the death of the second husband,
liaving no children by her last marriage :
Will of Ward, 35 N. W. R. 731.

1 Code, 1883, §2178.

2 Ante, § 54.
8 Warner v. Beach, 4 Gray, 162, 163 ;

Nutt V. Norton, 142 :\Iass. 242, 245; Swan
V. Hammond, 138 Mass. 45. In New
Hampshire it is held that this clause
" is to be taken not as a recognition and
adojjtion of the common law doctrine, but
of the English decisions under §§ 5, 0,
and 22 of tlie Statute of Frauds, passed in
1676 " : floitt i'. Hoitt, 63 N. H. 475, 495 ;
Moray v. Soliier, 63 N. H 507, 510.

4 Code, 1886, § 1953. See Gay v. Gay,

4 Southern R. 42, as to what constitutes
sufficient provision.

5 Dig. 1884, § 649-5.
G Civ. Code, § 1299 ; Sanders v. Sim-

cich, 65 Cal. 50. Parol evidence is not
admissible to show that a testator inten-
tionally omitted a child ; the evidence of
intention must be shown by t!ie will itself :
Estate of Garraud, 35 Cal. 336, 339 et se(].

7 Rev. St. 1879, § 3904.

8 3 Banks & Bro., p. 2286, § 43,— if the
wife survive the testator. See Gall in re,

5 Dem. 374.

9 Code, 1887, § 3071.
1' Gen. St. 1888, § 542.

11 Rev. Code, 1874, p. 510, § 11.

12 Code, 1882, § 2477.

13 Rev. St. 1881, § 2-560. But if such
child dies without issue vviiile the mother
is living, the estate passes under the will
except tlie wife's interest therein ; and in
case of the death of both, the child leaving
no issue, the whole estate passes under
the will, unless the child leaves a wife,
who shall hold such estate to her use
so long as she remains unmarried : lb.
§2-561. Whether under this section the
will is absolutely revoked by the birth of
the child, or is held in abeyance until its
death without issue, has not been decided :
Morse v. Morse, 42 Ind. 3,G5, 370. The
common law rule, that marriage alone
does not revoke the previous will of a
man is not changed in this State : Bowers
v. Bowers, 53 Ind. 430, 432.

1^ Dass. Comp. L. 1885, ch 117, § 36.

15 Coudert v. Coudert, 43 N. J. Eq.
407.

IS Rev. St. 1880, § 5959. The statute
" when the testator had no child at the
time of executing such will, and shall
afterward have a child," construed to in-
clude a posthumous child : Evans v.
Anderson, 15 Oli. St. 324, 326; and the
will is not revived by the death of the

110

OF THE REVOCATION OF WILLS.

55

In Colorado^ and Illinois ^ the statute declares that if, after
making a will, a child or children be born to any testator for
whom no provision is made tlierein, the will shall not, on that
account, be revoked ; but unless it shall appear from the will
that such issue was intentionally disinherited, the devises and
legacies by such will given shall be abated in equal proportions
to raise a portion for such child or children equal to that which
such child or children would have been entitled to if no will
had been made.

Similar provisions, in effect declaring a revocation j^ro tanto
upon the birth of issue after the making of a will containing no
provision for such event, giving such after-born children an inter-
est in the estate equal to what would have descended to them in
case of intestacy, are contained in the statutes of Alabama,^ Ar-
kansas,^ California,^ Delaware,^ Iowa,''' Maine,^ Massachusetts,^

child before that of the testator : Ash v.
Ash, 9 Oh. St. 383, 387.

1 Gen. L. Col. 1883, § 3488.

2 St. & Curt. St. 1885, p. 883, par. 10 ;
Ward I'. Ward, 120 111. 111. The pro-
vision required by the statute need not
he definite or certain ; as the testator
may totally disinherit such after-born
child, anij provision, no matter how re-
motely contingent, or insignificant, will
prevent the application of the statute :
Osborn v. Jeflferson Bank, 116 III. 130.

3 Code, 1886, § 1955.

* Dig. 1884, § 6499. Whether the
omission of the child is accidental or
intentional : Branton v. Branton, 23 Ark.
569, 572.

5 Civ. Code, §§ 1306, 1307. The use of
the word " children " in the introductory
clause of a will is not indicative of an
intention to e.xclude the children of a
deceased daughter not named : Estate of
Utz, 43 Cal. 200, 203.

6 Warren v. Morris, 4 Del. Ch. 289,
306. The testamentary title is not dis-
turbed by this statute, but each devisee
and legatee is charged with a propor-
tional contribution to make up an estate
for the post-testamentary child equal to
what it would have received if there had
been no will : lb., p. 307.

T Miller's Rev. 1886, § 2334. This
statute mentions posthumous children
only. It is held, however, as a principle

of law, that the birth of a child to the
testator after making his will and before
his death operates as an implied revoca-
tion : McCullum v. McKenzie, 26 Iowa,
510 ; Negus v. Negus, 40 Iowa, 487 :
Alden v. Johnson, 63 Iowa, 124. But
tl'.e omission may be shown to be in-
tentional by parol testimony : Lorieux v.
Keller, 5 Iowa, 196, 203. It is also held
in this State that the birth of an ille-
gitimate child recognized bj^ the father
has the same effect upon the father's
previous will • Milburn v. Milburn, 60
Iowa, 411.

8 Rev. St. 188-3, p. 608, § 9. A devise
to the widow during her life and widow-
hood, " to revert to his heirs upon her
death or marriage," is not a provision
for a posthumous child under tliis stat-
ute. It will take as if the fatlier had
died intestate : Waterman v. Hawkins,
63 Me. 156, 160.

9 Pub. St. 1882, p. 750, § 22. If it is
evident from the will that the child was
in the contemplation of the testator, it
does not take imder this statute : Prentiss
V. Prentiss, 11 Allen, 47, 49, approving
Wild V. Brewer, 2 Mass. 570; and the
omission may be shown to be intentional
by parol testimony : Buckley *• Gerard,
123 Mass 8, 11 ; Lorings v. Marsh, 6
Wall. 337. 347 See Hurly v. O'Sulhvan
137 Mass 86.

§55

REVOCATION BY MARRIAGE.

Ill

Michigan,^ Minnesota,^ Missouri,'^ Nebraska,'' Nevada,^ New
IIampshii-e,6 Xcw Jersey,' New York,^ Rhode Island,^ South
Carolina,io Tennessee,ii Texas,i2 Virginia,!^ Wcst Virginia,!* and
Wisconsin.!^ In many of these States no distinction is drawn as
between children born after the making of the will, and such as
have been pretermitted, though in existence when the will was
made ; nor between children and the issue of deceased children.
Nor is any distinction recognized, generally, between children
born during the lifetime of the testator and posthumous children ;
the latter are entitled to the same rights and remedies as the
forme r.i*^ 13ut in Kentucky the birth of a pretermitted child after
the making of the will operates to make the devises and bequests
of the will contingent upon the death of such child, unmarried
and without issue, before it reaches the age of twenty-one years.^'
A similar provision exists in Mississippi,!^ Texas,!^ Yirginia,20
and West Virginia.^i In Pennsylvania, marriage or birth of issue

1 How. St. 1882, § 5809.

2 Gary's Pr. L. § 165. This author inti-
mates tiiat the common law presumption
of an entire revocation by subsequent
marriage and birtli of issue remains in
force in Minnesota and Wisconsin.

8 Rev. St. 1879, § 3969. The statute
of Missouri requires tlie cliild to be
"named" in the will; hence the decla-
ration that one of his children shall take
no part of his estate is sufficient to pre-
vent revocation as to such child : Block
V. Block, 3 Mo. 594 ; the mention of a
deceased child is sufficient as to the de-
scendants of such child without naming
them : Guitar i'. Gordon, 17 Mo. 408,
411 : so the naming of a son-in law,
thougli not designated as such, is equiv-
alent to the naming of the daughter :
Hockensmith v. Slusher, 26 Mo. 237, 239 ;
tlie naming of children as a class includes
all wiio answer tlie description at the
time tlie will takes effect : Allen v. Clay-
brook, 58 Mo. 124, 132. If tlie child or
children, or their descendants, had an
equal proportion of the testator's estate
bestowed upon them in the testator's life-
time, they take nothing by virtue of this
statute • Rev. St. § 3970.

* Comp. St. 1887, ch. 23, § 149. The
intention to disinherit must appear on
the face of the will : C. B. & Q. R. R. v.
Wasserman, 22 Fed. Rep. 872.

^ Including issue of a deceased child :
Comp. L. 1873, § 826.

6 Gen. L. 1878, p. 455, § 10.

■7 Laws, 1877, p. 1246, § 19. A provis-
ion for " children born and to be born " is
sufficient to avoid the implied revocation :
Stevens v. Shippen, 28 N. J. Eq. 487, 535.

8 3 Ranks & Bro., p. 2287, § 49.

9 Pub. St. 1882, p. 472, § 12, — whether
the pretermission was intentional or ac-
cidental. The provision must be made
in the will, otherwise it cannot operate
against the child : Chace v. Chace, 6 R.
I. 407, 411 ; Potter v. Brown, 11 R. I. 232.

1" Gen. St. 1882, § 1740.

11 Code, 1884, § 3033.

12 Rev. St. 1888, § 4868, — if the will
was made while the testator had a child
living. It is held in this State that mar-
riage alone of a testator does not revoke
his previous will, — birth of issue also
is necessary : Morgan v. Davenport, 60
Te.x. 230.

13 Code, 1887, § 2528.

» Kelly's Rev." St. 1879, p. 1172, § 17.

15 Rev. St. 1878, §§ 2286, 2287 ; Moon
V. Evans, 69 Wis. 667.

16 Hart V. Hart, 70 Ga. 764.

" Gen. St. 1887. ch. 113. §24.

18 Rev. Code, 1880, § 1263.

19 Rev. St. 1888. art. 4869.

20 Code, 1887, § 2527.

21 Kelly's Rev. St., p. 1172, § 16.

112 OF THE REVOCATION OF WILLS. § 56

after the making of a will in which no provision is made for the
children, revokes the will jjro tanto, and such widow, child, or
children (although horn after the death of the testator) are enti-
tled to shares and dividends of the estate as if there were no
will.i

The adoption of a child under a statute making such adopted
child an heir of the party adopting does not, it seems, operate to
revoke a pre-existing will.^

§ 56. Republication of Wills. — A will which has become inop-
erative by reason of revocation, either express or implied, may at
any time be restored to its original validity by act of
o/''revoked°° the testator, if competent to make a will ; because the
^'"' republication or revival of a revoked will is precisely

equivalent to the making of a new one.^ " In short," says Wil-
liams, " the will so republished is a new will." * It follows from
Requires same this, that the Same authority and competency are re-
competency in (^uii-cd, and the same solemnities and formalities must

testator and i '

same formaVi- }^q observed, to make a valid republication, as are neces-

tiesas formak- .m tt ^^^ s- 1j-

inga new will, sai'y to make a new will. Hence a will ot personalty,
which in the absence of statutory provisions to the contrary may
be made by parol act, may also, after being revoked, be revived
or republished by parol, or by an imattested codicil or other
writing ; ^ and so as to a will of lands not affected by the Statute
of Frauds.^ But where the execution of a will requires attesta-

1 Bright. Piird. Dig. 1883, p. 1712, !* " From the date of the revocation,
§ 18 ; and see note h for a collection of the will revoked ceases to be a testamen-
the rules as to the revocation of wills, tary disposition of the maker's estate. . . .
by marriage and the birth of cliildren, And if the party who made it desires to
tinder the statutes of Pennsylvania, with make a testamentary disposition of his
reference to the adjudications. The ap- estate, he must make a new will, in the
pointment of the wife as testamentary manner required by the statute. But in
guardian will not be revoked by the sub- doing this, he may use the same form of
sequent birth of a child : Hollingsworth's words, without variations or with varia-
Appeal, 51 Pa. St. 518, 521. The revo- tions, and the same written or printed
cation by marriage is absolute, whether document tliat was used at first "■ Bar-
provision be made for her or not ; but as ker v. Bell, 46 Ala. 216, 222.

to children, the revocation depends upon * Wms. [216].

the absence of provision for them : Ed- 6 Wms. [205], citing Wentworth Ex.

wards's Appeal, 47 Pa. St. 144, 152. The ch. 1, p. 60.

statute means a physical birth, and not a 6 Wms. [206], citing Jackson v. Ilur-
legislative legitimation, after making the lock, 1 Amb. 487, 494 ; Beckford v. Par-
will : McCulloch's Appeal, 113 Pa. St. necott, Cro. Eliz. 493 ; see also Havard r.
247, 255. Davis, 2 Binn. 406, 425 ; Jack v. Shoen-

2 Davis V. King, 89 N. C. 441 ; King berger, 22 Pa. St. 416, 421.
V. Davis, 91 N. C. 142.

§ 56 REPUBLICATION OF WILLS. 113

tion by two, three, or more witnesses, it cannot l)e rovivod, after
revocation, except by re-execution, or by codicil executed in the
presence and under the attestation of the same number of wit-
nesses.^

A codicil will amount to a republication of the will to whicli it
refers, whether it be attached thereto or not; 2 but Coriicii

„ ,, !• •! i 1 1 J • amounts to re-

the mtention of the codicil must always determine, publication.
and if it appear from the face of the codicil that it Unless it ap-
was not the intention of the testator to republish, the waTnottestT-
ordinary presumption derived from the existence of ^"'"'^ '"teution.
the codicil will be counteracted.^

Since, as shown above, the republication of a will is tanta-
mount to the making of that will de novo, it brings down the will
to the date of its republishing, and makes it speak, as codicii brings
it were, from that time.* But it should be observed n^Hed't'oUs
that a codicil republishing a former will, which had 0^" ''^^^^■
been altered by one or more previous codicils, does not set up the
will against the codicil or codicils revoking it in part.^ There is
a difference in this respect in the effect of a codicil upon a will
in part revoked or changed by an intervening codicil or codicils,
and its effect upon prior inconsistent wills ; in the latter case, the
republication of the first will by date will establish it as the valid
last will, and cancel the intermediate one ; in the former case, the
first will is established as affected or changed by the subsequent
codicils.^

1 Jackson v. Potter, 9 Johns. 312, ?.U ; his last will, he ratifies and confirms it
Love V. Jolinston, 12 Ired. L. 355, 361 ; with every codicil tliat lias been added
Witter V. Mott, 2 Conn. 67, 69 ; Musser to it " : 4 Ves. 610, 616. But see Alsop's
V. Curry, 3 Wash. C. C. 481. Appeal, 9 Pa. St. 374, 381, where it is

2 Ante, § 47 ; Van Cortlandt v. Kip, 1 held that although a will and the codicils
Hill, (N. Y.) 590, 593, with a collection form but one testamenf, and speak from
of American authorities, affirmed in Kip the date of the last codicil, yet tliey con-
V. Van Cortland, 7 Hill, (N. Y.) 316, 349 stitute different instrumfulx, and a bequest
et seq., reviewing the English authorities, of the residue by the will " to the leira-
per the Chancellor. tees " will be confined to such legatees

3 Wms. [213] ; Kendall r. Kendall, 5 as are therein named, and to such as are
Munf. 272, 275 ; Wikoff's Appeal, 15 Pa. substituted by codicil for some of them ;
St. 281, 291. and that legatees not named in the will,

* Wms. [216] ; jMurray v. Oliver, 6 but in the codicils (except those suhsti-

Ired. Eq. 55, 56 ; Miles v. Boyden, 3 Pick, tuted in the codicils for others named in

213,216; fl;?/e, § 47. the will), are not entitled to participate

5 Wms. [217]. "It is perfectly true," in tlie distribution of the residue,
says Lord Alvanley, in Crosbie v. Mc- ^ Croshie r. McDoual. 4 Ves. 610, 616.

Doual, "that if a man ratifies and confirms See on this subject ch^c, § 52, of the re-
VOL. I. — 8

114 OF THE REVOCATION OF WILLS. § £6

Another consequence of treating the republication as the mak-
ino- of a new will is, that its operation extends to matters which
have arisen between its date and its republication. ^ Real estate
acquired after the date of the will, which under the common law
rule cannot pass under such will, because it can include only such
as the testator owned at the time of making the will and con-
tinued to own until his death ,2 will pass to the devisee, if fairly
included by the language of the devise, by a republication of the
will after the property is acquired.^ So the will of a widow made
before or during coverture, which is not revived by the husband's
death,* may be made valid by republication ; and a will executed
under undue influence is validated by a codicil republishing and
confirming it when the testator is free from such influence.^

vival of former by revocation of later » Haven i;. Foster, 14 Pick. 534, 540.
wills. * Ante, § 54. Also ante, § 22, p. 28,

1 Wms. [2181, citing Wentw. Ex. ch. 1, note 19.

p, 62. ^ O'Neall v. Farr, 1 Rich. 80, 89.

2 Ante, § 53.

§ 57 ORIGIN AND NATURE OF GIFTS. 115

BOOK SECOND.

OF GIFTS EXECUTED TN" ANTICIPATION OF
IMMEDIATE DEATH.

CHAPTER VII.

DONATIONES MORTIS CAUSA.

§ 57. Origin and Nature of Gifts Mortis Causa. — Alienability,
being one of the essential qualities of property/ includes the right
of the owner to control its post mortem disposition, j^j^^^^^
even without resort to the solemnity of a last will or di^^position

. " morlis causa.

testament. As he may freely give his property to
whomever he pleases, his power in this respect being limited only
by the policy of the law in vindicating the rights of the family, or
of creditors, &c., so he may annex any condition to his gift which
is not contrary to the policy of the law. Thus, he may, in case of
anticipation of death from an existing illness or impending peril,
transfer his ownership to some other person, on condition that, if
death do not ensue as the result of such illness or peril, the gift
shall revert to the donor ; which transaction is known as donatio
mortis causa. It is apparent that the disposition of ^ .j_^ testamen-
property causa mortis is in some respects identical tary disjwsi-

.. 11, tiou in bfing

with testamentary disposition, being ambulatory or ambulatory,
revocable, conditioned or contingent upon the death uponXath,
of the donor, and liable for his debts ; 2 differing, how- ^'^iJJ^.'^^i^^'J^^
ever, chiefly in this, that under a will the gift is com-
pleted through the interposition of an executor or administrator,
while the donor mortis causa, himself executing the Donor mortis

.„,,,. .,11 • , II' cau.'a his own

gift by delivery to the donee, is, so to speak, his own executor,
executor.^

1 A nte, § 3. ^ Bloomer v. Bloomer, supra.

2 Bloomer v. Bloomer, 2 Bradf. 339,
346.

116 DONATIONES MORTIS CAUSA. § 57

The legal recognition of the donatio mortis causa has, as the
name indicates, come down to us Irom the civil law, deiined in
f.-- . ,. Justinian's Institutes as •' a donation which is made

Urifjin m tne

civil law. to meet the case of death, as wliere anything is given

upon condition that, if any fatal accident befall the donor, the
person to whom it is given shall have it as his own ; but if
the donor should survive, or if he should repent of having made
the gift, or if the person to whom it has been given should die
before the donor, then the donor shall receive back the thing
given." 1 Its principles were incorporated into the common law
and transplanted with it to the American States, of whose legal
systems they now form a part, not without having been developed
by new and successive applications and fluctuating and inconsist-
ent decisions.^

The donation of property causa mortis has never been favored
in law. It was carefully guarded under the Roman law, which
Never favored invalidated every such gift unless proved by five wit-
in law. nesses present at the time, every one of whom was
required to be a Roman citizen, of full age, of good character, and
not related to either donor or donee.^ Such strictness of proof
is not required by the common law ; but courts regret that this
species of gift has not been swept away by the Statute of Frauds,*
and are very cautious to require positive, clear, and satisfactory
evidence in establishing it, to guard against fraudulent pretences
in claiming the property of deceased persons.^ But when found
to be made in good faith, they must be upheld ; ^ the donee is not
obliged to disprove fraud," nor to prove that the donor was of
sound and disposing mind.^

1 Hammond's Sanders's Just., transl. of gin, 16 Gray, 402, 403 ; Gano v. Fisk, 43
Inst. lib. ii. tit. vii., " De Donationibus." Ohio St. 462; and see a collection of
The gift by Telemachus to Piraeus is authorities on this point in 1-3 Allen, p 47,
cited by the author as an illustration. note (*) ; Parcher v. Savings Institution,

2 Per Matthews, J., in Basket v. Has- 78 Me. 470, 473.

sell, 17 Otto, 602, 610. ^ Dresser v. Dresser, 46 Me. 48, 67 ;

3 Per Lowrie, J., in Headley v. Kirby, Ellis v. Secor, 31 Mich. 185, 188; Shackle-
18 Pa. St. 326, 328. ford v. Brown, 89 Mo. 546, 552 ; Brown v.

* Per "Walton, J., in Hatch v. Atkinson, Brown, 18 Conn. 410, 414 ; Bedell v. Carll,

56 Me. 324, 326. 33 N. Y. 581, 586.

5 Per Gaston, J., in Shirley v. White- ^ Vandor v. Roach, 73 Cal. 614; s. c.

head, 1 Ired. Eq. 130. To same effect 15 Pac. R. 354.

Grymes v. Hone, 49 N. Y. 17, 23 ; Gass v. » Vandor v. Roach, supra ; Bedell v.

Simpson, 4 Coldw. 288, 297 ; Delmotte v. Carll, 33 N. Y. 581, 586.
Taylor, 1 Redf . 417 ; Rockwood v. Wig-

§ 59 DEFINITIONS OF THE TERM. 117

§58. Definitions of the Term. — The definition ofiven by Jus-
tinian^ is commented upon by Lord Loughborough, who points out
the inadequacy of Swinburne's definition ^ in omitting to empha-
size the ambulatory or revocable- character of the donatio causa
mortis.^ Numerous definitions are given by various writers and
judges.* A contributor to the American Law Review gives this
as the most comprehensive and complete : " It is a gift of per-
sonal property made by a person in peril of death and in expecta-
tion of an early demise, consummated by a manual delivery of
the subject of the gift or of the means of obtaining possession of
the same by the donor, or by another person in his presence and
by his direction, to the donee, or to a third person for the donee,
and acceptance on the part of the donee, followed by the death of
the donor before the donee, and defeasible by reclamation, the
contingency of survivorship, or delivery from the peril." ^ It is
important to remember that three attributes must concur to give
validity to a gift mortis causa, viz. : First, the gift must be in-
duced by the donor's apprehension of impending death ; Second,
it must be conditioned to take effect only in the event of death
happening from the peril or cause producing the apprehension,
and be revocable until then ; and Third, there must be delivery of
the thing given. If the transaction lack any one or more of these
elements, it cannot be supported as a donatio mortis causa.^

§ 59. By "Whom, to "Whom, and of What a Donatio Mortis Causa
may be made. — Any person possessing the capacity to make a
will may give his property mortis causaJ Hence a married
woman may in this way dispose of her separate prop- Married women
ertv without the consent of her husband ^ in those !^!!r;,?n!!."/l
States in which she may make a will without such '^""*"-

1 Ante, § 57. 6 Thomas Frazer Reddy, 21 Am. L.

2 Swinb. pt. 1, § 7, pi. 2. Rev. 734.

3 Tate V. Hilbert, 2 Ves. Ill, 118. 6 Wnis. [771] ; Grymes v. Hone, 49
* Wms. [770] ; Lord Cowper in Hedges N. Y. 17, 20 ; Dole v. Lincoln, 31 Me. 422,

V. Hedges, Prec. Ch. 269; 2 Kent, 444; 428; Smith v. Kittridge, 21 Vt. 238, 245;

Story, Eq. .Tur. § 606 ; Sargent, J., in Grattan v. Appleton, 3 Sto. 755, 763.
Cutting V. Gilman, 41 N. H. 147, 150, 151 ; ' Cliampney v. Blanchard, 39 N. Y.

Woodward, J., in Micliener v. Dale, 23 Pa. Ill, 113.

St. 59, 63; Gibson, C. J., in Nicholas v. ^ Marshall v. Berry, 13 Allen, 43, 45;

Adams, 2 Whart. 17, 22 ; 3 Redf. Wills, and evidence that the husband maltreated

322, pi, 1 ; Ashe, J., in Kiff v. Weaver, 94 her is competent to show a motive and

N. C. 274, 276 ; Dickeschied v. Bank, 28 reason for the gift : Conner v. Root, 17

W Va. r,40, 360; Henschel r. Maurer, 34 Pac. R. (Col.) 773, 776.
N. W. R. ( Wis.) 926.

118 DONATIONES MORTIS CAUSA. § 59

consent ; but otherwise where such consent is necessary to her
will ; ^ and so slie may receive sucli g-ift to her separate use,^ even
from her husband ; and the liusband from lier.^

A donation mortis causa may be made to one in trust for the
use and benefit of another,* and its validity is not affected by the
Gift may be ^^^^ *^^^^ ^'^^ doncc takcs it upou a trust, the terms
in trust. a^j limitations of which are prescribed by the donor,

and may vary according to subsequent events.^ So it may be
conditioned that the donee shall take nothing more from the
donor's estate;^ but a gift as a trust fund, to be used in charity
at the entire and unlimited discretion of the donee, has been held
invalid, as being too vague and uncertain as a trust, and not aided
by the statute of 43 Eliz. c. 4, as a charitable use.'^ So the gift
in trust must fail if the persons who are to take, or the pro})or-
tions to which they are entitled, are not clearly indicated ; and
the donee in such case does not take for his own benefit.^

Real estate is generally held to be incapable of being given

mortis causa ; ^ and the reason given, to wit, that it is incapable

of manual delivery, was at one time extended to

camioTb^e given choscs in action, SO that a promissory note payable to

causa mortis. ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^|^ ^^j. ^^ ^j^^ subject of a gift mortis

causa, because only the donor himself, or his executor or admin-
istrator, could compel its payment.^o The ancient rule required
an assignment in writing, or something equivalent
in action Vn-'^^ thereto in the form of writing, and an actual execu-
cientivrequired ^.^^^ ^^ ^^^^ transfer, to givc validity to the gift of a
ynitmg. chose in action.^i But since the equitable doctrine

1 Jones V. Brown, 34 N. H. 4-39, 446; ^ ciough «. Clough, 117 Mass. 83. 85.
Whitney v. Wheeler, 116 Mass. 490, 492. ^ If, in such case, the donee violate the

2 Meach v. Meach, 24 Vt. 591, 596; condition, she must account for the anioiint
Gardner v. Gardner, 22 Wend. 526. A of the donation ; Currie v. Steele, 2 Sandf .
gift inter vivos was sustained under tliese 542, 550.

circumstances in Howard v. Menifee, 5 ^ Dole v. Lincoln, 31 Me. 422, 434

Ark. 668, 671. ® Sheedy v. Roach, 124 Mass. 472,

3 Caldwell v. Renfrew, 33 Vt. 213, 219. 477.

4 Dresser v. Dresser, 46 Me. 48, 67 ; ^ Meach v. Meach, 24 Vt. 591.
Pierce v. Boston Savings Bank. 129 Mass. ^'^ Bradley v. Hunt, 5 Gill & J. 54, 58 ;
425; Estate of Barclay, 11 Phila. 123, Headley v. Kirby, 18 Pa. St. 326; San-
125 ; Emery v. Clough, 63 N. H. 552, 555 ; born v. Goodiiue, 28 N. H. 48, 56 (unless
Southerland v. Southerland, 5 Bush, 501, the note had been indorsed by the do-
594 ; Blount v. Burrow, 4 Bro. C. C. 72, nor).

75 ; Hambrooke v. Simmons, 4 Russ. C. C. " Per Pryor, J., in Stephenson v. King.
25 ; Borneman v. Sidlinger, 15 Me. 429 ; 3 81 Ky. 425, 432 , 2 Kent, 446.
Redf. Wills, 340, pi. 7 ; Wms. Ex. 17751-

§ 59 HOW DONATIONS MAY BE MADE. 119

lias prevailed that clioses in action are assignable by But now pass
the delivery of the evidence of the grantor's right, a ^^ delivery,
gift mortis causa becomes valid by such delivery, and may be
enforced like any other assignment in equity.^ Hence promissory
notes of third parties may be given mortis causa Promissory
whether indorsed by the donor or not;'^ but not the °"'''^'
donor's own note payable after his death to the donce.-^ Checks
or drafts of third persons,^ certificates of deposit pay- checks,
able to the bearer,^ or payable to order and indorsed Certificates of

• 1 • 1 T deposit.

by the payee,^ or even without mdorsement," bonds,^ Bonds.
and notes secured by mortgage on real estate,^ are Mortgages.
pi"oper subjects of gifts mortis causa, and pass by delivery without
further writing. So the donor's bank-book, given bv

, ,. . .„ . ,, -, , Bank-books.

delivery mortis causa, will pass to the donee the money
certified as deposited therein, which he may recover by action in
the name of the donor's executor or administrator ; ^^ an order for
the payment of the money deposited, together with an order on the
donor's agent having possession of the bank-book, is not sufficient,
if the donee fails to obtain possession of the bank-book. ^^

A policy of life insurance may be delivered as a gift causa mor-
tis; but the assignment of such a policy without deliv- p^iievof if
ery confers no right upon the assignee.^ Certificates insurance.

1 Ellis V. Secor, 31 Mich. 185, 188; ^ Conner v. Root, 17 Pac. R. (Col.)
Stephenson v. King, 81 Ky. 425, 430; 773.

Ashbrook v. Ryon, 2 Bush, 228 ; Turpin 8 Whether of a stranger or of the

V. Tiiompson, 2 Mete. (Ky.) 420. See donee: Lee ^•. Boak, 11 Gratt. 182.188;

Chaser. Redding, 13 Gray, 418, 420, where Wells i-. Tucker, .3 Binn. 366, 370; Waring

Shaw, C. J., reviews the cases showing v. Edmonds, 11 Md. 424, 433.
the gradual development of the present But in Overton v. Sawyer, 7 Jonos L.

rule. 6, it is held tliat a bond or sealed note

2 Turpin v. Thompson, 2 Mete. (Ky.) given by delivery merely may be re-
420 ; Westerlo v. De Witt, 36 N. Y. 340, covered by the personal representative.
345; Brown r. Brown, 18 Conn. 410, 413; 9 Carrying the mortgage if properly
Bates V. Kempton, 7 Gray, 382, 383. assigned to the donee : Chase v. Reddin;;,

3 Flint V. Fattee, 33 N. H. 520, 522, 13 Gray, 418; or even without assign-
citing authorities pro and con. See also ment : Borncman v. Sidlinger, 15 Me.
post, on the subject of delivery, § 60. 429, 431 ; Drake v. Heiken, 61 Cal. .346 ;

•» Gibson v. Hibbard, 13 Mich. 214, Hackney v. Vrooman, 62 Barb. 650,

217. 668.

5 Brooks y. Brooks, 12 S. C. 422. 460; w Pierce v. Boston Bank, 129 Mnss.
Westerlo v. De Witt, 36 N. Y. 340. It 423, 430 ; Hill v. Stevenson, 63 Me. 364 ;
is not clear, in the latter case, whether Tillinghast v. Wheaton, 8 R. I. 536 ;
thecertificateof deposit has been indorsed Curtis v. Portland Bank, 77 Me. 151.

or not. " Con.'er v. Snowden, 54 Md. 175, 179.

6 Basket r. Hassell, 17 Otto, 602, 613, i'-' Trough's Estate, 75 Pa. St. 115.
citing and reviewing numerous cases. 118.

120 DONATIONES MORTIS CAUSA, § 60

Certificates of of s^ock of incorporated companies pass by delivery
«tock. mortis causa, without any writing,^ entitling the do-

nee, as equitable owner, to an action to compel a proper transfer
of the legal title to liim.^

§60. Apprehension of Death. — The first requisite to a valid
donatio causa mortis is, as indicated by the name, that it be made
Can only be Under apprehension of the donor's death from an
made under existing illncss or peril.^ If a gift is made with the

;i)ipreliension o i o

of death. yiew that it take effect upon the donor's death, but

while in ordinary health and not in immediate apprehension of
death, it may be a valid gift inter vivos, but cannot be mortis
causal So a gift made in expectation of immediate death from
consumption cannot be supported as mortis causa if the donor,
after making the gift, sufficiently recover to attend to his ordinary
business, although he subsequently die from the same disease.^
But it is not necessary that there should be an expression of the
donor's apprehension of death ; if the gift is made
of death may during his last illness, or while in danger of death
e presume . f^.^^^ ^^^^ other causc, it will be presumed to have
been made in apprehension of death.^ Nor has the rule applica-
ble to nuncupative wills, according to which the legacy is valid
only when made under circumstances rendering it impossible to
make a written will, any application to gifts mortis causa.'*

The validity of the gift is not affected by the time intervening be-
tween the delivery and the happening of the donor's death ; the only
condition is that there be no recovery from the illness,^ or escape
from the peril then impending,^ which induced the gift. In some
cases arising out of the late civil war it was held that the obliga-

1 Walsh ". Sexton, 55 Barb. 251, 256, » Weston v. Higbt, 17 Me. 287 ; Rob-
relying on Westerlo v. De Witt, 36 N. Y. son t-. Robson, 3 Del. Ch. 51, 67.

340. 6 Delmotte v. Taylor, 1 Redf. 417, 421 ;

2 Grynies v. Hone, 49 N. Y. 17, 22. First National Bank v. Balcom, 35 Conn.

3 Knott V. Hogan, 4 Mete. (Ky.) 99
Thompson v. Thompson, 12 Tex. 327, 330
Shirley v. Whitehead, 1 Ired Eq. 130, 132

351, 358 ; Merchant v. Merchant, 2 Bradf.
4.32, 442; Rhodes v. Childs, 64 Pa. St. 18,
23; Meach v. Meach, 24 Vt. 591, 599.

Dole V. Lincoln, 31 Me. 422, 429; Ogilvie '' Nicholas v. Adams, 2 Whart. 17.

V. Ogilvie, 1 Bradf. 356, 357 ; Conser v. 8 Grymes v. Hone, 49 N. Y. 17, 21 ;

Snowden, 54 Md. 175, 185; Parcher v. the donor in this case died five months

Savings Institution, 78 Me. 470; Dicke- after the delivery of the gift,
schied v. Bank, 28 W. Va. 340, 367. "^ Dexheimer v. Gautier, 5 Roberts.

* Blanchard v. Sheldon, 43 Vt. 512, (N.Y.) 216, 223 ; Milligan, J., dissenting in

citing earlier Vermont cases; Irish v. Gass i>. Simpson, 4 Coldw. 288, -300; Gour-

Nutting, 47 Barb. 370, 384. ley v. Linsenbigler, 51 Pa. St. 345, 350.

§ 61 APPREHENSION OF DEATH. 121

tions assumed by one enlisting as a soldier exposed liim to such
peril as would, on tliat ground, sup])ort a donatio mor- Enlisting as a
tis causa ;^ in other cases this is held differently .^ soldier.

Since the gift mortis causa is conditioned to take effect upon
the donor's death by the existing disorder or peril, it . ^ ,

. "^ '^ ' ,' Ambulatory

is obvious that it is revocable, before the hapi)cning during donor's
of that event, at his pleasure ; ^ and if it be inferable
from the circumstances that an irrevocable gift was intended, it
can be sustained only as a gift inter vivos.^

§ 61. Delivery of the Thing Given. — There can be no valid gift
causa mortis without actual manual tradition or delivery of the
thing ffiven, or some act equivalent thereto.^ Hence

' No valid gift

the promissory note of the donor made payable to ^vitIlo^t actual
the donee after the donor's death is not a donatio "^ '^'^'^^'
mortis causa of the amount promised to be paid ; the delivery of
the note in such case is only the delivery of a promise, not of the
thing constituting the gift.^ So of a certificate of deposit pay-
able to order, and indorsed so as to be payable after the donor's
death ; it is not good as a donatio causa mortis for tlie want
of delivery of the thing given.'^ That the subject of the in-
tended gift is not within reach authorizes no excep-

No exception

tion to the rule,** and the statement by the donor to of things not
the donee of the place in which the subject of the
gift could be found, and that one, present at the time, would give
it to the donee, is not sufficient, if the thing is not actually so
given before the donor's death.^ So delivery to an agent, with

1 Virgin v. Gaitlier, 42 111. 39, 40; of the law to this effect; Zimmerman v.
Baker v. Williams, 34 Ind. 647, 549; Bar- Streeper, 75 Pa. St. 147, 154; Phipps v.
ber, J., dissenting in Dexheimery.Gautier, Hope, 16 Oh. St. 586, 594.

5 Roberts. (X. Y.) 216, 223 ; Gass v. Simp- e Bowers r. Hurd, 10 Mass. 427 ; Par-
son, 4 Coldw. 288, 298 et seq. ish v. Stone, 14 Pick. 198, 204 ; Raymond

2 See authorities, p. 120, n. 9. v. Sellick, 10 Conn. 480, 485 ; Holley v.

3 Rhodes V. Childs, 64 Pa. St. 18, 23 ; Adams, 16 Vt. 206 ; Craig v. Craig, 3
Wells V. Tucker, 3 Bin. 366, 371 ; Jones Barb. Ch. 76, 116.

V. Brown, 34 N. H. 439, 446; Bunn v. ^ Basket v. Hassell, 17 Otto, 602, 614,

Markham, 7 Taunt. 224, 231 ; Hardwicke, citing numerous English and American

Ch., in Ward v. Turner, 2 Ves. Sen. 431, cases ; Harris v. Clark, 3 N. Y. 93, 113,

433; Parish ?;. Stone, 14 Pick. 198, 203; overruling Wright v. Wright, 1 Cow. 598,

Emery v. Clough, 63 N. H. 552, 554. in which the contrary had been held ;

* Authorities supra; Matthesvs, J., in Trenholm v. Morgan, 6 S. E. R. (S. C.)

Basket v. Hassell, 17 Otto, 602, 614; Wms. 721, 726.

Ex. [772]. See post, § 02. 8 Case v. Dennison, 9 R. I. 88 ; Eger-

s Authorities antp, §§ 57 et seq., and ton ;; Egerton, 17 N. J. Eq. 419, 422.

post. Almost every case turning upon ^ McGrath r. Reynolds, 116 Mass. 566,

this subject contains an announcement 569; Wilcox v. Jlatteson, 53 Wis. 23, 26.

122 DONATIONES MORTIS CAUSA. § 61

deiivew to instructioii to him to deliver tlie gift to the donee in
donor's agent ^| gye^t gf the donor's death, is not sufficient to suu-

iiot good as ' >■

mortis chum; pgi't thc gift mortis causu ; ^ such delivery, with direc-
but niav be tiou to deliver absolutely, although not before the do-
mter VIVOS. nor's death, will constitute a perfect gift inter vivos ;^
it has been held that, if more be thus delivered than the agent is
directed to deliver, the excess is not a gift, either z'w^er vivos or
mortis causa, and passes to the donor's administrator.^ Not only
must the delivery be actual and complete, so that the donor has
no further control or dominion over the thing given, but the
donee must take and retain possession until the donor's death. If
the donor again has possession, the gift is nugatory.*

Delivery to a third person with direction to deliver to the donee,
Delivery may absolutely to belong to him if the donor should die
'^erson for'the ^ithout making any change, is sufficient,^ although
donee. ^hc delivery by the third person be not made until

after the donor's deatli.^

The delivery must be as complete and perfect as the nature of the

property will admit of. Words alone, no matter how clearly they

mav express the donor's intention, are not sufficient."

Words rIoiig *'

cannot consti- Thus, the gift of a chcck to an infant, putting it into
ene y. j^.^ hands and saying, " I give this to baby for himself,"
is not valid, if the check is found among the donor's papers after
his death.^ So the delivery is not sufficient if the donor retains
Delivery not any coutrol or dominion over the subject of the gif t,^
feTatnf co°rZi »» whcrc ouc dirccts the key of a trunk to be taken
over, from the place where it is kept, goods to be placed in

the trunk, and the key to be returned to its place ; this is not a
delivery, although the directions of the owner are promptly exe-

1 Walter v. Ford, 74 Mo. 195 ; Smith 5 Dole r. Lincoln, 31 Me. 422, 429 ;
V. Ferguson, 90 Ind. 229, 233; Newton v. "Wells r. Tucker, 3 Bin. 306, 370 ; Cou-
Snider, 44 Ark. 42 ; Daniel v. Smith, 64 tant v. Schuyler, 1 Pai. 316, 318 ; Borne-
Cal. 346, .350; McCord v. McCord, 77 mann t;. Sidlinger, 15 Me. 429; Emery r.
Mo. Ifi6, 174. Clough, 63 N. H. 552, 555 ; Woodburn v.

2 Hill V. Stevenson, 63 Me. 364, 367 ; Woodburn, 14 Northeast. R. 58.

Minor v. Rogers, 40 Conn. 512, 518 ; ^ Sessions v. Moselcy, 4 Cush. 87, 91 ;

Meriwether v. Morrison, 78 Ky. 572. Jones v. Deyer, 16 Ala. 221, 225 ; Kilby

3 Beals V. Crowley, 59 Cal. 665 (three v. Godwin, 2 Del. Ch. 61, 70.

of the judges dissenting on the ground ^ See authorities supra as to delivery,

that the excess may be considered a gift ^ Jones v. Lock, L. R. 1 Ch. App. 25,

to the agent: p. 668). 28.

* Dunbar v. Dunbar, 13 Atl. R. (Me.) » McDowell v. Murdock, 1 Nott &

578. McC. 237, 240.

§ 61 DELIVERY OF THE THING GIVEN. 123

cuted, and he, in his last sickness, apprehending death, expresses
the desire to malce the trunk and its contents a gift mortu causa}
Nor is the delivery sufficient if the donor reserve any ^^ j^tgre^t in
interest in the thing given, or in anv part thereof; any pan of
as, for instance, where he stipulates for a redelivery
to him.^

It seems to have been held in an early case that delivery by
symbol was sufficient ; ^ but Kent, in his Commentaries,^ calls
attention to the circumstance that the symbol in that no delivery by
case was the same as delivery of the article, and that symbol,
it was the only case in which such a symbol is admitted. The
current of authority is certainly very strong against the suffi-
ciency of symbolical delivery,^ unless it be tantamount unless it be
to actual delivery. Thus, the delivery of the key of actVrrddheiy.
a room containing furniture is such a delivery of the Key to a ware-
furniture as will support a donation of it mortis causa^
not because the delivery of the key is a symbolical delivery of
the property, but because it is the means of obtaining possession."
Where the subject of the gift is capable of manual tradition, such
as coin, bank notes, bonds, a watch, or the like, the delivery of
the key of a trunk, chest, or box containing it is not Key to a trunk
a valid delivery .^ A late case, decided in Kentucky, '''^ ^°^-
holds that the arbitrary rule formerly existing, requiring an as-
signment (of a chose in action) and delivery of the identical
thing in order to make valid a gift mortis causa, has long since
been abandoned ; and that, accordingly, the intention to give, with
the actual delivery of the written evidence of the right to the
thing, althougli in possession of another, under the belief of
the donor that it perfects the gift, constitutes a valid gift causa
mortis.^

1 Coleman y. Parker, 114 Mass. 30, 33. 443; Coleman v. Parker, 114 Mass. 30,

2 Redell v. Dobree, 10 Sim. 244, 251; 33; Miller v. Jeffress, 4 Gratt. 472, 479;
Hawkins v. Blewitt, 2 Esp. 663; Faryu- Cooper v. Burr, 45 Barb. 0, 34.

harson c. Cave, 2 Coll. 35(5, 365. 8 Hatch r. Atkinson, 56 Me. 324, 331 ;

3 Jones V. Selby, Prec. Ch. 300, 303. McGrath v. Reynolds, 116 Mass. 566,
* 2 Kent, *446. 568, citing earlier cases.

5 2 Kent, *446 ; Cutting v. Gilman, 41 « Stephenson v. King, 81 Ky. 425, 435,
N. H. 147, 152. citing and commenting upon numerous

6 Smith V. Smith, Str. 955; Hatch v. cases: see Southerland v. Soutlierland, 5
Atkinson, 56 Me. 324, 330; Coleman Bush, 591, 594; Ellis v. Secor, 31 Mich.
V. Parker, 114 Mass. .30, 33; Jones v. 185, 188; Chanipney v. Blanchard, 39
Brown, 34 N. H. 439, 445 N. Y. Ill, 116; McDowell v. Murdock, 1

7 Ward V. Turner, 2 Ves. Sen. 430, ISott & McC. 237, 239.

124 DONATIONES MORTIS CAUSA. § 61

It is not the possession of the donee that is material, but the

delivery to him by the donor ; delivery stands in the place of

nuncupation, and forms part of the ":\it.^ Hence proof

Possession pre- ^ ' r o i

viousiy or sub- of previous posscssiou as bailee, or of after-acquired

sequentlv no . . n^ • n

proof of de- posscssiou as doncc, IS not sufficient of itself to prove
ivery. delivery ,2 and it is a question of fact, in such case,

whether there has been a delivery sufficient to support the gift ; ^
, , . declarations made by the deceased subsequently to

Declarations pi i •/

ill proof of the alleged gift were held competent evidence to
e ivery. p^Qve such delivery, when made to the donee,^ but not

when made to a third person.^ There is no distinction in this
respect, between gifts inte)' vivos and mortis causa.^ The doctrine
of the necessity of delivery to a valid donation causa mortis is in
some instances carried to the extent of denying the possibility of

such a gift where its subject is a debt owing by the
forgiven causa doucc to the doiior, or a thing held by the donee as

bailee or trustee of the donor, because a debt or duty
cannot be released by mere parol, without consideration ; and
where there is nothing to surrender by delivery, there can be no
gift mortis causa? But the more prevalent doctrine is, that where
the donee is in possession of the subject of the gift, the empty
ceremony of giving it up to the donor and redelivering it to the
donee is not necessary to give validity to the transaction.^ The
destruction of a bond by the obligee, accompanied by his declara-
tion that the money is the obligor's, is a good discharge of the
debt mortis causa.^

Whether a valid gift mortis causa can be made in writing, or by
deed, is not clear on authority. There are some dicta on the

1 Miller v. Jeffress, 4 Graft. 472, 480. '^ Miller v. Jeffross, 4 Graft. 472, 480;

2 McCord V. McCord, 77 Mo. 166, 174 ; French v. Raymond, 39 Vt. 623, 626.
Kenney v. Public Administrator, 2 Bradf. ^ if there be proof of the relinquish-
319, 321; Miller v. Jefiress, supra; Cut- ment of all claim to and interest in tlie
ting V. Oilman, 41 N. H. 147, 152. subject of the gift : Wing v. Merchant,

3 Hunt V. Hunt, 119 Mass. 474, 475. 57 Me. 383, 380 ; Tenbrook v. Brown, 17
* Dean v. Dean, 43 Vt. 337, 348. Ind. 410, 413 ; Hunt v. Hunt, 119 Mass.

5 Rockwood V. Wiggin, 16 Gray, 402, 474 ; Charapney v. Blanchard, 39 N. Y.
403. Ill, 116; Stevens v. Stevens, 5 Th. & C.

6 Camp's Appeal, 36 Conn. 88, 93; 87.

Irons V. Smallpiece, 2 B. & Aid. 551 ; ^ Gardner v. Gardner, 22 Wend. 526 ;

Carpenter v. Dodge, 20 Vt. 595 ; Sessions Darland v. Taylor, 52 Iowa, 503, 506.

V. Mosely, 4 Cush. 87; Appeal of Fross, See also BrinckerhofF v. Lawrence, 2

105 Pa. St. 258, 267 ; Westerlo v. De Sandf. Ch. 400, 410, and authorities cited.
Witt, 36 N. Y. 340.

§ 62 REVOCABILITY OF GIFTS MORTIS CAUSA. 125

subiect in EiiGrlish cases ;^ but Williams is of the „.,^

J Y ' Li I ft. s CM van

opinion, that, since such instruments are testamentary mortis i)y deed
in their nature and admitted to probate as such, they
would not, unaccompanied by delivery, be allowed to operate as
donations mortis causa^ The same view, and for the same reason,
is announced by Ruffin, C. J., in North Carolina;^ and in Mas-
sachusetts it is held that gifts cauaa mortis cannot be affected by
formal instruments of conveyance or assignment, because sym-
bolical or constructive delivery is not sufficient, actual delivery
or its equivalent being required.* If a gift be made by deed,
although while under the apprehension of death from existing ill-
ness, it may be valid as a gift inter vivos, which cannot be revoked
and is not avoided by the grantor's recovery from his illness.^
In such cases equity will grant relief by setting aside the convey-
ance upon very slight evidence of mistake, misapprehension, or
misunderstanding on the part of the donor.^ But there are also
cases holding that there may be a valid gift causa mortis by deed
in writing,*^ and that in such case actual delivery is not essential.^
§ 62. Revocability of Gifts Mortis Causa. — It has already been
stated,^ that an essential feature of the gift mortis causa is its
ambulatory nature before consummation by the donor's
death. Not only may the donor, while living, revoke bV act of the
the gift at his pleasure,^*' and give it to another,^^ °^°^'
but revocation follows impliedly in several instances without the
donor's affirmative action. Thus, the recovery of the , , ,

' , , revoked bv

donor from the illness or delivery from the peril which recoverj-o'f
induced the gift works its revocation,!^ although the

1 Lord Hardwicke in Ward v. Turner, ^ Thompson v. Thompson, 12 Tex.
2 Ves. Sen. 431, 440 ; Johnson r. Smith, 1 327; Kemper i'. Kemper, 1 Duv. 401.
Ves. Sen. 314 ; Lord Rosslyn in Tate v. In both of these cases, however, there
riilbert, 2 Ves. Jr. Ill, 120. had been actual dehvery of the gift.

2 Wms. Ex. [780], and authorities; » Meach v. Meach, 24 Vt. 591, 598;
Rlgden V. Vallier, 2 Ves. Sen. 252, 258. Ellis v. Secor, 31 Mich. 185, 193.

8 Smith V. Downey, 3 Ired. Eq. 268, 9 Ante, § 57.

276. 10 Parker v. Marston, 27 Me. 196, 203 ;

* McGrath v. Reynolds, 116 Mass. 566, Wiggle v. Wigle, 6 Watts, 522 ; Emery v.

668. Clougli, 63 N. H. 552, 554 ; Bunn v. Mark-

6 Gilligan v. Lord, 51 Conn. 562, 568 ; ham, 7 Taunt. 224, 231 ; Ward v. Turner,

McCarty v. Kearnan, 86 111. 291. 2 Ves. Sen. 431, 433 ; Wells v. Tucker, 3

« Per Redfield, C. J., in Meach v. Bin. 366, 373; Parish v. Stone, 14 Pick.

Meach, 24 Vt. 591, 593 ; Houghton v. 198, 203.

Houghton, 34 Hun, 212, 214, citing other ^^ Parker v. Marston, snpra.

authorities. ^'^ Ante, § 60.

126 DONATTONES MORTIS CAUSA. § 63

recovery be temporary, and death may finally ensue from the same
cause.^ The death of the donee occurring before that

bv death of „ , , ,., . , ^. . ., .

(lonoc before of the douor likewisc operates a revocation, similar in
donor's death; ^^^^^ ^^ ^j^^ lapsing of a bequcst by the death of the

legatee before that of the testator.^ And it has been held that
, , . , , the donatio mortis causa partakes of the nature of

bv birtii of ^

issue to donor, legacies to the extent of being revocable by the subse-
quent birth of issue to the donor. ^

A donatio mortis causa cannot be revoked by last will or testa-
ment, although there be a different testamentary disposition of
Not bv last ^^ specific thing given mortis causa, because the will
'»^ii'; ' speaks as of the moment of the testator's death, wliich

has vested the previous gift irrevocably in the donee,* But the
, , aift of a legacy to one who has received a gift mortis

but pift of a ^ 1^ J ^ o ^

leiiary may be causa may raisc the presumption that the former is a
substitution for the latter;^ and the donee may some-
times be compelled to choose between them, not being entitled to
both.^^

The gift causa mortis is defeasible by reclamation, or any act
of the donor inconsistent with the gift and indicating his purpose
to resume possession thereof.'^ Hence the gift is revoked by the
demand of the donor for a redelivery, although the donee refuse
to surrender it.^

§ 63. Liability of Gifts Mortis Causa to Creditors of the Donor. —

Like gifts inter vivos and legacies, gifts mortis causa are subject

to defeasance in favor of the donor's creditors, because,

Gifts mortis • - . i a. ■ i • j. q

causa liable to as agaiust them, one cannot give away his property.^

s, j)Qjjgpg causa mortis take their title to the property

subject to the contingent right of the administrator to reclaim it,

and are bound to have it forthcoming when required for the pay-

1 See ante, § 59. 443 ; Nicholas v. Adams, 2 Wliart. 17, 22 ;

2 Merchant v. Merchant, 2 Bradf. 432, Sanborn v. Goodhue, 28 N. H. 48, affirm-
444 (mentioning, as the three conditions ing Marston v. Marston, which however
annexed to the gift under the civil law, turns upon a gift inter vivos; Emery v.
either of which would defeat the dona- Clough, 63 N. H. 552, 554.

tion, 1. the recovery of the donor ; 2. re- ^ Jones v. Selby, Prec. Ch. .300, 304.

pentance of the gift ; 3. death of the donee ^ Johnson v. Smith, 1 Ves. Sen. 314.

before the donor's decease: p. 445); ' Emery r. Clough, 63 N. H. 552, 554 ;

Michener v. Dale, 23 Pa. St. 59, 63 ; Wells Marshall v. Berry, 13 Allen, 43, 46.
V. Tucker, 3 Binn. 366, 370. ^ Merchant v. Merchant, 2 Bradf. 432,

8 Bloomer v. Bloomer, 2 Bradf 339, 444.
348. » Emery v. Clough, 63 N. H. 552, 554.

* Merchant v. Merchant, 2 Bradf. 432,

§ 63 LIABILITY OF GIFTS TO CREDITORS. 127

mcnt of debts ; ^ or subject to be taken by creditors in satisfaction
of their claims existing at the time the gift was made ;2 ^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^
but subsequent creditors have recourse only uj)on proof sf'iuent crcdi-
of fraudulent intent under existing or anticipated insol-
vency.^ The donee is not affected by the decree of the probate
court charging the administrator with the property, and ordering
distribution ; * nor is the gift avoided by the insol-

„ and only to the

vency of the donor s estate further than may be neces- extent of such
sary for the payment of debts. If, therefore, the donee
will offer to pay such debts as may be legally established, the
administrator cannot maintain an action against them for the
restitution of the gift.^

To what extent such gifts will be permitted to interfere with
the rights of widows aud infant children of the donor, does not
appear very clearly. This subject has not received the Rights of
attention from courts and legislatures which its rcla- nor^hifrhcn'"^'
tion to the obligations arising from marriage and the aK:""sf donee.
birth of issue seems to demand. Surrogate Bradford held this
method of disposing of one's property to be testamentary to the
extent of bringing it within the operation of the statute of Con-
necticut declaring a will revoked by the subsequent birth of a
child not therein provided for,^ because "in the nature and reason
of things there seems no substantial ground for not applying the
same principle to unwritten as to written legacies." • It has, on
the other hand, been expressly held, that the right of the widow
is to the property of which the husband died seised or possessed ;
and because gifts mortis causa have their full effect in the lifetime
of the donor, they do not impair the rights of the widow.'^ Upon
which Judge Redfield remarks : " It seems to us very question-

1 Mitchell V. Pease, 7 Cush. 350, 353, question whether the administrator has

citing Toll. '233 (4th ed.) ; Tate y. Hilbert, power to cause such conveyances to be

2 Ves. Jr. Ill, 120 ; the case of Holland v. set aside, or whether the creditors must

Cruft, 20 Pick. 321, 328, announces the resort to chancery, 770.9/, § 206.
Massachusetts law in relation to convey- ■* Lewis v. Bolitho, 6 Gray, 137, 138.

ances inter vivos in fraud of creditors. ^ Chase v. Eedding, 13 Gray, 418, 422.

■^ Chase v. Redding, 13 Gray, 418,420; « Bloomer v. Bloomer, 2 Bradf. 339,

Borneman v. Sidlinger, 15 Me. 429, 431 ; 348.
Michener v. Dale, 23 Pa. St. 59, 64. ' Shaw, C. J., in Chase v. Eedding, 13

3 Such is the Jaw as to conveyances Gray, 418; Cranson ;•. Cranson, 4 Mich.

inter vivos, and there is no distinction in 230 ; Wells, J., in Marshall v. Berry, 13

this respect between such and donations Allen, 43, 46, applying same principle to

mortis causa : Marshall c. Berry, 13 Allen, tlie wife's gifts without consent of the

43, 46. See on this point, and as to the husband.

128 DONATIONES MORTIS CAUSA. § 63

able, whether a man of substance can be allowed to dispose of his
whole estate, and leave his widow a beggar, l)y the means of this
species of gift, which is clearly of a testamentary character, where
the statute expressly provides that the widow may waive the pro-
visions of the will and come in for her full share of the personal
estate, under the statute, by way of distribution. No similar stat-
ute has ever existed in England in favor of widows, and that
question could not therefore arise there. And it is possible the
American courts have felt too reluctant to recognize the differ-
ence, in this respect, between the widow and next of kin."^

The question has repeatedly engaged the attention of the
Supreme Court of Missouri, and was uniformly decided in the
spirit of the illustrious judges above quoted. Judge Norton,
delivering the unanimous opinion of the court,^ quotes the lan-
guage of Judge Scott 3 as follows : " Although dower is given in
personal estate by our statute, yet it was not thereby intended to
restrain the husband's absolute control of it during his life, to
give and dispose of it as he wills, 'provided that it he not done in
expectation of death with a view to defeat the ividoiv's dower. The
husband may do as he pleases with his personal property subject
to this restriction. After the enjoyment of the property in the
most absolute manner during almost his entire life, the law will
not permit him, at the approach of death, and with the view to
defeat his wife's dower, to give it away. If such a disposition
were allowed, the efficacy of the statute conferring dower would
depend on the whim or caprice of the husband." * The court
held, however, that the widow has no claim against the general
estate for the property so disposed of, her relief being in equity
to set aside the fraudulent disposition, and to charge the grantee
with a trust in her favor.

In Louisiana gifts causa mortis cannot exceed a certain propor-
tion of the estate.^ In New Hampshire the gift must be proved
by the testimony of two indifferent witnesses, upon petition by
the donee to the probate court, filed within sixty days after the
donor's death.^ In Pennsylvania it was held that the mere gift

1 3 Redf. on Wills, 323, pi. 3, note 7. 32 Mo. 464 ; and the same doctrine has

2 In Straat v. O'Neil, 84 Mo. 68, 71. been announced in the case of Davis v.

3 In Stone v. Stone, 18 Mo. 389. Davis, 5 Mo. 183."

4 " This case," says Judge Norton, * Ante, § 17.

" was followed in the cases of Tucker v. " Gen. L. 1878, p. 456, § 17 ; Emery v.

Tucker, 29 Mo. 350, and Tucker v. Tucker, Clough, 63 N. H. 552, 653.

§ 63 LIABILITY OF GIFTS TO CREDITORS. 129

of all the property of one since deceased, to take effect after his
death, is not valid as a donatio causa woriis, whether accompanied
by delivery or not ;^ not because a man may not so dispose of all
his property, but because there is no specific reference to the
property, and because the language is testamentary, and the
delivery only constructive ; it is no objection, therefore, that such
a gift comprises the principal part of the donor's estate.^

It seems that the principles governing the construction of wills
are applicable to gifts mortis causa, and that the presumption
against fiduciary adviser.s attending testators is equally valid
against a clergyman who receives a gift mortis causa while attend-
ing the donor in extremis?

1 Headley v. Kirby, 18 Pa. St. 326. ^ Per Sugden, Ch., in Thompson v.

' 2 Michener v. Dale, 23 Pa. St. 59, 64. Heffernan, 4 Dru. & W. 285, 291.

VOL. I. — 9

PART SECOND.

OF THE DEVOLUTION BY OPERATION OF LAW.

CHAPTER VIII.

DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY OF INTESTATES.

§ 64. Nature and Origin of the Rules of Descent and Distribu-
tion.— In default of the testamentary disposition of the property
Princi le of ^^ ^ deceased person, the law disposes of the same
devolution. precisely as the deceased himself would do if acting
rationally, and without motive or influence of an extraneous na-
ture. The family of a person have claims upon him while living
which are recognized, and to a great extent enforced by the law :
a man may be compelled to provide for his wife and children the
necessaries for their support and comfort, and for the proper edu-
cation of his children. But he may freely alien any of his prop-
erty during his lifetime, even, as has been shown,i on the very
point of death, or dispose of the same by last will, subject only to
such restrictions as the law imposes for the protection of the wife
and surviving minor children.^ The statutory law of
tleVa^sTs'S^^ England and America (except in the State of Louisi-
devoiution. ^^^^ allows gifts and devises or bequests, in derogation
of the interest of his own family, to a greater extent, perhaps, than
any other of the civilized nations ; nevertheless, its presumptions
and intendments, whenever occasion exists for the application of
such, are in favor of the family. Thus it is the family which fur-
nishes the basis and content of the law regulating the devolution
of the property of intestates.^

1 Ante, § 59. only makes such a will for the intestate

2 Ante, §§ 8, 17. as a fatlier, free from tlie partiality of
8 " The Statute of Distribution does affections, should himself make ; and

not break into any settlement made by this I may call a Parliamentarj/ Will " :
the father ; it only meddles with what Lord Raymond, in Edwards v. Freeman,
was left undisposed of by him, and that 2 P. Wms. 435, 443.

§ 64 EULES OP DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION. 131

This subject is so thoroutilily treated in tlie statutes of every
State of the Union, that there is neither room nor occasion for
an extensive general discussion of its principles ai)art ^^^pg^, ^^^.,
from a reference to their provisions. But it may be cned i.y

stututes,

necessary to bear in mind, that in most of the States
the statutes of descent and distribution are subject, and to be con-
strued witli reference, to the law concerning dower, tenancy by the
curtesy, partnership, homesteads, and exemption, and particularly
to the peculiarly American provisions in favor of the widow and
minor children for their immediate support, which will be noticed
hereafter.i It may also serve the j)urposes of both ^oj-tiy foUow-
students and practitioners to notice that, while the '^',^f^"gSi'f'*
American statutes of descent and distribution are ex- Descents and

. . , . Distribution,

ceedingly diverse m their details, they are m the main

modelled after and mostly approximate in their general results, the

English Statute of Distributions.^ which in its turn is , . , . , ,

» ' which IS taken

mainly borrowed from the civil law,^ so that the con- from the civil

law.

struction and practice under it have been governed

more by the rules of the civil law than of the common law.^ It

Avill also be borne in mind, that the distribution of ^

Fevsonal prop-

personal property of an intestate must be according to erty according
the law of the country or State of which he was a owner's domi-
domiciled inhabitant at the time of his death,^ with- ^^ '
out regard to the place of either the birth or death, or the situa-
tion of the property at the time ; but that real estate real estate
descends according to the law of the place where it is fhe°iaw"?ei°
situated.6 '■- ^'"^-

1 See post, § 77 et seq. ; dower, § 105 dred : 1 Wms. [419], citing Mentney v.

et seq. ; curtesy, § 121 ; partnership, § 123 Petty, Prec. Ch. 593, and otl er English

et seq. ; homestead, § 94 et seq cases. It will appear infra that the stat-

•- 22 & 23 Car. II. c. 2, § 10. " The utes of most States so provide,

provisions of this law stand in striking ^ Statutes not in force on the day of

contrast witli the canons of descent of the intestate's death cannot, it is evident,

the common law. Primogeniture, the govern the descent of his estate : Sarver

preference of males over females, the i". Real, 36 Kans. 555, 559. So a vested

blood of the first purchaser, the rule that remainder descends under the law in

property never ascends, the exclusion of force at the time of the vesting of the

tlie half blood, — all these fundamental estate in expectancy, and is not affected

rules of the common law are violated by the law governing descents at the

by the Statute of Distributions. Its great termination of the intervening estate :

object was equality " : Carr, J., in Davis Curtis v. Fowler, 33 N. W. R. (Mich.)

V. Kowe, 6 Hand. 355, 361. 804.

3 2 Kent, 422. 6 Lingen i'. Lingen, 45 Ala. 410, 412.

* 3 Redf on Wills, 422, pi. 3; at least See as to domicil, post, § 205, also § 157

as to the proximity of degrees of kin- et seq.

>

132 PKOPEIITY OF INTESTATES. § 65

The term "descent" is usually applied to the devolution of
real estate, and " distribution " to that of personal property ; and
in most States a distinction is still observed in the devolution of
these two classes of property, arising', no doubt, out of the former
tenure of real estate under the feudal system.^

§ 65. Rights of Children. — The legitimate result of the ethical
union of the sexes is the continuance of the race, which is thus
seen to depend for its permanency upon the marriage institution
and its direct result, the Family. As the instinct of self-preserva-
tion is the highest law of all living things, so it is an overruling
necessity for the State to vindicate and preserve the Family,
whose extinction it could not survive. In recognition of this
necessity all States have at all times secured to the several mem-
bers of a family in the strict sense (father, mother, and minor
children) the enjoyment of their common property (by repre-
sentation through its head), and the civil, canon, and common
law, as well as the English and American statutes regulating the
descent and distribution of the property of deceased intestates, are
^, ., , . unanimous in placing children and the descendants of

Children m i o j- t

first degree dcccascd children of the intestate m the nrst degree
as heirs. The apparent exception to this at common
law, and under the statutes of some of the States following it, of
a husband taking the personal property of a deceased wife in
exclusion of her children, is not an exception in reality ; for at
common law the personal property of a wife is that of her hus-
band, so that it cannot strictly be said that she died intestate as
to such, because she had none to leave. Nor is it, strictly con-
sidered, an exception to this rule to allow the husband of a
deceased wife to enjoy her lands during his lifetime, or to accord
to a widow her dower estate ; for in either case the surviving
parent is bound, as the head of the remaining family, for the sup-
port of the minor children,^ and the property thus still goes to
the benefit of such.

It is not necessary, therefore, to recite the provisions of the
statutes of the several States as to their respective shares of
Children take inheritance of the real or personal estate of a deceased
sondprojertv pareut. In all of the States children inherit both
in equal shares, ^eal and personal estate in equal shares, the descend-
ants of deceased children taking by representation, or stocks {per
1 Ante, §§ 12-16. 2 Schoul. Dom. Rel. §§ 236, 237.

§ 6G THE SURVIVING HUSBAND AS HEIR. 133

Stirpes), that is, the children of a deceased child fiosreiubn.fs

Ti . 1 11 of flfceased

or descendant taking collectively sucli share as ciiiidien, by
the deceased child or other descendant would have '"'^P''^*''" *""°-
taken If alive at the time of the intestate's death. Where the
share to which the children are entitled is affected by [)rovisions
in favor of the father or mother, the modification will be noticed
in connection with the rights of such {)arent.

Adopted children acquire, by the act of adoption in accordance
with the statute, if so provided, the same rights as if Adopted
they were the issue of the adojiting parents.^ ciuidren.

§ GQ. The Surviving Husband as Heir. — Upon the death intes-
tate of a married woman, the husband is entitled, at Husband takes
common law and affirmed by the Statute of Frauds,^ erty to'^tiK'^ex-
to all her personal property ,« whether she left surviv- it'Ttcom-'''
ing children or descendants or not ; and so by the stat- "'''" ^^^y^ "^^g
utes of Delaware,^ Georda,^ Keiituckv,*^ Oregon,^ and

r, ' . " . , n , 1 • -p XI In other States,

Pennsylvania.^ He is entitled to take as heir, it there when there
be no child nor descendant, nor brother or sister, nor dren"°parents,
father or mother, nor any next of kin, under the stat- ^jXr^Tor'^'their
utes of Alabama,^ Arkansas,^^ Florida,^^ Louisiana,^^ descendants.
Maine,!^ Maryland,!^ Massachusetts,!^ Minnesota,i^Tennessee,i^ Vir-
ginia,!^ and West Yirgiiiia.^^ Togetlier with children i'^^JJ'/^'^/f;;-

or descendants in California.^o Colorado,^! Floi-ida,-^ children or de-
scendants.

1 As to tlie consequences of adoption, ^ Bright. Purd. Dip:., p. 930, § 4.
see post, § 60. ^ Code, 1886, § 1915.

2 2!;) Car. II. c. 3, § 2.5. i" Dig. St. 1884, § 2528.

8 " If he obtain possession of the " McClell. Dig. 1881, p. 469, § 3.

•wife's personal property without suit, i- Code, 1870, art. 017.

and without taking administration, lie is i-' Rev. St. 188o. p. (510, § 1.

entitled to hold it subject to the claims " Hinck. Test. L , § 1259.

of her creditors ; and, in case another ^^ Smith, Pr. L. 188.

person takes administration, he will hold 16 st. 1878, p. 565, § 3, If 9.

the property' in trust for the iuisband of ^" St. 1884, § 3272.

Iter representatives, after payment of lier '" Code, 1887, § 2548, pi. 10.

debts " : Bellows, .J., in Weeks v. Jewett, " Kelley's Rev. St. 1870, ch. 66, § ].

45 N. 11. 540, 541, citing numerous Eng- -" One half of real and personal estate,

lish and American cases. if there be no issue, or one child, or the

* Laws, Rev. 1874, p. 548, § 32. issue of a deceased child ; one third, it'

& Except the separate estate without there be more than one cluld, or issue of

limitation or remainder over, which can more, or child and issue of deceased child

and does take effect if she leave also cliil- or children : Civ. Code, § 1386.

dren or descendants, of whicli the bus- -i Gen. St. 1883, § 1039. One half of

band and ca(;h cliild, or the descendants of all personal and real estate, if there be

a deceased child, take an equal share, de- descendants; all, if there be none.

scendants/.<-?- sm/jps: Code, 1882, §2484. -- McClell. Dig. 1881, p. 471, § 12.

« Gen. St. 1887, ch. 31, § 11. Child's share, if there be such, but if no

" Code, 1887, § 3009, pi. 4. descendants, all.

134 PROPERTY OF INTESTATES. § 67

, , , Illinois,^ Indiana.^ lowa,^ Kansas,^ Mississippi,^ Ne-

In the absence ' r i '

of descendants vada,^ New Hampshire," South Carolina,^ and Texas.^
heirs of second If the wife leave no issue, nor other lineal descend-
egiee o wi e. ^^^^^^ ^^^^ father, mother, brother or sister, nor issue
of brother or sister, the estate descends to the husband in Michi-
inthe absence g^^^^ ^^^^ MissouH.^i If the wifo die witliout leaving
of descendants, issue or descendants, the husband takes the whole es-
tate in Ohio,^'^ Vermont,^^ and Wisconsin.^* In the absence of any
statutory provision, he is entitled by the common law

Curtesy

to his estate by the curtesy ; in some of the States
this is affirmatively announced by statute.^^

§ 67. The Widow as Heiress. — It is not proposed, in this con-
nection, to treat of the dower and other common law rights of the
widow, nor of the provisions made in the several American States
for the immediate support of herself and family upon the death of
her husband, all of which will be considered in its proper place ; ^^
but only to point out her rights as an heiress of her husband.

At the common law, the widow was originally entitled to her
reasonable part of the goods and chattels of her deceased hus-
band, which was one half if he died without issue surviving, and

1 Starr & Curt. St. 1885, p. 879, IT 1- tliere be one child or issue of one child,
One third of the personalty, if there be or no descendants, but a father or moth-
descendant or descendants ; one half of er, or brothers and sisters ; but if there
the real estate and all of the personalty, be none such, then all.

if no descendants, but other heirs; and ^ Gen. L. 1878, p. 475, § 15. One

all, if there he no kindred. third, if the wife leave surviving child or

2 Rev. Stat. 1881, §2485. One third issue; one half, if there be no issue.

of the real estate subject to the wife's ^ Kev. St. 1882, § 1845. One third, if

debts contracted before marriage abso- there be a child or descendants ; one half,

lutely, and all the personal property, if if there be no descendants, but father,

there be no child : § 2488 ; if no child, mother, or siv-iters of the whole blood ;

but a father or mother survive, three two thirds, if there be no descendants,

fourths of the personal and real estate ; father, mother, brother or sisters or their

or all, if the estate do not exceed one descendants of the whole or half blood,

thousand dollars : § 2489. If the wife nor lineal ancestors ; all, if there be no

leave neither child, father, nor mother, kindred,

all to the husband : § 2490. ^ Rev. St. 1888, art. 1646.

3 Miller's Rev. Code, 1880, §2440. w Howell's St § 5772 «, 1 8, p. 1503.
One third in value of all legal and equi- " Rev. St. 1879, § 2161.

table estate. i^ Rgv. St. 1880, § 4158, T[ 2.

* Dassler's Comp. L. 1885, §§ 2266, ^'^ Unless he elect to take by curtesy,
2246. One half of the real and personal he takes the whole estate if it do not ex-
estate, and if there be no issue, the whole ceed .$2000 ; and of all in excess of |2000
of the real and personal estate. one half. Rev. L. 1880, § 2230.

5 Rev. Code, 1880, § 1271. Child's i* Rev. St. 1878, § 2270, 1[ 2.
share, if there be such; all, if there be ^^ Post, § 121.

no descendants. '^ As to dower, see post, § 105 et seq.;

6 Comp. L. 1873, § 794. One half, if support of the family, ch. ix.

§67

THE WIDOW AS HEIRESS.

135

one third if he left children or descendants.^ Whether jj^^^^^^^jg
this was really the common law, or the custom of par- part at com-

' nion law.

ticular places, as has been asserted,^ is not now proht-
able to examine, for the English Statute of Distributions fixes
the distributive share to which the widow is entitled by the same
rule, and the statutes of most States are so explicit on this point,
that questions will rarely arise Avhicli depend upon this rule of the
common law for their solution.^

She is entitled to the whole of her husband's estate if he die
without leaving either descendants or other kin, in Alabama,* Ar-
kansas,"^ Florida,*^ Louisiana," Maine,^ Massachusetts,^ if husband
Mississippi,ioNebraska,ii North Carolina,'^ Tennessee,i3 f^^jjjj"^';;^
Vermont,^* and Virginia^^; also if he die leaving no if^jt^out de-
descendants, nor father, mother, brother or sister, scendants or

. . ^,. , . collateral heirs

nor any descendants of brother or sister, in Michi- ofsecoudde-

gan^*^ and Missouri^'; and also where he dies with- ^^^^'

out leaving lineal descendants, in Georgia,^^ Kansas,^^ eaLdescend-"'

West Virginia,20 and Wisconsin.'^i She is entitled to ^''^'

the whole, or part of the estate, according to the ex- Together with

istence of descendants or other heirs, in California,^^

Colorado,23 Connecticut,^* Delaware,^^ Georgia,^^ Illinois,^^ Indi-

see Clark v. Clark, 17 Nev

1 Wms. 1
124.

■■2 Wms. 2, citing the authorities pro
and coti.

^ See however, where the question did
arise, Clark v. Clark, 17 Nev. 124.

* Code, 1886, § 1915, TT 5.

5 Dig. 1884, § 2-528.

0 McCleil. Dig. 1881, p. 469, § 3.

" Code, 1870, art. 914.

» Rev. St. 1883, p. 610, § 1.

9 Smith, Prob. L. 188.

10 Rev. Code, 1880, § 1271.

11 Comp. St. 1881, ch. 23, §§ 30, 176.

12 Code, 1883, § 1281, rule 8.
IS St. 1884, § 3272.

» Rev. L. 1880, § 2230, IT 2.

15 Code, 1887, § 2548.

16 Howell's St. 1882, § 5772 a
" Rev. St. 1879, § 2161.

18 Code, 1882, § 2484.

i« Dass. Comp. L. 1886, § 2258.

20 Kelley's Rev. St. 1879, ch. 66, § 1.

21 Rev. St. 1878, § 2270. pi. 2.

•-'•^ Civ. Code, § 1386. If one child, or
the descendants of one, one half to the
widow; if more than one, one third; if

no issue, one half; and if neither issue,
nor father, mother, brothers or sisters or
their issue, all.

^ If the husband left surviving children
or their descendants, one half; if none,
all : Gen. St. 1883, § 10.39.

-* If husband left descendants, a life
estate in one third of the realty, and one
third of the personalty forever; if none,
then a life estate in one third of the realty,
and one half of the personalty forever :
Gen. St. 1875, p. 372, §§ 6, 8 ; but see St.
1888, § 630.

25 Laws, Rev. 1874, p. 548, § 32 : If
there be children surviving, one third of
the personalty and life estate in one third
of the real estate ; if none, but other kin-
dred of the husband, one half of the per-
sonalty and a life estate in one half of the
realty; and if no kindred, all the person-
alty, and a life estate in all the realty.

■■^ If she renounces dower, she is en-
titled, if there be descendants to a child's
share of the estate, if there be no more
than five shares; if more, to one fifth of
the estate : Code, § 2484.

-' Rev. St. 1885, p. 879, par. 1. If no

136

PROPERTY OF INTESTATES.

§67

ana,i lowa,^ Kansas,^ Kentucky,^ Maine,^ Maryland,^ Michigan,^
Mississippi,^ Nebraska,^ Nevada,^'' New Hampshire,^^ Ohio,^^ Q^e-
13 Pennsylvania,^'* Rhode Island,^^ South Carolina,^^ Texas,^'

tron.

children or descendants, she is entitled
to one lialf of the real and all personal
estate ; if there be a child or descend-
ants, to one third of the personalty ;
but if there be no kindred, to the whole
estate.

1 Rev. St. 1881, §§ 2483 et seq. In
this State the widow takes absolutely, as
against creditors, one third of the real
estate, if of less value than ."^lO.OOO; one
fourth if it exceeds that amount, and
one fifth if it exceeds .520,000. As against
other heirs she takes one half of the real
estate if there be one child only ; and a
life estate in one third if there be children
by a former marriage. Of the personal
property she takes an equal share with
each child if there be not more than
two; and one third if tliere be more;
and if there be no descendant, nor father
or mother, all. See Matthews w. Pate, 93
Ind. 443.

2 Miller's Code, 1886, § 2455 et seq.
If there be no issue, one half ; if there
be no issue, nor parent or descendant
from parent, all.

3 Dass. Comp. L. § 2246. One half of
all real estate held during coverture, not
conveyed by wife nor sold under execu-
tion, subject to debts ; if he left no issue,
she takes the whole estate : § 2121.

4 Gen. St. 1887, ch. 31, § 11. One
third of the personal estate if there be
issue ; one half if there be none.

5 Rev. St. 1888, p. 611, § 9. One third
of the personal estate if there be issue ;
one half, if no issue but other kin; all,
if there be no kin.

6 Hinck. Test. L. § 1176. If no de-
scendant, parent, brother or sister or
descendant of a brother or sister, the
whole of the personal estate; if a child
or descendant, one third ; if no descend-
ant, but a parent, brother or sister or
descendant of such, one half.

7 Howell's St. § 5772 a, p. 1503. If no
issue, the whole of the property for life;
and if no hneal descendant, nor parent,
brother or sister or descendant, abso-
lutely.

8 Rev. Code, 1880, § 1271. A child's
part if there are descendants ; if none, all.

9 Comp. St. 1887, ch. 23, § .30. If no
issue, the real estate to the widow for
her life, and a child's share of the per-
sonalty : p. 233, § 176.

10 Comp. L. 1873, § 794, One half, if
no issue, or one child or descendant of
one ; if more than one child, one third.
If no issue, nor parent, brother or sister
or descendants, all. In Clark v. Clark,
17 Nev. 124, it is held that in case of an
intestate's death, leaving a widow and
brothers and sisters bat no father or
mother, the common law rule giving one
half to the widow and one half to the
brothers and sisters is in force, tlie statute
making no provision for such case.

11 Gen. L. 1878, p. 475, §§7, 8. One third
if there be issue ; one half if there be
none. But this includes her dower and
homestead estate ; if these together equal
or exceed the one half of the estate, she
takes nothing by descent ; if they are
less, then she takes as much as will
make, together with them, one half:
Burt V. Randlett, 59 N. H. 1.30.

12 Rev. St. 1880, § 4158. Widow takes
a life estate in real property descended
or derived from an ancestor if there be
no children nor descendants ; and the
whole of all other estate.

13 Code, 1887, § 3098. If no issue,
wife takes the whole of the estate ; if
there be issue, she takes one half of the
personalty.

1* Bright. Purd. Dig. 1883, p. 929, § 2,
If there be issue, one third of the real
estate for life and one third of the per-
sonal estate absolutely ; if no issue, but
other heirs, one half of the real and per-
sonal estate.

15 Pub. St. 1882, p. 489, § 9. If no
issue, one half of the personal estate; if
there be issue, one third.

ic Rev. St. 1882, § 1845. If issue, one
third of real and personal property ; if
none, but parent, brother or sister or de-
scendant, or lineal ancestor, one half ; if
none of these, but other kin, two thirds ;
if no kin, the whole estate.

17 Kev. St. 1888, § 1646. If there be
descendants, one third of the personal
estate, and life estate in one third q-,

§ 68 THE FATHER AS HEIR. 137

Vermont,^ Yirglnia,^ West Virginia,^ and Wisconsin.'* In some
States these provisions include, or take the place of, dower.

§ 68. The Father as Heir. — The degree of propinquity between
parent and child is obviously the same whcthor considered in the
descending or ascending direction. But the principle determin-
ing the devolution of ])ropcrty does not, in this first degree at
least, rest upon the ties of consanguinity so much as upon the
recognition of the natural dependence of the. child ujjon the
parent. So long as the children are minors, this dependence is
obvious ; and to ignore their claim to share in the distribution of
the deceased father's estate would be clearly irrational. And the
relation between parent and child, even after the period of mi-
nority, is usually such as to plainly indicate the wisdom of the
rule wliich upon the death of the parents secures to the children
that estate which they may have assisted in acquiring or in-
creasing, and with which they have become familiar.

These considerations are not so decisive in the case of the
death of a child. In the usual course of nature the parent nei-
tlier expects nor depends upon an accession to his means from
such an event. And although the bonds and relations which
unite the several members of the family are such as to demand
the devolution of the property, which any of them may leave at
his death to the others, there is but a faint preponderance in
favor of any of the individuals. If the brothers and sisters are
still in their infancy, the rational course of devolution would
seem to point to the father as the natural head and usually
the supporter of the family ; ^ or in case of his prior decease, to
the mother ; and only in case of the prior decease of both, to the
brothers and sisters. But even these considerations lose signifi-
cance as the members of the family grow older and become inde-
pendent, gradually loosening the bonds which connect them with

realty ; if none, then all the personal es- been no issne by the surviving widow,

tate and one half of the realty ; and if she is entitled to all that came to the

there be neither descendants, nor parent, intestate by the marriage with her ; if

brother or sister or descendant, then the there is issne surviving, whether by her

whole estate. or by a former marriage, one third of

1 Rev. L. 18S0, § 2230. If no issue, and the personal estate ; if none, one half,
the widow does not elect to take dower, '^ Same as in Virginia,

she will be entitled to the whole estate * Rev. St. 1878, § 3935, pi. 6. A child's

not exceeding §2,000, and to one half in share.

excess thereof. But if there be no kin- ^ As to the descent of the property of

dred, she is entitled to the whole estate. minors dying without issue and unmar-

- Code, 1887, § 2557. If there has ried, see i»fra, § 70.

l;j8 PROPERTY OF INTESTATES. § 68

the original stock as they found new families themselves. Hence,
while there is perfect unanimity in according the first claim to
the inheritance to children, legislators differ as to who is to be
preferred if there are no descendants. At common law, the
father, as well as every lineal ascendant, was cut off from the
inheritance in lands.

The course above indicated, that is to say, directing the inher-
itance of an intestate, in default of any child or descendant, to
go to the father, and if none, to the mother, and if
fafher^inherits no mother, then to the brothers and sisters in equal
if no children, gj^g^gg^ ^^^^ ^q ^\^q descendants of deceased brothers

or sisters, if any, such shares collectively as their deceased parent
would have been entitled to if alive at the time of the intestate's
death, is adopted in Arkansas,^ Colorado,^ New York,^ and South
Carolina.* In many of the States the father is preferred, if there
be no lineal descendants, but with different provisions as to the
mother and sisters and brothers. He takes in default of descend-
ants (subject in some instances to the right of the husband or
wife), but in preference to mother, brothers, and sisters, in Cali-
fornia,^ Florida,^ Maine,' Maryland,^ Massachusetts,^ Michigan,io
Minnesota," Nebraska,!^ Nevada,!^ New Hampshire,^* Oregon,!^
Rhode Island, 16 Tennessee,^' Vermont,!^ Virginia,!^ and West Vir-
With mother, ginia.^o He takes equally with the mother, and if she
if riving. -^^ ^^^^ j-^gj, share also, in preference to brothers and

sisters, in the States of Iowa,2i Kansas,^^ Kentucky ,^3 Pennsylva-

J DicT. 1884, § 2529. ^' An equal share with husband or wife,

2 Gen. St. 1883, § 1039. if any ; ail, if none : Comp. L. 1873, § 794.

3 3 Banks & Bro. (7th ed.), p. 2210, § 1. i* Subject to widow's claim to one half
* Subject to the widow's share : Rev. of the personalty : Gen. L. 1878, p. 476.

St. 1882, § 1845. ^^ Postponed to the wife : Code, 1887,

s Equally with husband or wife : Code, § 3098.

§ 1386. 1'' Pub. St. 1882, § 2420. Postponed to

6 McCIel. Dig. 1881, p. 468, § 1. the widow as to personalty; and realty

7 Rev. St. 1883, p. 610, § 1. equally with motlier.

8 As to the personal estate: Hinck. ^'^ Code, 1884, § 3268.

Test. L. § 1182. As to the real estate, ^^ Subject to claina of husband or wife :

the father is postponed to brother and Rev. L. 1880, § 2230.

sisters : lb. § 1255. ^^ Code, 1887, §§ 2548, 2557, subject to

9 Smith's Prob. L., p. 187. husband or widow's right in the per-
1'' Subject to life estate of widow in sonalty.

realty : Howell's St. 1882, §5772 a, p. 1503. 20 Postponed to husband or widow's

11 Subject to the claim of husband or claim.

wife to one third of the real estate : St. 21 Miller's Code, § 2455.

1878, p. 565, § 3. 22 d^ss. Comp. L. § 2258.

12 Subject to life estate of the widow in 23 Qen. St. ch. 31, § 1.
the realty : Comp. St. 1887, ch. 23, § 30.

§ 69 THE MOTIIEll AS HEIRESS. 139

nia,^ Texas,^ and Wisconsin/'^ Father, mother, broth- Father, motiier,
ers, and sisters take equally in Georgia,* Illinois,^ In- Sers^m eqllai
diana,^ Louisiana," and Missouri.^ The father is p*""'*-
postponed to brothers and sisters, but preferred to the mother,
in Alabama,^ Delaware,^'' Mississippi,^^ New Jersey,^ North Caro-
lina,*'^ and Ohio.*^ In Connecticut brothers and sisters take before
parents.

§ 69. The Mother as Heiress. — The mother, as will Mother takes
appear from the preceding section discussing the fat"fer'^ ^'"^^
order in which the father is entitled to inherit from „

, ., , . » Postponed to

lus child, IS nowhere preferred to the father, but in father, but pre-

some States takes jointly with him.^^ In the other eis and sistera,

States, she is postponed to the father, taking in "hem"^''"^^

preference to brothers and sisters and their descend- postponed to

ants,^^ or takes equal shares with them;i^ and in brothers and

sisters.

some States she is postponed to them also.^^ In Mis-
souri, father, mother, brothers and sisters, and their br'othcrV'^an.T'
descendants, take equally. sisters,eq«aiiy.

The course of descent, where the intestate leaves neither issue
nor parents, is in some States indicated by directing the estate to
pass as if the parents had survived the intestate and ^

. „ Descent to

died m possession of the portion coming to them, one heirs of
half going to the heirs of each. In such case the p^*"^" ""
heirs, however, inherit not from such father or mother, but
directly from the intestate.^^ And where the estate is directed to

1 Bright. Purd. Dig. 188.3, p. 931. § 22. " Rev. Code, 1880, § 1271.
Subject to husband or widow's right, the i- Rev. 1877, p. 297, § 1.
personalty absolutely, real estate for life '^ Code, § 1281, Rule 6.

of both and to survivor. " Rev. St. 1880, § 4159.

2 Rev. St. § 1G15. If both are living; i^ j^ Connecticut, Iowa, Kansas, Ken-
but if mother is dead, then one half to the tucky, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Tennes-
fatlier, the other half to brothers and sis- see, Texaa, and Wisconsin. See supra,
ters ; if there are none, all to the fatlier. § G8.

3 Rev. St. § 2270. lo In Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, and

* Code, 1882, § 2484. New York.

5 St. & Curt. St. 1885, p. 870, par. 1. i" In California, Connecticut, Georgia,
If the mother be dead, the father takes Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Alary-
her share also. land, JIassachusetts, :Micliigan, Minne-

6 Rev. St. § 24G9. Same as in Illinois, sota (one third), Nebraska, Nevada, New
" Code, 1870, art. 90-S. One half jointly Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island, South

with mother, or one half if mother be Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, and ^Ycst
dead. Virginia.

* Rev. St. § 21G1. 18 In Alabama, Delaware, Mississippi,
5 Code, § 191.5. Now Jersey, North Carolina, and Ohio.

1" Rev. 1874, p. 548, § 32. is Hence the property descending is

140 PROPERTY OF INTESTATES. § 69

go in moieties, one to the next of kin of the father, and tlie otlier
to the next of kin of the mother, each moiety will pass, as if it
were an independent estate, to the next of kin in its respective
line, without regard to their relative nearness to the intestate.^

Provision is made in several States for the legal adoption of
children by others than their parents, whereby they become
Children by members of the family of the person or persons so
adoption in- adopting, and bv force of the statute entitled to all

hent like iiat- r &' ./

urai ciiiidnn the rights accordcd by the law to natural children, in-

parents, cludiug the right of inheritance. So far as their own

footing in this respect is concerned, it is precisely equal to that

of other lawful children ;2 and hence they take no share of an

estate willed to others, if they are intentionally omit-
but not by rep- i j . , r

resentation tcd in the wiU.^ It lias been held that the right of
"^ ' inheritance does not extend to inheritance, by repre-
sentation through the adopting father, from another person.*
, ^ ., But the right to inherit from an adopted child is not

Inheritance _ " "^ ^

from adopted alwavs given to the persons adopting. In Missouri it

children. • ■, \ ^ ^ -, i • e t -, ii-ii -j i

IS held that the heirs oi the adopted child are its rela-
tions by blood, and not those by adoption, although the estate
descending had been derived from the adopting parent.^ In In-
diana the syllabus of a case announced the same principle, as
decided by the Supreme Court of that State ;^ but the court, in
later cases, point out that they had never so decided, and estab-
lish the principle, that the adopting parents take in preference to

not controlled or affectcrl by ownership in the husband merely, it does not by reason

the deceased parents ; it passes to their thereof become the heir of the wife :

/e^oHieirs, not to their devisees or legatees: Sharkey v. McDermott, 16 Mo. App. 80;

Lash I'. Lash, 57 Iowa, 88, 90. This de- s. c. 9i"Mo. 647.

cision seems inconsistent with the case of ^ Bowdlear v. Bowdlear, 112 Mass.

Moore v. Weaver, 53 Iowa, 11, where the 184 ; Sharkey v. McDermott, 16 Mo. App.

widow of a deceased father of the intes- 80, 87.

tate was allowed to take the share to * Quigley v. Mitchell, 41 Oh. St. 375;
wliich slie would have been entitled if Estate of Sunderland, 60 Iowa, 732 (two of
her husband had survived the intestate, the judges in this case dissenting, holding
See also Leonard v. Lining, 57 Iowa, 648, that there was no distinction in this re-
in consonance with Lash v. Lash. spect) ; Keegan v. Geraghty, 101 111. 26;

1 McKinney v. Abbott, 49 Tex. 371, Barnhizel v. Ferrell, 47 Ind. 335. Schou-
375 ; Jones v. Barnett, 30 Tex. 637, 642. ler, in his work on Domestic Relations,

2 Vidal V. Commagere, 13 La. An. 516; says, " An adopted child usually inherits
Burrage r. Briggs, 120 Mass. 103; New- from the adopting parent, and r?Ve ?'e?-sa;
man's Estate, 16 Pac. R. 887; Johnson's but otherwise as to collateral kindred":
Appeal, 88 Pa. St. 846, 353 ; Lunay v. § 2-32, note 5.

Vantyne, 40 Vt. 501 ; Wagner v. Varner, ^ Reinders r. Koppelmann, 68 Mo 482,

50 Iowa, 532; Hosser's Succession, 37 La. 494.

An. 839. But where a child is adopted by ^ Krug v. Davis, 87 Ind. 590.

§ 70 BROTHEUS AND SISTEKS AS HEIRS. 141

the natural parents.^ JJut where the adopted chihl, dying before
the adopting parents, leaves issue, such issue take as if they
were grandchild ren,^ as was the rule under the Roman law.-'^
This seems to be the more consistent and reasonable doctrine ;
and it was intimated, though not decided, that the rule includes
property which came to the adopted child from any source other
than by inheritance from kinsmen of its own blood.'^

The right of an ado{)ted child given by the statute Right of inher-
of one State follows it and is valid in all other States.^ sta'tut/fuHows
But while the right to inherit is undoubtedly secured f,f S olher''^
by tlie statute to the full extent of that of natural ^'^'es.
children, yet the identity of the child is not thereby identity of
changed; licnce a devise to one for life, "with re- chanfjed by the
mainder to her children," does not include an adopted *'^*^p''°"-
child of such life tenant;*' and so the exemption from the
inheritance tax secured to children does not extend to adopted
children.'

§ 70. Brothers and Sisters : Heirs of the Full and of the Half
Blood. — The next degree in the order of succession is that of
brothers and sisters and their descendants. These are not in the
descending or ascending line of propinquity, but are collateral to
the intestate. Since the brothers and sisters themselves are mem-
bers of the immediate family to which the intestate belonged, they
are (wdicre the intestate left no children, and after the husband
and wife) more nearly interested in the intestate's property than
any other relatives except the father and mother, aside from the
question of consanguinity. Hence the law casts upon them the
descent of such property, if there are no children, subject to
the rights of husband or wife, if any, and generally in connection
with, father or mother, or both. If any of them died before the
intestate, leaving descendants, these represent their deceased par-
ents, and take, in all cases, the share of such parent collectively,

1 Davis V. Krug, 95 Ind. 1; Paul v. ^ Estate of Sunderland, 60 Iowa, 732 ;
Davis, 100 Ind. 422. Eoss r. Koss, 129 Mass. 248.

2 Power I'. Hafley, 4 S. W. R. (Ky.) « Scliafer v. Eneu, 54 Pa. St. 304, 306;
683. a similar decision was made under the

'■^ Per Merrick, C. J., in Vidal v. Com- Massachusetts statute, where the re-

mag^re, 13 La. An. 516, 517. mainder was limited to the "heirs at

4 Humphries v. Davis, 100 Ind. 274. law " : Wyeth v. Stone, 144 ]\Iass. 441.

But property inherited from the natural ' Commonwealth v. Nancrede, 32 Pa.

parents descends to them or their kindred : St. 389.
Hole V. Robbins, 53 Wis. 514.

142

PROPERTY OF INTESTATES.

§70

that is, all the children of a deceased brother or sister take to-
gether the share which the deceased brother or sister would have
taken if he had survived the intestate. And in many States the
principle is extended further : if any of the children of a deceased
brother or sister died before the intestate, his children take col-
lectively the share which he would have taken if he had survived ;
and so on in every generation of descendants fi'oni a deceased
brother or sister.

Where broth- Brothers and sisters, and their descendants by rep-
ers and sisters rescntation as abovc stated, take, in default of chil-

take in default i,- t • ^

of children. drcu, aud subjcct to the rights oi husband or wite,
bandorwife'l to the cxclusion of parents and more remote kindred,
rights. ^^ Alabama,^ Connecticut,''^ Delaware,'^ Mississippi,^

New Jersey,^ North Carolina,^ Ohio," and Pennsylvania ^ ; to-
gether with parents and excluding more remote kin
in Georgia,^ Illinois,^*' Indiana,^^ Louisiana,^^ and
Missouri ^3. postponed to the father, and together with
the mother, excluding remoter kin, in Florida,^* Ken-
tucky ,i^ Maine,!^ ]\Iaryland,^' Massachusetts,^^ Michi-
gan,^^ Minnesota,^^ Nebraska,^! Nevada,^^ New Hampshire,^^ Ore-
gon,'"^* Rhode Island,^^ South Carolina,^^ Vermont,^'' Virginia,^^

Together with
parents.

Postponed to
father, to-
gether with
mother.

1 Code, § 1915.

2 Gen. St. 1888, § 632. But only
those of the whole blood ; those of the
lialf blood are postponed to the parents.

3 Laws, 548, § 32.

4 Rev. Code, § 1271.

s Rev. 297, § 1. Brothers and sisters
of the whole blood only ; those of the half
blood are postponed to parents, the mother,
if no father, taking life estate.

6 Code, § 1281, rule 6.

7 Rev. St. §4159.

8 Bright. Purd. Dig. p. 931, § 22, as to
real estate, and brothers and sisters of the
whole blood ; those of the half blood are
postponed to the parents : § 23.

9 Code, § 2484. If she be unmarried ;
otherwise she can inherit nothing except
from her only or last surviving child.

w St. & Curt. St. 1885, p. 879, par. 1.

11 Half to parents, the other half to
brothers and sisters and their descend-
ants ; if no parents, all : Rev. St. § 2469.

1- One half to parents, the other half
to brothers and sisters or their descend-
ants : Code, 1870, art. 903.

13 Rev. St. § 2161.

14 Dig. 408, § 1.

1^ One moiety if father or mother be
dead ; all, if botli be dead Gen. St. 480,

§1-

16 Rev. St. 1888, p. 610, § 1.
1" Hinck. Pr. L. § 1185.

18 Smith, Pr. L. 187, pi 3

19 Howell's St. § 5772 a, p. 1503.

"'^ One third to the mother, residue
to brothers and sisters ; but the mother
takes in exclusion of the descendants
of brothers and sisters : St. 1878, p. 565,
§3.

21 Comp. St. ch 23, § 30.

22 Comp. L. § 794.

23 Gen. L. 476, § 1.

24 Code, 1887, § 3098.

25 Pub. St. 489, § 2.

20 Rev. St. § 1845. Mother, and broth-
ers and sisters of the whole blood, take
together one moiety , but brothers and
sisters of the half blood are postponed to
the mother.

2" Rev. L. § 2230.
28 Code, 1887, § 2548.

§ 70 HEIRS OF THE FULL AND OF THE HALF BLOOD. 143

and West Virginia.^ Brothers and sisters and their descendants
are postponed to botli i)arents, but take to the cxclu- Postponed to
sion of remoter kin in Arkansas,2 Colorado,^ luwa,^ both parents.
Kansas,^ New York,*^ Pennsylvania," Tennessee,^ Texas,^ and
Wisconsin.^*^

Brothers and sisters having the same father and mother are
related to each other by the whole blood ; if they have the same
father but a different mother, or the same mother but a different
father, they are related to each other by the half blood. This
difference in the consanguinity of collateral kindred lias given rise
to some divergence in the laws of different countries regulating
the devolution of property. Under the artificial system of the
common law, collateral kindred of the half blood were entirely
excluded from the inheritance of land,^^ while in the distribution
of the personalty no distinction is recognized between brothers
and sisters of the whole blood and those of the half blood ; " for
they [the half blood] are of the kindred of the intestate, and only
excluded from inheritances of land upon feudal principles." ^^

In the American States there is but little difference between
the rules of descent of real, and of the distribution of personal
property, save as to the rights of surviving husband Distinction be-
or widow ;i^ but there is a noticeable divergence the whole and
among the several States as to the rules affecting the ^jj^jj^ ^'^'^

1 Kelley's Rev. St. 1879, ch. 66, § 1. justice, nor always a hardship ; since even

2 Dig. § 2162. the succession of tlie whole hlood was

3 Gen. St. 188.3, § 10.39. originally a beneficial indulgence." His
* Miller's Code, §2157. If both parents candor, however, induces him to admit

are dead, their share goes to their heirs. that this element of the common law is

" Dass. Comp. L. 1885, ch. 38, § 21. not his ideal of the perfection of human

If both parents are dead, then as if either reason. "I must be impartial enough

had survived, to their heirs ; and so on to own, that, in some instances, the prac-

through ascending ancestors and their tice is carried further than the principle

heirs. upon which it goes will warrant." (lb.,

6 S Banks & Bro. (7th ed.), p. 2210, § 1. 231.)

' Bright. Purd. Dig. 1883, p. 931, § 22. ^-^ 2 Bla. Coinm. 505; Crooke i-. Watt.

But only those of the half blood. Show. P. C. 108, cited in Wms. [1511] ;

8 St. 1884, § 3269. s. c. 2 Vern. 124. But it must be reniem-

9 Rev. St. § 1(545. bered that this an<l subsequent decisions

10 Rev. St. § 2270, pi. 3. on this point were made upon the Statute

11 Blackstone makes a gallant attempt of Descents.

to justify this feature of the English law 18 Jn Pennsylvania there is a difference

of descent, or at least to palliate its harsh- in the rights of brothers and sisters of the

ness. " It is certainly a very fine-spim whole blood and of the half blood to the

and subtle nicety," he says, (2 Comm. real estate, b\it not to the personal estate

230,) " but considering the principles upon of an intestate : Bright. Purd. Dig. p. 931,

which our law is founded, it is not an in- §§ 20, 21.

144 PROPERTY OF INTESTATES. § 70

inheritance of collateral kindred of the full and of the half blood.
, . ,. In some of them the distinction is simply ignored, the

Where this dis- i J o '

tinction is statute declaring collaterals of the half blood to be
entitled equally with those of the full blood in the
same degree, as in Illinois,^ Maine,^ Massachu setts, '^ North Caro-
Distinction as liw^,* Oregon,^ and Vermont.^ The statute of Penn-
to real, but not svlvania still retains a vestige of the English distinc-

as to persoual '' . .

property. tlon between real and personal property, in postponing

the half blood to the full blood in respect of realty, but putting

them on the same footing as to the personaltyJ The
postponed to half blood are not excluded in any of the States, but

postponed to the full blood in Connecticut,^ Dela-
ware,^ Georgia,!*^ Maryland,^! Mississippi ,12 New Jersey ,1^ Ohio,^*
Whole shares ^nd South Carolina. ^^ In other States the question
haiTshares"to ^^ Compromised by giving full shares to the heirs
half blood. gf the whole blood, and half shares to those of the
half blood, as in Colorado,i^ Florida,!' Kentucky,!^ Missouri,!^

Texas ,20 Yirginia,^! and West Virginia. In yet others

Where prop- n 1 • t j_i •j_ • i

erty descends the source of the property IS made the criterion by
the original ° which the respective rights of collateral kindred of
•'''°"'- the full and of the half blood are determined. If the

property constituting the inheritance came by devise, descent,
or gift from some ancestor, then those of his blood only are
entitled thereto, excluding all who are not of his blood ; but as to

1 St. & Curt. St. 1885. p. 879, par. 1. ^^ Rev. St. 1882, § 1845. The brothers

2 Rev. St. 1883, p. 611, § 2. and sisters of the whole blood take with

3 Publ. St. 1882, 743, § 2; Larrabee v. the widow and father or mother, and their
Tucker, 116 Mass. 562. children by representation ; if no brothers

* Code, 1883, § 1281, rule 6. and sisters of the full blood, then those of

6 Gen. L. 1887, § 3103. the half blood take, together with child

6 Rev. L. 1880, § 2231 ; Hatch v. Hatch, or children of deceased brothers or sisters
21 Vt. 450, 454. of the full blood by representation.

7 Stark'i;. Stark, 55 Pa. St. 62 ; Bright. le Gen. L. 1883, § 1041.
Purd. Dig. 932, § 21. 1^ McClell. Dig. 469, § 4.

8 Gen. St. 1888, § 632. i^ Gen. St. 1887, p. 481, § 3. Where

9 Laws, 1874, 548, § 32. any ascendants are in the same degree

10 Code, § 2484. Brothers and sisters of with collaterals of the half blood, they
the half blood on the paternal side take take double shares.

equally with those of the whole blood ; " Rev. St. 1879, § 2164. If ascendants
but if there be neitlier, then those of the be in the same degree and take with col-
half blood on the maternal side take. laterals of the half blood, they take double

11 Rev. Code, 1878, 405, § 19. shares.

12 Rev. Code, 1880, § 1271. 20 Rev. St. 1879, § 1648.

13 Rev. 1877, pp. 297, 298. ^a Code, 1887, § 2549. Same as in
1* Rev. St. 1880, § 4159. Missouri.

§ TO HEIRS OF THH FILL AND OF THK HALF BLOOD. 145

other property wliicli cannot l»e traced to some ancestor not com-
mon to the full and to tlie half blood relations, no distinction is
allowed. The law is substantially so enacted, although variously
worded, in Alabama,^ Arkansas,^ California,^ Indiana,* lowa,-^
Kansas,^ Louisiana," Michigan,^ Minnesota,^ Nebraska,!^ Nevada,"
New York ,12 Rhode Island, ^^ and Tennessee.^*

Some of the States distinguish between the estates of adults
and those of minors dying intestate without issue and not having
married.^5 Such distinctions are based upon the rec- Distinction in
ognition of the true principle constituting the unity of J«^^^;;;/J,{
the family. The property owned by a child before the ariuits and that

•^ I I J •/ -ii J of minors.

law allows him to dispose of it at his own will, and
before he has, by marrying, contracted obligations and relations
outside of the family, is essentially the property of the family,
and upon his death ought to remain within it, or revert to the
source from which it came to the child. Hence most of the
States distinguishing between the majority and minority of an
intestate direct the reversion of the estate of such minor to the
donor or his heirs ; ^'^ and where such estate consists of the minor's
distributive share of his deceased father's estate, it will go to the
minor's brothers and sisters or other heirs, just as if it had de-
scended to them from the father, or as if the minor had died
before the father.^^ In some States the distinction is confined to

1 Code, § 1919. " Publ. St. 1882, p. 489, § 6.

2 Dig. St. 1884, § 2533. » St. 1884, § 3269 ; Selby v. HoUings-

3 Civ. Cotle, § 1304. worth, 13 Lea, 145.

* Rev. St. 1881, § 2472. This statute ^^ Yor instance, in California, Connecti-

has been construed as applying to heirs cut, Florida, Kentucky, Maine, Massachu-

in the same degree only, so tliat if there setts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska,

be no brother or sister of the wiiole or of Nevada, Virginia, West Virginia, Wis-

the half blood of tlie intestate having the consin, and perliaps some others,

blood of tlie ancestor from vviiom the ^® Similar principles govern in these

property descended, a half-brother not of cases as in tlio^e referred to above; see

the blood of the ancestor takes to tlie ex- Smith r. Smith, 2 Biisli, 520 : Duncan c

elusion of kindred of the blood of such Lnfferty. C, .T J. Marsh. 46; Walden i\

ancestor of a more remote degree : Pond Phillips, 5 S. W. R. 757.

V. Irvin, 113 Ind. 243. i" Nash v. Cutler, 16 Pick. 491, 409

5 Neely v. Wise, 44 Iowa, 544. Perkins r. Simonds, 28 Wis. 00, 04

6 Dass. St. ch. 33, § 29. Wiesner v. Zaun, 39 Wis, 188, 204, 218

7 Code, art. 907 et seq. ; Hooke v. Hooke, North's Estate, 48 Conn. 583, 585 ; Burke
14 La. 22. r. Burke, 34 Mich. 451; Jenks v. Trow-

8 Howell's St. § 5776 n, p. 1505. bridge. 48 Mich. 94, 96. But the terms of

9 St. at L. 1878, p. 566, § 7. the statute cannot be enlarged ; therefore
If Comp. St. 1887, ch. 23, § 33. where A. died a minor and unmarried,
" Comp. L. 1873, § 797. having inherited property from the father,
12 3 Banks & Bro. (Vth ed ) p 2212, §15. and the next day B., a sister of A. and

VOL. I. — 10

146 PROPERTY OF INTESTATES. § 71

estates derived from either parent ; ^ and in such case, if there be
no brothers or sisters living at tlie time of the intestate's death,
the ordinary rules of descent govern.^

§ 71. Descendants taking by Representation. — The reciprocal
relationship between husband and wife, parents and children, and
between the cliildrcn themselves, or brothers and sisters, exhausts
the sphere of tliose intimate bonds which unite the family proper,
in its primary and most restricted sense. The descendants of the
children, or of the brothers and sisters, are not included in this
sphere, because they belong to a distinct family, which, although
closely allied to the former as springing from one of its members,
owes its integrity to the addition of a new ingredient : tlie child
or brother or sister has married ; the issue of such marriage is
equally allied to the family of its father and of its mother.
Hence, during the lifetime of the child, sister or brother, parent
of the issue of the new family, the law looks upon such issue as
not belonging to the original family of either of its parents, and .
excludes it from the inheritance left upon the death of any of its
members, the parent himself being entitled thereto. But if the
parent of the new family died before the intestate member of the
old family, the law recognizes such issue as being entitled to what
the deceased child, brother or sister, would have been entitled to
if he had survived the intestate.^ Thus the issue of deceased
cliildren, brothers and sisters, are substituted for or put into the
Right to take P^ace of their parents in the line of inheritance, that
byVpresenta- | ^jjg„ represent them, and are therefore said to take

tion 111 all ' "" -t

descendants ly represeyitatioYi. The right to take by representation
in some'states is sccurcd to the descendants of children in all the
ofbrothe?and Statcs, aud to the descendants of brothers and sisters
mSers to "1 most of them, through all descending generations,*

a'«o a minor and unmarried, died, the nia, Colorado, -Delaware, Florida, Illinois,
P*fite inherited hv B. from A. is not de- Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Lou-
rived from the father ; Goodrich ?>. Adams, isiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,
138 Mass 552. Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Car-
" 1 Decos'ter V. Wing, 70 Me. 450; Sedg- olina (as held in Cromartie r. Kemp, 60
wick«. Minot, 6 Allen, 171, 174; Cables N. C. 382, 384, affirming former cases)
V Prescott 67 Me. 582 ; Power r. Dough- Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island (as held
erty 83 Ky. 187. in Daball v. Field, 9 R. I. 266, 289 et

2 Decoster y. Wing, .swprn ,• see Good- seq.), Texas, Virginia (see Davis v.
rich V. Adams, 138 Mass. 552. Howe, 6 Rand. 355), West Virginia, and

3 Antp, § 70. Wisconsin. _
* So in Alabama, Arkansas, Califor-

§ 71 DESCENDANTS TAKING BY REPRESENTATION. 147

while in some of them it is limited to the ehildren of chiMron of

brothers and

brothers and sisters.^ sisters.

The question whether the right to take by representation ex-
ists or not, has an important bearing in ascertaining the heirship
of persons related to the intestate in a remote degree, which is
fairly illustrated by the facts of a case decided lately in Georgia.^
T., dying intestate as to a portion of her estate, left surviving
grandchildren of an aunt, and also o-reat-a-randchildren of a
deceased brother, claiming through W., their mother, the grand-
child of the brother, who had died before the intestate. Tlie
statute of Georgia fixes the order in which certain of the relatives
of intestates are entitled to the inheritance nominatim, and then
provides " that the more remote degrees of kindred shall be de-
termined by the rules of tlie canon law, as adopted and enforced
in the English courts prior to the 4th of July, 1776." It also
provides for representation as far as grandchildren of brothers
and sisters. According to the rules of the canon law,^ the grand-
children of the aunt were in the third, and the great-grandchild-
ren of the brother in the fourth degree, and it was accordingly
decided that the former were entitled to the inheritance. If
W., the grandchild of the brother, had been alive at the time of
the intestate's death, she would have taken to the exclusion of
the other branch, by representation of her grandfather, who was
a brother. But since the statute cut off representation after
grandchildren of deceased brothers and sisters, her own children
could take nothing by representation.*

1 In Connecticut, Georgia (extended tation, so that cousins take in preference

1)3' tlie act of 1859 to grandchildren of to second and tliird cousins, although

brotliors and sisters), Maine (since the tlie immediate parents of the latter died

Rev. Statutes of 1857, c. 75, §§ 1, 8 : before the intestate : Schenck v. Vail. 2-t

Davis V Stinson, 53 Me. 493), Maryland, N. J. Kq. 538, 540 ; Reasley, C. J., in Tay-

Massnchusctis (as held in Bigelow v. lor >: Bray, 32 N. J. L. 182, 191), Peim-

Morong, 103 Mass. 287, and Conant r. sylvania (extended by the act of 1855

Kent, 130 Mass. 178), Mississippi, New to grandcliildren : Perot's Appeal, 102 Pa.

Hampshire, New Jersey (the statute St. 235, 258), South Carolina, Tennessee,

being silent on this point, it was origi- and Vermont (as held in Hatch i'. Hatch,

nally held that the word "issue" included 21 Vt. 450, 455).

all des(.'endants of brothers and sisters, - Wetter v. Habersham, 60 Ga. 193.

and hence introduced the principle of ^ See post, § 72.

representation -. Den dem, Rodman v. * It is also noticeable, that if the de-
Smith, 2 N. J. L. 2, but in subsequent grec of the kindred in this case had been
cases it was held that the provision of computed according to the rules of the
the statute securing the inheritance to civil law, the greatgrandchildren of the
the next in degree of consanguinity abo- brother would have been in the same
lished the common law rule of represen- degree with the grandchildren of the

148 PEOPEKTY OF INTESTATES. § 71

The rule prohibiting representation farther than by chihlren of
the intestate's brothers and sisters is adopted from

Rule limiting r t\- •

the right by the English Statute of Distribution, and has been ire-
umkrEVgiish qucutly assertcd, both in England and America. In
statute. ^|j^ ^^g^ q£ Carter v. Crawley/ arising a few years

after the passage of the statute, its language was construed and
the reasons upon which the enactment was supposed to stand
fully stated.^ The construction then put upon it has been the
English law ever since.-'^

It remains to notice another consequence of the rule allowing
the children of deceased parents to take the parent's

Heirs take per . ^

capiki if all share by representation, applicable equally to lineal
same degree and Collateral heirs taking by representation. If the
h\^;plTstn-pe's, hcirs all stand in the same degree of consanguinity to
if by represen- the iiitcstate, and take in their own right (none of

tation, where ' ^ ^

there are heirs them bv representation), they take equal shares each

also who take J i yi j i

in their own (joer cajJitci) ; hciice the three children oi a deceased
" ' ■ sister of the intestate and the only child of a deceased

brother take each one fourth part of the estate, in disregard of
the number of those who may spring from a common parent,
because in establishing the degree of kinship they do not represent
such parent.^ But if some or one of the heirs claim in their own
right, that is, by virtue of their degree of consanguinity, and the

aunt, and would have been entitled posed every man would leave his estate

equally with them, aside from the ques- to his next kindred : but the children of

tion of representation, per capita. those that are deceased come not within

1 T. Raym. 496. this reason, for they are a degree more

2 "In respect of the intestate it may remote. . . . Now the case of a brother's
be thought an obligation upon every man children is of a mixed consideration :
to provide for those which descend from 1. In respect of the obligation, for the
his loins ; and as the administrator is to intestate was a kind of parent to his
discharge all otlier debts, so this debt to brother's children, and in that respect
nature should likewise exact a distribu- marriages between them are forbidden,
tion to all that descend from him in the 2. There is no danger that the subdivis-
lincal degrees, be they never so remote, ions should be very many and the estate
And because those which are remote reduced into very small parts ; for broth-
have not so much of his blood, therefore ers and sisters cannot be many, as cou-
tlie measure should be according to the sin-germans and other remote degrees
stocks, more or less as they stand in re- may, therefore there may be reason to
lation to him. Upon this reason repre- admit brothers' children to distribution
sentations are admitted to all degrees in by representation, and reject all farther
the lineal descent. There is no such degrees."

obligation to the remote kindred in a ^ Wms. Ex. [1512], citing numerous

collateral line, therefore they are not re- English authorities.

garded but in respect of proximity as * Jansen v. Bury, Bunb. 157.

they are next of kin, it being to be sup-

§ 71 DESCENDANTS TAKING BY REPRESENTATION. 149

claim of others rests upon the rei)rcscutatioii of a deceased parent
or ancestor, who, if living, would be in that degree, then the latter
take per stirpes, that is, collectively as much as the deceased par-
ent or ancestor would have taken, while the former take ^^tr capita.
The whole estate in such case is to be divided by the sum of the
number of those claiming in their own right plus the number
of stirps represented by their descendants, the descendants col-
lectively of each stirps taking his share. So that the thirty-two
nephews and nieces of an intestate, and the twenty-five grand-
nephews and grand-nieces and unknown heirs of a deceased niece,
take, the former per capita, the latter per stirpes.^

The question sometimes arises, whether advancements made to,
or debts owing the intestate by, heirs who die before Liability of
the intestate, leaving children who thereby become heirs i.y repre-

' o "^ seutation tor

heirs, are to be deducted from the distributive shares debts of and

. . , , . advancements

of these children. It seems clear on principle, and is to their
supported by the preponderance of adjudged cases,
that, in the absence of a statutory regulation, a distinction must
be drawn between advancements and debts ; and also between
heirs taking in their own right, and those taking by representa-
tion. Heirs taking in their own right directly from the intestate
by virtue of their propinquity of blood, not being liable for the
debts of their ancestors, and these because they died before the
intestate having no interest in the inheritance, so that there is no
connection or correlation between the inheritance and the debt,
take their shares free from any deduction on account of debts
owing by their parents or ancestors to the intestate.^ But heirs

1 Copenhaver v. Copenliaver, 9 Mo. ^ Posf, § 554, page 1216, note?; Ken-

App. 200, 201, affirmed in 78 Mo. 65. dall v. Mondell, (57 Md. 444 ; Il.genfritz's

The difficulty in this case arose out of Appeal, 5 Watts, 25 ; Carson i-. Carson, 1

the peculiar wording of the Missouri Met. (Ky.) 300 (this case turned upon

statute, which was held to bo in affirm- a statute giving to the issue of a legatee

ance of the English Statute of Distribu- dying before the testator tlie estate

tions, Iladen, J., citing numerous English willed to the legatee, but involves tin-

and American cases in support of its same principle) ; Simp.^on v. Simpson, Ki

construction. See 2 Bla. Comm. 217; 4 111. App. 170, holding that the release by

Kent Comni. 390 et seq. ; Cox v. Cox, an heir of all cdaim and right as such in

44 Ind. 308, 370, in which Buskirk, J., favor of his co-heirs would bo enforced

learnedly reviews the authorities ; Crump in equity if he survived the intestate, or

r. Faucett, 70 N. C. 345; Blake v. Blake, as an executed contract binding on his

85 Ind. 65 ; Nichols v. Shcpard, 63 N. II. heirs if not, but cannot operate to de-

391 ; Preston v. Cole, 13 Ail. R. (N. H.) prive his children of tiieir right to inherit

788 ; Sedgwick v. Minot, 6 Allen, 171, if he die before the intestate. To same

174. effect: Bishop i;. Davenport, 58 111. 105;

150 PROPERTY OF INTESTATES. § 72

taking by representation take not in their own right, but in virtue
of the right transmitted to them by the deceased heir ; hence it
may be said that they can take no more than the latter could
have taken if he had survived the intestate.^ The same result
follows where the statute declares that the issue of a deceased
heir shall take such share only as would have descended to the
parent if living at the death of the intestate."^ The distinction
between debts owing by an heir and advancements made to him
by the intestate is sharply drawn ; in some States debts so owing
cannot be deducted from the share of the heir in the real estate,
and from the personal estate only by way of set-off,^ but the true
principle seems to be that a debt owing by an heir constitutes
part of the assets of the estate, as much as that of any other
debtor, for which he should account before he can be allowed to
receive anything out of the other assets ; ^ and it has been so
held in the United States.^ This point is also discussed in con-
nection with the subject of advancements.*^

§ 72. Computation of the Next of Kin. — It IS thus seen, that in
all the States brothers and sisters and the children of deceased
Brothers and brothcrs and sisters are placed in the first degree of
theiTdesmid- collateral heirs, and that in twenty-nine of them all
ants in first ^jjgjj. descendants are relegated to the same degree by

class of collai- °

erai heirship, representation upon the death of intermediate ances-
tors. The further order of succession is indicated in some States
Later classes by the statutes thcmselvcs, mostly placing grand-
by"u'tutr fathers, grandmothers, uncles, and aunts in the next
class, together with descendants by representation, or placing
these in a postponed class, as the case may be ; ' but more gener-

Kershaw v. Kershaw, 102 111. 307, 311. * Courtenay v. Williams, 3 Hare, 539,

In Louisiana this principle is established 553, holding that the debt should be de-

by several decisions : Destrehan v. Des- ducted although barred by the Statute of

trehan, 16 Mart. (vol. 4, n. s.) 557, 578; Limitations.

Succession of Morgan, 23 La. An. 290 ; ^ Smith v. Kearney, 2 Barb. Ch. 533,
Calhoun v. Crossgrove, 33 La. An. 1001. 542 ; Wilson r. Kelly, 16 S. C. 216 (hold-
See also, as to the marital rights of a sur- i'lg that the debt must be deducted
viving wife in this connection. Succession although the heir had obtained his dis-
of PifEet, 39 La. An. 556, 564. charge in bankruptcy) ; post, § 564, and

1 Earnest v. Earnest, 5 Rawle, 213, 218. cases.

2 As, for instance, in Pennsylvania : ® Post, § 554.

McConkey v. McConkey, 9 Watts, 352. ^ So in Arkansas, Colorado, Florida,

3 Procter v. Newiiall, 17 Mass. 81, Georgia, Missouri, Rhode Island, Texas,
93 ; Hancock v. Hubbard, 19 Pick. 167 ; Virginia, and West Virginia.
Dearborn v. Preston. 7 Allen, 192, 195.

§ 72 COMPUTATION OF THE NEXT OF KIN. 151

ally a mode of ascertaining the next of kin, in degrees more
remote than that of brothers and sisters and tlieir descendants, is
pointed out, either by the statute,^ or by referring- to the rules of
the common ^ or the civil law,^ of which it is therefore necessary
to take further notice.

Blackstone treats of consanguinity under two heads, the lin-
eal and the collateral. Lineal consanguinity is that Avhich sub-
sists between persons of whom one is descended in a ^.^^^^^^ ^^^
direct line from the other, as between the intestate coiiatinii con-

n .- 1 J saiiguiuity.

and his father, grandfather, great-grandiather, and so
upward in the ascending line ; or between the intestate and his
son, grandson, great-grandson, and so downward in the direct
descending line. Every generation, either upward or downward,
constitutes a different degree. Tiiis is the only natural way of
reckoning the degrees in the direct line, and is common to the
civil, canon, and common law.^ Collateral kindred descend from
the same stock or ancestor, but not one from the other. The
ancestor is the stirps, or root, the stipes, trunk or common stock,
from which these relations are branched out. The method of
computing the degrees of collateral kindred is the same at the
common law as at the canon law, from which it has been adopted
into the common law,^ and begins with the common ancestor,
reckoning downward ; in whatever degree the claimant is distant

1 Arkansas (but in cases not provided 481, the statute being silent), New Jer-

for by tiie statute the common law is to sey (as held in Taylor i-. Bray, 32 N. J.

govern), California, Colorado, Florida, L. 182, 191, and Schenck v. Vail, 24 N. J.

Georgia (Wetter v. H«>,bersliam, 60 Ga. Eq. 538, 542 ; but it is held in New Jer-

193), Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, sey that the rule of the common law,

Maryland, Missouri, New York (in cases that inheritance cannot lineally ascend,

not provided for by statute the inheritance has not been abolished, though modified

is to descend by the rules of the common to the extent of letting in the father and

law), Rhode Island (see Pierce v Pierce, mother: Taylor y. Bray, sw/ira, p. 186 ; the

14 R. I. 514), South Carolina, Tennessee, great-uncle and cousin of an intestate are

Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wis- of equal consanguinity, and both inherit

consin. equally: Smith v. Gaines, 36 N. J. Eq.

■^ Arkansas (in cases not provided for 297), Ohio (as held in Clayton v. Drake,

by statute). Now York (same). North 17 Oh. St. 367, 371 ), Oregon. Pennsylvania

Carolina (as modified by the statute). (as held in McDowell v. Addams,.45 Pa.

8 In Alabama. Connecticut, Delaware, St. 430, 432), and Vermont.
Illinois, Indiana (although the enactment ■* 2 Bla. Comm. 202, and authorities,

was omitted in late revisions, it is held ^ This assertion lias been doubted :

still to be the law in this State : Cloud c. see Beasley, C. J., in Schenck v. Vail, 24

Bruce, Gl Ind. 171, 173), Maine, Massa- N. J. Eq. 538. 550, who suggests that the

cliusetts. Michigan, Minnesota, Missis- authority vouched by Blackstone does

sippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hamp- not sustain him in this dogma,
shire (Kelsey v. Hardy, 20 N. H. 479,

1,32 PROPERTY OF INTESTATES. § 72

from the ancestor common to him and the intestate, that is the
degree in which they are rehated.^ But if there are more degrees
between the intestate and the ancestor than between the ancestor
and the claimant, then the degrees are reckoned between the
intestate and the ancestor ; or, in other words, in counting npward
from the intestate to the ancestor, and downward from the ances-
tor to the lieir, the longest of these two lines indicates the degree
of consanguinity.

The civilians count upward from the intestate to the common
ancestor, and from him downward to the heir, reckoning one
degree for each step taken, adding the degrees in the
acShiyt*" ascending line to tliose in the descending line, and
the civilians. ^^^^ ^^^^^^ indicates the degree of consanguinity between
the intestate and the person whose heirship is to be established.

The different results obtained in adopting either of these two
methods of computing the degrees of consanguinity is illustrated
by Blackstone in tracing the kinship between King
[difference Richard III. and King Henrv VII. of English history,
in computing, ^j^^.^, eommou ancestor being Edward HI. From him
(abavus) to Edmond, Duke of York, the proavus is one degree ;
to Richard, Earl of Cambridge, the avus, two; to Richard, Duke
of York, the pater, three; to King Richard III., the intestate,
four; and from King Edward III. to John of Gant is one de-
gree ; to John, Earl of Somerset, two ; to John, Duke of Somerset,
three ; to Margaret, Countess of Richmond, four ; to King Henry
VII., five ; " which last-mentioned prince, being the farthest
removed from the common stock, gives the denomination to the
degree of kindred in the canon and municipal law. Though,
according to the computation of the civilians, . . . these two
princes were related in the ninth degree ; for from King Richard
HI. to Richard, Duke of York, is one degree ; to Richard, Earl of
Cambridge,* two ; to Edmond, Duke of York, three ; to King
Edward HI., the common ancestor, four; to John of Gant, five ;
to John, Earl of Somerset, six ; to John, Duke of Somerset, seven ;
to Margaret, Countess of Richmond, eight ; to King Henry VII.,
nine." ^

Under these several methods of computation very different col-
lateral relatives are placed in the same degree of propinquity ; the
grandfather's grandfather, for instance, is in the fourth degree ;
1 2 Bla. Comm. 206. ^ 2 Bla. Coram. 207.

§ 73 DEVOLUTION OF ANCESTRAL ESTATES. 153

under the rules of the civil law, the graud-unclc, cousin trerman,
and grand-nephew arc equally in the fourth degree ; while ac-
cording to the canon or common law, the great-grand-uncle, the
grandfather's cousin, his cousin's son and grandson, the grand-
uncle's great-grandson, the uncle's grandson, and the brother's
great-grandson arc all e(iually in the fourth degree. To avoid the
division of an inheritance into unduly small fractions, and to sim-
plify the rules of descent, the statutes mostly provide that, where
two or more of the same degree of consanguinity claim as next
of kin, those who trace their blood through the nearest lineal an-
cestor shall be preferred to those whose ancestor is more remote
from the intestate.^

§73, Devolution of Ancestral Estates. — It has already been
noticed, in connection with the relative rights of brothers and
sisters of the whole and of the half blood,^ that some ^^^.g^t^^j gg.
of the States distiniruisli, in the devolution of prop- tf es pass to
erty, between that which has been acquired by the blood ofthe
intestate himself, and such as he may have inherited
or acquired by gift or devise from some ancestor or person from
whom the estate is derived. The inheritance is directed to pass,
in such cases, to lineal and collateral heirs of the blood of such
ancestor, in Alabama,^ Arkansas,"* Connecticut,^ Indiana,^ Mary-
land," Michigan,^ Nebraska,^ Nevada,!*^ Xew Jersey," New York,i2
Ohio,^3 Pennsylvania,^^ Rhode Island,^^ and Tennessee.^^

The term " ancestor " used in these statutes is not to be under-
stood as applicable only to progenitors in the usual acceptation,

1 So in Arkansas, California, Colorado, ^ ggn gj 1387, § 682.
Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Maine, '^ Rev. St. 1881. § 2471.
Maryland, Massachusetts, Micliigan, Min- ' Rev. Code, 1878. p. 404. § .3 et seq.
riesota, Missouri, Nevada, New York, 8 Howell's St. 1882, § 5776 (i, p. 1505.
Oregcon, Rhode Island, Virginia, West ^ Comp. St. 1887, ch. 23, § 33.
Virginia, and Wisconsin. It will be i' Comp. L. 1873, § 797.

noticed that, where representation is " Rev. 1877, p. 207, §3 ; p.208, §§ 5, 6;

aHowed, the same result is readied by Speer v. Miller, 37 N. J. Eq. 492; Miller

that means, differing only, perhaps, in v. Speer, 38 N. J. Eq. 667.

respect of the privity between the persons ^'^ 3 Banks & Bro., p. 2211, § 5 ; p. 2212,

representing and those represented, wiiich § 10.

is an incident to representation. See is Rgv. St. 1880, § 4158; Stannard v.

ante, § 71, page 149, note 2 et seq. Case, 40 Oh. St. 211.

2 Ante, § 70. " Bright. Purd. Dig. 9.32, § 27 ; Perot's
8 Code, 1886, § 1919. See Stalhvorth Appeal, 102 Pa. St. 235.

V. Stallworth, 29 Ala. 76, 80; Eatman r. '5 Pub. St. 1882, p. 489, § 6.
Eatman, 83 Ala. 478. is Code, 1884, § 3269.

* Dig. 1884, § 2531 ; Beard v. Mosely,
30 Ark. 517, citing other Arkansas cases.

154 PROPERTY OF INTESTATES. § 74

but as including any person from whom an estate

Ancestor o ./ i

means any passcs ; ^ it is the Correlative of "heir, ^ the eom-
whonithees- mune vinculum, whether the estate ascends or de-
scends.^ From its nature personal property cannot
often be traced back to an ancestor ; hence it has been held that the
rule affecting ancestral estates is applicable only to real estate.*
The rule is rarely or never apijlicable to the children of the intes-
tate, and generally distinguishes between kindred of a more remote
degree, or between those of the full and those of the half blood,
in which case those of the preferred degree, or of the full blood,
if any, will take, without reference to the derivation of the estate,
to the exclusion of those postponed, whether of the blood of the
ancestor or not.^ These statutes have also been construed as
referring to the immediate ancestor of the intestate, and not
applicable to estates derived remotely, whether by gift, devise, or
descent.^ In determining whether real estate is an-

Kules in ascer- °

tainins ances- ccstral or otherwise, the course of descent is controlled
by the legal title," that title under which the intestate
immediately held,^ and the statutes are to be construed upon
legal rather than equitable principles.^

§ 74. Posthumous Children. — Posthumous children, born with-
in the usual period of gestation after the death of the intestate,
are entitled to inherit from an intestate father in the
children in- samc manner as if they were born during his lifetime
wTth otiie'i ^ and had survived him.^*^ This riile is said to be the
children. game Under the common and the civil law,^i and is

1 Prickett v. Parker, 3 Oh. St. 304, 564, 568; Clark v. Shailer, 46 Conn. 119,
citing earlier Ohio oases to same effect; 121; Curren v. Taylor, 19 Oh. 36; Morris
Campbell J. in Bailey v. Bailey, 25 Mich. v. Potter, 10 R. I. 58, 70 ; Wheeler v.
185, 188. Clutterbuck, 52 N. Y. 67, 70.

2 Webster ; Abb. Law Diet. " Ances- '^ Patterson v. Lamson, 12 N. East. R.
tor," and autiiorities cited and quoted 581, 535; Shepard v. Taylor, 15 R. I.
using the term in either the popular or 204.

technical sense. " Brower v. Hunt. 18 Oh. St. 311, 342.

3 Lewis V. Gorman, 5 Pa. St. 164, 166, ^ Armington v. Armington, 28 Ind. 74,
quoting from Bevan v. Taylor, 7 Serg. & 76 ; Patterson v. Lamson, supra.

R. .397, 404. ^° 4 Kent Comm. 412, adding that such

4 Henderson v. Sherman, 47 Mich. 267, is the universal rule in this country. But
274. the rule is universal only as stated in tlie

6 Ryan v. Andrews, 21 Mich. 229, 234 text, namely, between the intestate and

et seq.; Rowley r. Stray, 32 Mich. 70, 76 ; his own children. See infm, as to the

Chaney v. Barker, 3 Baxt. 424, citing States distinguishing between the intes-

Nesbiti'. Bryan, 1 Swan, 468. tate's children and other heirs.

*> Story, J., in Gardner v. Collins, 2 Pet. " 1 Bla. Comm. 130, quoting the civil

58, 91 et seq.; Oliver v. Vance, 34 Ark. law maxim, Qui in utero sunt, injure civili

§ 74 POSTHUMOUS CHILDREN. 155

based upon the })riiiciple that a child in vriitre m mere is in
rerum iiatura, as much so as if born in the father's lifetime,' and
is so considered for all jjurposcs which are for his benefit.^ Kut
while the rule is recognized in all the States in favor .^.^^.^ ^^^^^ .^
of the intestate's own children, being affirmatively wntin.'d, in

' ° ^ , '' some states, (o

enacted by statute in most of them,^ it is in others tiie intestate's

■ . 1 1 -1 T 1 ii 1 • own children.

limited to the intestate s children, and no other heirs

not in being before the intestate's death are allowed to participate

in his estate by inheritance.**

The ordinary period of gestation is fixed by medical writers at
ten lunar months ; but there are many well autheii- Ten months
ticated cases in which it was extended much longer.'^ period o't'S-
It is in some States fixed by statute at ten months, ^^*'""-
during which the legitimacy of the issue is presumed.

Questions sometimes arise in respect of the validity of the dis-
position of property in which a child is interested, after the
father's death and before its birth. It is held that a ^.

Disposition of

disposition made of the property for its preservation proiK-rty after

.,,.111, father's death

or protection will be binding upon the child, although and before
it was not represented in the proceeding for the con-
version, because the posthumous child did not possess, until born,
any such estate in the property as could affect the power of
the court to convert it if necessary.^ In Virginia it is also held
that parties in being, possessing an estate of inheritance, are
regarded as so far representing all persons who, being afterward
born, may have interests in the same, that a decree binding them
will also bind the after-born parties;" and in South Carolina, that
a court of equity may bar, by its decree for sale, the interest of
unborn contingent remaindermen, who, of course, could not be
made parties.^ But a sale of the real estate before the birth of a

intelllgnntur in rere naturam esse, cum de * Tn Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado,

eorum romiiiodu (u/diur. Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Ohio, Rhode

1 Wallis V. Hodson, 2 Atk. 116; Mor- Island, Tennessee (see Melton v. David-
row r. Scott, 7 Ga. 535, 537 ; Hill y. Moore, son, 5 S. W. K. 530), and Texas. See
1 Murph. 283, 251. Shriver v. State, 05 Md. 278, 2S3.

■i Doe r. Clarke, 2 H. Blaekst. 399, 401 ; » Wharton & Stille, Med. Jurispr., § 41

Hall V. Hancock, 15 Pick. 255, 258. et seq.

8 In California, Delaware, Georgia, ^ Knotts v. Stearns, 91 U S. 638.

Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, " Ibid., referring to the case of Faulk-

Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Ne- ncr v. Davis, 18 Gratt. 651.
braska. New Jersey, New York, North ^ Bofil v. Fisher, 3 Rich. Eq. 1.

Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

156

PROPERTY OF INTESTATES.

§75

posthumous child does not dcinive it of its interest in such land.^
In Michigan the statute provides that " posthumous children are
considered as living at the death of their parents." ^

§ 75. Illegitimate Children. — According to the common law an
illegitimate child is Jilius nullius, and can have no father known
iiieg-itimate to the law ; ^ he has no inheritable blood, and can

child has no , '

inheritable thcreforc bc tlic heir to neither his putative father nor

blood at com-
mon law. mother, nor any one else, and can have no heir but

of his own body.'* The rigor, not to say cruelty of the civil law,

The severitj' wliicli denied even maintenance to the fruit of incestu-

reiaxed'^hAhe o^^^ intercourse,^ and of the common law, allowing a

United States, b^gtard no rights but such as he himself acquires,^ and

renders legitimation impossible, although the parents marry after

birth,''' has been much relaxed in the several States of the Union.

Thus they are almost universally allowed to inherit from the

mother and through the mother : ^ and in Connecticut, where the

1 Pearson v. Carlton, 18 S. C. 47.

2 Catholic Association v. Flrnane, 50
Mich. 82, 85.

3 Taney, Ch. J., in Brewer v. Blougher,
14 Pet. 178, 198.

4 1 Bla. Conim. 459 ; 2 Kent Comm. 212 ;
Schoul. Dom. Rel. § 277, quoting from
Blackstone : " And really," says Black-
stone, witii warmth, as if to atone lor a
long and fallacious argument against legit-
imation by subsequent marriage, "any
other distinction but that of not inherit-
ing, which civil policy renders necessary,
would, with regard to the innocent off-
spring of his parents' crimes, be odious,
unjust, and cruel to the last degree";
and then adds : " And so might the com-
mentator of the commentaries stigmatize
the efforts of those who have nothing
better to urge against human rights than
the importance of preserving the sym-
metry of the law unimpaired."

& 1 Bla. Comm. 458, citing Nov. 89,
c. 15.

6 Even his name must be acquired by
reputation • Co. Litt. 3.

7 1 Bl. Comm. 454.

^ So by positive enactment in Ala-
bama, Arkansas, California, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachu-
setts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,

Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Jersey (if she leave no
lawful issue). New York (in default of
legitima.te issue). North Carolina (if no
legitimate issue, and cannot represent the
mother), Ohio, Oregon (but does not rep-
resent the mother), Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Vir-
ginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

In Massachusetts the law constituting
illegitimate children heirs of the mother
and of any " maternal ancestor " is strictly
construed ; the term " ancestor " is con-
strued to mean progenitor, and it is con-
sequently held that neither a bastard nor
his issue can take from the mother's col-
lateral kindred : Pratt v. Atwood, 108
Mass. 40 ; nor they through her: Haraden
V. Larrabee, 113 Mass. 4oO, 432. In Rhode
Island illegitimates are put upon the same
footing with legitimates as to the mother :
Briggs V. Greene, 10 R. I. 495, 497. To
same effect: Burlington v. Fosby, 6 Vt.
83, 88 ; Garland v. Harrison, 8 Leigh, 368,
370; Bales v. Elder, 118 111. 4-36; Jenkins
V. Diane, 121 111. 217. In Kentucky it is
held that the lawful children of a deceased
bastard inherit from the bastard brother
of such parent by the same mother,
although such bastard brother died before
the death of the parent : Sutton i'. Sutton,
8 S. W. R. 337.

§75

ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN.

157

statute gives the estate to tlic "children" of an intestate, without
in any way qualifying- the word, it has been held that illegitinaate
children were thereby included.^ In some of the States Bastards in-
thc illegitimate ofi'spring may also be enal)led to in- kn"wie(i'j!ced
hcrit from the father, if the latter acknowledge him by the father,
in writing in the presence of a competent witness;'- and the sub-
sequent marriage of the parents legitimates their jyjjj^^j.,^^ „f
issue, if acknowledged by the father, in nearly all the fw>'u> k-^'iti-

' " •' 1 1 M mates bastard.

States, cancelling all distinction between such chil-
dren and those begotten and born in lawful wedlock.^ If an
illegitimate child is once legitimated by the subsequent marriage
of the parents in a State whose laws attach such effect to such
marriage, the legitimacy follows the child everywhere, and entitles
him to the right of inheritance.'*

In some of the States, illegitimate children take as heirs from
father or mother, if there are no other heirs capable inherit in de-

1 1 1 i 1 -. i 1 r mi fault of Other

of taking, so that they exclude the State only.'' ine heirs.

1 Heath v. White, 5 Conn. 228, 282;
Dickinson's Appeal, 42 Conn. 491, 504 tl
s(q., holding tliat bastards have inlieritable
Mood to transfer collaterally as well as
lineally; Brown v. Dye, 2 Hoot, 280, de-
ciding that illegitimate children of the
same mother may inherit from each other.
But the word " children " in tlie statute of
Illinois was held to mean lawful children,
and not to do away with the common law
rule, according to which illegitimate chil-
dren cannot inherit: Blacklaws v. Milne,
82 111. 505; Orthwein v. Tliomas, lo N.
East. R. 564. See, however, Rogers v.
VVeller, 5 Biss. 166, 168, 170.

^ So provided in California, Iowa (if the
paternity be notoriously acknowledged,
or acknowledged in writing, or proved
during the intestate's lifetime : as to evi-
dence sufficient to establish notorious
recognition see Blair v. Howell, 68 Iowa,
6rJ), Maine, Michigan (the acknowledg-
ment must be recorded like a deed), Min-
nesota, Nebraska, Nevada, Tennessee,
Vermont, and Wisconsin.

The statute of Vermont, legitimating
a bastard adopted by the putative father
" as respects the father," is held not to
enable such bastard to inherit by repre-
senting him : SafEord v. Houghton, 48
Vt. 236, 238. In Iowa the acknowledg-

ment need not be by formal avowal, it
may be by letters recognizing him as a
child : Crane v. Crane, 31 Iowa, 296, 303;
and tlie birth of an ilie.Lntimate child after
making a will, if acknowledged by the
father, revokes such will : Milburn v.
Milburn, 60 Iowa, 411. A bastard duly
legitimized inherits not only lineally but
also collaterally : McKamie v. Baskerville,
7 S. W. R. (Tenn.) 194.

3 In Indiana, if a man marries a
woman, although he then denies that a
child, with which she is pregnant, is his
own, as charged by her, and afterward
cohabit with her, tlie child is nevertheless
his legitimate heir: Bailey v. Boyd, 59
Ind. 2:i2, 298.

i Miller v. Miller, 91 N. Y. 315, citing
Story, Confl. L. ch. iv. ; Smith v. Kelly,
23 Miss. 167; Scott i'. Key, 11 La. An.
232 ; Ross v. Ross, 129 Mass. 243 ; Van
Voorhis c. Brintnall, 86 N. Y. 18 ; Good-
man's Trust, Law R. 17 Ch. Div. 266.
But see Lingen v. Lingen, 45 Ala. 410.

^ As in Indiana, where an illegitimate
child inherits from and through the
mother as if born in lawful wedlock :
Parks V. Kimes, 100 Ind. 148, 158 ; and
from the fatiier in default of legitimate
children, if there be no heirs within the
United States capable of taking: Louisi-

158 PROPERTY OF INTESTATES. § 75

word "heirs" in such case is not confined to children; it includes
all who may inherit under the law.^

It is also to be observed, that the issue of marriages which are
null in law are in every respect legitimate, and inherit and trans-
mit by descent as if born in lawful wedlock.^

In States recognizing neither lawful marriages nor property
rights in slaves, the laws of descent did not, of course, apply to
r v f them. A statute passed after their emancipation, de-

Legitimacv of i ' .

slaves. " Glaring that children of colored parents born before a
day named of persons living together as man and wife should be
legitimate children, with all the rights of heirs at law and next of
kin with respect to the estate of such parents, was held, in North
Carolina, as entitling them to inherit from such parents only, but
not from any other person.^

Upon the death of a bastard intestate, his descendants take as
if he were legitimate. In most States his mother, in default of
Bastard's de- descendants, and those tracing kinship through her,
scendants inherit from him.* Where the statute declares that

inherit trom , . .

I'im- illegitimate children shall be deemed legitimate as be-

tween themselves and their representatives, and that their estates
shall descend accordingly in the same manner as if they had been
born in wedlock, and, in case of death without issue, to such i)er-
son as would inherit if all such children were born in wedlock, it
is held that the estate of such illegitimate dying intestate m ithout
issue shall descend to his or her brothers and sisters born of the
body of the same mother, and their representatives, whether legiti-
mate or illegitimate.^

In Illinois, by act of April 9, 1872, " in case of the death of an
illegitimate intestate leaving no child or descendant of a child,
the whole estate, personal and real, shall descend to and absolutely
vest in the widow or surviving husband.'"^ The widow might,
under the administration law^, renounce the will, and take as if

ana, where natural children take in default sota, ^Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Ne-

of lawful descendants, ascendants, col- vada. New Hampshire, North Carolina,

lateral kindred, and husband or wife. Oliio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont,

1 Borroughs v. Adams. 78 Ind. 160. Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

2 Dyer r.^Brannock, 66 Mo. 391, 418. ^ Powers i'. Kite, 83 N. C. 156, citing

3 Tucker v. Bellamy, 4 S. E R. 34. former North Carolina cases. See, to
* So in Alabama, Arkansas, California, similar effect, Southgate v. Annan, 31 Md.

Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois; In- 113, 115; Estate of Mngee, 63 Cal. 414.
diana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mary- '^ Pub. L. 111. 1871-72, p. 353, § 2,

land, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minne- pi. 3.

§ 76 ALIENS. 159

the husband had died intestate* Under these statutes it was
held that the widow of an illegitimate testator, renouncing the
will, took the testator's entire estate, thus putting it in her power
to render her husband's will nugatory .^

§ 76. Aliens. — It has already been shown, in connection with
the subject of testamentary Canaeity, that the common law rule
incapacitating aliens from taking property by descent ^^,.^,^^.^^^ ^^^^_
lias been abrogated or largely modified in England, as daily i... i)ar

« , ^ . , _• . Q Ti • to inheritance.

well as in most of the States of the Union.^ It is un-
necessary to say more on this subject now, than to repeat that
except in two or three of the States alienism now constitutes no
insuperable bar to the right of inheritance in any of them, nor
is the alienism of an ancestor through whom the descent of prop
erty is claimed allowed to impair the title.^ The law in this
respect is very recent in several of the States.^

1 Pub. L. 111. 1871-72, p. 07, § 78 (since respect ; § 2860 seems to be of a date more

repealed). recent tban § 2260, and evidently controls

^ Evans v. Trice, 118 111. 593. Tliis the latter, or ratlier, as appears from the
construction was denied by the minority sections followinfi, repeals it, leaving the
of the court (tlie judges standing four to law as announced in the text. § 28G0 re-
three), on the ground, among others, that mains in the Code of 1886: § 191-4. As
it involves an unwarrantable e.xercise of to the law in Missouri on this point, see
power by the legislature, and is therefore Sullivan v. Burnett, 105 U. S. o-)-i, 037,
obnoxious to the constitution: Evans v. giving a history of it.
Price, dissenting opinion, 118 111. 663. ^ King i'. Wear, 53 Iowa, 07, 100; Hall

3 Ajite,% 19. V- Hall, 13 Htm, 300, 312; Harnian v.

* The Code of Alabama of 1876 con- Ferrall, 64 N. C. 474, 477 (the enabling

tains two inconsistent provisions in this statute was passed in 1871).

160 PROVISIONAL ALIMONY OF THE FAMILY. § 77

CHAPTER IX.

PEOVISIONAL ALIMONY OP THE FAMILY.

S 77. Nature and Office of Statutory Allowances for the Provits-

ional Support of the Family. — It has already been noticed that

the power of testamentary disposition is limited, in

Paramount '■ r- n ^ i i • i i

right of sur- somc respects, by the policy of the law/ which places
to7e"mporary Certain rights beyond the caprice of a testator. One
alimony. ^^ these is the right of the surviving members of his

family to the necessary means of subsistence, raiment, and shelter
during the period immediately succeeding his death, which the
law enforces not only against any inconsistent testamentary dis-
position, but equally against creditors, heirs, and distributees,
whose rights, like those of legatees, are controlled by and post-
poned to the provisions made for the surviving family in this

respect.

These provisions, like the kindred subject of the homestead
exemption laws, are of purely American origin. They owe their
Protection of existcncG to a humane and benevolent consideration
the Famiiv a £ ^j g distrcss and helplessness of widows and orphans

necessity of ' ^

the State. ncwly bcrcft of their protector and supporter, and to

a wise public policy, recognizing the true relation of the State
to the Family as its organic, constituent element. " The protec-
tion of the Family,'' says Thompson in his valuable work on
Homesteads and Exemptions, " from dependence and want, is the
expressed object of nearly all the homestead and exemption laws ;
the immunities enacted by these statutes are extended to this
association of persons, or to the head thereof, for the benefit of all
its members." ^ " The relation of husband and wife, parent and
child is the unit of civilization, and the State has thought to
encourage that relation by protecting it from absolute want,
arising from the vicissitudes of life."^

The common law secures to the widow her dower, and to the
widow and children their pars rationahilis (corresponding to

1 Ante, %&et seq., § 17. ^ Bond, J., In re Lambson, 2 Hughes,

2 Thomp. Homest. & Ex., § 40. 233.

§ 77 NATUHE OF STATUTORY ALLOWANCES. 161

dower and distribulion under American statutes), „

Nosuchpro-

but no provision whatever is therein found to meet vision at com-
tlie exigencies arising immediately upon the death of
the head of a family, save, perhaps, the clause in Magna Charta
securing to the widow the right to remain in her husband's capital
mansion for forty days after liis death, within which time her
dower was to be assigned,^ These rights arc secured to the
widow to an equal extent in all the States, aside from the subject
now under consideration, and in addition to the exemption from
execution of certain property necessary to the family during the
lifetime of the husband, and which are in many instances con-
tinued in favor of the widow or minor children upon his death."-

These provisions for the protection of the family constitute no
gift to the widow to repair any seeming injustice in the Statute of
Distribution or the will of her husband, but are in- Temporary
tended to furnish to her and her minor children the P^JS'ug^"
means of temporary maintenance out of the estate of family.
the deceased husband until their interest therein can be set out
to them,'^ not only protecting so much against the claims of credi-
tors,* but also against the heirs, or distributees, legatees, and per-
sonal representatives. Depending wholly upon the enactments of
the several legislatures they vary greatly, not only in varying in
magnitude but also as to the mode in which this "nT method of
bounty is secured to them ; intended, in some cases, appiicauon.
"merely to furnish the family with a reasonahle maintenance for
a few weeks, and with some articles of necessary furniture when
not otherwise provided with them, . . . temporary in its nature
and personal in its character, conferring no absolute or contingent
right of property which can survive her or go to her personal
representatives" ;^ in others, assuming such liberal proportions as

1 Thomp. Homest. & Ex., § 933 ; pressly authorize creditors to intorrer^t

Hubbard v. Wood, 15 N. H. 74, 78. leg.acies, distributive shares, and del'N

- As by express enactment in Califor- payable out of the estate of a decea.^eil

nia, Colorado, Kansas, Mississippi, Ne- person by garnishment process, it is held

vada, Oregon, Khode Island, Virginia, that the allowance to the widow cannot

and perhaps other States. But in so far be so attached: Barnum i'. Bougliton,

as these exemptions extend to the head supra. See also the case of Livingston

of a family, they protect the widow and r. Langley, 3 S. E. K. (Ga.) 009, giving

minor children in all of them. the widow preference to a fund claimed

^ Foster v. Foster, 36 N. H. 437, 438 ; by her husband's sureties.
Woodbury v. Woodbury, 58 N. H. 44; ^ Adams i-. Adams, 10 Met. (Mass.)

Barnum v. Bougliton, 55 Conn. 117. 170, 171.

* In Connecticut, whose statutes ex-
VOL. I. — 11

162 PROVISIONAL ALIMONY OF THE FAMILY. § 78

not only to effectually protect a family against sudden impoverish-
ment by reason of the death of its natural provider, but seriously
affecting the interests of creditors.^ In Missouri the property so
allowed vests in the widow or children immediately upon the
death of the husband or father, without formal election,^ may
be assigned by the widow by deed with or without consideration,^
and passes to her administrator, as against the heirs or husband's
creditors.* It is no part of her distributive share as next of kin,
unless so expressed by the statute.^

§ 78. statutory Provisions touching the Extent and Mode of the
Allowance. — In some of the States, the quantum of the allowance
Temporary ^^ ^^^ fixed by statutc, but left to the discretion of the
allowance probatc court. In California ^ and Nevada ''' the pro-

before grant ^ _ ^

of letters. bate judge is required to make a temporary allowance
for the reasonable support of the widow and minor children be-
fore the grant of letters ; and upon the return of the inventory,
or subsequently, he is to set apart for the use of the family all
personal property which is by law exempt from execution or
attachment against a debtor ; and if this is not sufficient for the
Allowance in maintenance of the family, to make such additional
probatrcourt. reasonable allowance out of the estate as may be
necessary during the progress of the settlement, — not
longer, in case of insolvent estates, than one year. In Connecti-
cut,^ lowa,^ Maine,^*^ Massachusetts,^! New Hampsliire,!^ Texas,!^
and Vermont,!* the entire amount to which the widow or minor
children, or both, are thus entitled, is determined by the judge of
probate, except that in all cases the wearing apparel,!^ and gener-

1 In California, Kansas, Missouri, and i" Rev. St. 1883, p. 552, § 21 et seq.
some other States, very generous pro- " Gen. St. 1882, ch. 135, §§ 1, 2, p. 770.
vision is made for the surviving family. In cases where there is no widow, but
See post, § 78. minor children, the allowance is limited

2 Hastings v. Meyer, 21 Mo. 519. not to exceed $50 each.

8 McFarland v. Baze, 24 Mo. 156. i^ Gen. L. 1878, p. 474, %\et seq.

4 Cummings v. Cummings, 51 Mo 261, i^ Rev. St. 1888, § 1984.
263. " Gen. St. 1880, § 2109.

5 Hence a bill of sale by the widow ^^ What constitutes wearing apparel,
of " all the personal property owned by or rather what does not constitute such,
her as heir at law of her husband " does has been judicially decided in Vermont,
not include such allowance : Estate of Neither the watch, chain, key, and seals,
Moore, 57 Cal. 446, 447. nor the finger-ring usually worn by a

8 Civ. Proc, § 1464. person when living, nor the sword and

7 Comp. L. 187.3, § 602. sword-belt which an officer in the United

8 Gen. St. 1888, § 604. States navy wore in accordance with the
^ Code, 1886, § 2375, regulations of the Navy Department, can

§ 78 STATUTORY PROVISIONS. 163

ally the ornaments of tlie family, are reserved to the widow. In
j\Iicliigan,^ Nchraska,^ North Carolina,^ Oregon,* Rhode Ishind,'^
and Wisconsin,^ this discretion of the court is limited to determine
the amount necessary for sustenance, while other articles of per-
sonal property are secured to the widow or family expressly, or
permitted to be selected by tliem. In Mississippi^ and Missouri ^
the articles allowed as the absolute property of the widow are
specifically enumerated, including provisions for the support of
the family for one year ; but if such provisions are not on hand,
the probate court, or in Mississippi the commissioners appointed to
set out the widow's share, are to make a reasonable appropria-
tion out of the assets to supply the deficiency. In Virginia,^ the
" dead victuals" arc reserved for the use of the family if desired
by any member thereof, and live stock may be killed Commissionera
for that purpose before the sale. In Georgia^*' and setapan'asuf-
Tennessee ^^ commissioners are app3inted to set apart the "upp^i-tot
a sufficiencj^ of the estate for the support of the widow ^^^ family.
and her family for twelve months, in property or money. In
other States the amount and specific articles of property allowed
to the widow and family, and in several instances to the surviving
husband and his minor children, are distinctly enumerated, vary-
ing in kind, amount, and nature of the title by which it is held.
In Alabama ^2 ^^g statute allows certain articles enumerated abso-
lutely, in addition to which the widow or guardian of infant heirs
may select other property to the amount of one thousand dollars,
which, however, if the estate is solvent, must be accounted for
as so much received on account of distribution or legacy. In
Pennsylvania the widow or children of any decedent are allowed
to retain §5300 worth of assets of the estate ; but this statute is
held to be founded on the father's liability for the support of his

be considered wearing apparel within 2 Qgn. St. 1873, p. 300, § 176; Comp.

tlie meaning of tlie statute securing the St. 1887, eh. 23, § 176.

wearing apparel of a decetlcnt to liis ^ Code, 1883, p. 811, § 2116 et seq.

widow : Sawyer r. Sawyer, 28 Vt. 249, « Code, 1887, § 1126.

Redfield, C. J., dissenting except as to ^ Pub. St. 1882, p. 482, § 4.

tlie watch. But otherwise of the epau- 6 Rgv. St. 1878, § 3935.

lets, wliich are part of the coat, and a ' Code, 1880, § 1270.

bosom pin, which is attached to the ^ Rev. St. 1879, § 106.

shirt, and must go witli the principal ^ Code, 1887, § 2640.

(p. 252). Eings and jewelry are not wear- " Code, 1882, §§ 2571-2578.

ing apparel : Frazier v. Barnum, 19 N. J. u Code, 1884, § 3125 et seq.

Eq. 310, 318. 12 Code, 1886. §§ 2545, 2517; Huntef

1 2 How. St. 18S2, § 5847. v. Law, 68 Ala. 365, 367.

164 PROVISIONAL ALIMONY OF THE FAMILY. § 79

family, and does not extend to the children of a woman deceased.^
In Maryland, prior to 1884, a widow was entitled to select prop-
erty to the amonnt of $150, out of any personal property inven-
toried ; but by act of the legislature her selection is now confined
to the kitchen and household furniture.^

§ 79. Rules governing the Amount of the Allow^auce. — In exer-
cising the discretion vested in probate courts and in commis-
Discretion of ^ioners appointed by them to designate and set apart
probate court the property and money allowed for the provisional

controlled by . „

appellate mamtenaiice of the family, they are not to proceed in

an arbitrary or capricious manner, setting up their
own fanciful views or unsupported individual opinions as the cri-
terion by which to measure the rights of the family on the one
hand, and of creditors, heirs, or legatees on the other; but they
exercise a sound judicial discretion, subject to be reviewed and
corrected on appeal.^ It is the duty of the appellate court in
most States to hear and determine the question anew, and to
make such allowance in lieu of the allowance made by the probate
court as to it may appear reasonable and proper, as if constitut-
ing, pro hac vice, the probate court.* Unless, however, the award
made in the probate court be appealed from, it is conclusive, and
cannot he questioned collaterally, however disproportionate it
may seem or be.^

Where the whole question as to the magnitude of the allowance,
as well as the time during which it is to apply, is left undeter-
mined by the statute, it should be remembered that the policy
a.nd intention of the law is to furnish a temporary supply for the
wants of the family while the estate is in process of administra-
tion, until the debts are paid and the distributive shares of the
widow and heirs are ascertained, or, in case of insolvency, to fur-
nish support to the helpless until new arrangements can be made
to enable them to gain a livelihood.^

1 King's Appeal, 84 Pa. St. 345. Boyden v. "Ward, 38 Vt. 628 ; Drew v.

2 Crow V. Hubard, 62 Md. 560. Cordon, 13 Allen, 120 ; Richardson v.

3 Piper V. Piper, 34 N. H. 563, 566 ; Merrill. 32 Vt. 27. In Iowa, an aliow-
Applegate v. Cameron, 2 Bradf. 119, re- ance of -"JSOO was reduced to .$350 after
vising and correcting the action of com- the expiration of the year for which it
missioners setting out property to the was made ; but the appellate court ruled
widow. that, if th.e widow had expended the

* Cummings v. Allen, 34 N. H. 194, amount allowed, she could not be held

103 ; Oilman r. Oilman, 53 Me. 184, 191 ; to account for it : Harshman v. Slonaker,

Washburn v. Washburn, 10 Pick. 374. 53 Iowa, 467, 468.

5 Litchfield V. Cudworth, 15 Pick. 23 ; ^ Washburn v. Washburn, supra.

§ 79 RULES GOVERNING THE ALLOWANCE. 165

111 determining the amount necessary for such purpose, regard
may be had to the state of the health, age, and habits of the
widow, the number and age of the children iramedi- c^n.j^g,.,^;,,,,^
atelv dependent upon her, as well as the value of the governing tiie

•' ' ^ T M • 1 ii allowance.

estate and of her dower and distributive snare tliere-
in.^ It may also be considered whether or not she is accustomed
to hard labor, and thus enabled to support herself, or if by reas(jn
of ill health or other circumstances she is unable to do so. A
smaller amount will be proper in the former case than that whicli
may be necessary in the latter.^ When the statute fixes the time
for the duration of which the allowance is to be made, it must, of
course, be sufficient to secure the reasonable comfort ^^^^^^^ ^j
of the family during the whole of such period, if used the family to

1)6 SGCUrCQ.

with ordinary prudence and economy. If the estate
is large, apparently solvent, and the allowance merely an antici-
pation of the widow's distributive share, a more liberal allowance
will be justified than where it is small or insolvent; and what
would be a reasonable allowance for one accustomed to privation
and labor might be very unreasonable for one raised in affluence.^
The discretion of the probate iudge has been held to „ , ^ . ,

^ _ do frobate jiulge

include the power of refusing an allowance altogether, may refuse

-,. . ,. , .p allowance.

where the condition of the wife as to separate prop-
erty of her own, or the amount of her distributive share in the
estate, or what she may realize from her dower in the real estate,
renders such an allowance unnecessary, or the more pressing
necessities of the heirs or legatees would make it unjust.^ In
several States, the statute expressly vests in the probate court the
power to refuse an allowance altogether;^ but in Vermont, where

1 Biiffum V. Sparhawk, 20 N. H. 81, be made if deemed necessary, and may

84 ; Duncan v. Eaton. 17 N. H. 441 ; when made subsequently be diminislie.l

Ma'thes v. Bennett, 21 N. H. 188. or increased : Code, 1886, §§ 2375, 2377 ;

•-' Brown v. Hodgdon, 31 Me. 65, 70; in Michigan, if the provision made by a

Washburn v. Washburn, 10 Pick. 374. testator be insufficient : How. St. 1882,

3 Thomps. on Homest., § 048. §;J814: in Neva<la, if the widow have

* Hollenbeck v. Pixlev, 3 Gray, 521, sufficient maintenance from her own

524 ; Kersey v. Bailey, 52* Me. 198. But property, the allowance is to be made in

the ground" upon which the decision in favor of minor children : Comp. L. 1873,

this case is based addresses itself rather § 009. In Maine and New Hampshire,

to the question whether the applicant tlie allowance is likewise conditioned,

was really the widow of the decedent that the testator make no adequate pro-

witiiin the provisions of the statute. — a vision by will, or that the widow waive

question very different from tliat of the such provision, or applies to intestate or

proper exercise of a legal discretion. insolvent testate estates.

'^ So in Iowa, the allowance is only to

166 PROVISIONAL ALIMONY OF THE FAMILY. § 80

the statute provides for such reasonable allowance as the probate
court shall deem necessary, it is held that the discretion relates
only to the quantum of the allowance, and that he cannot refuse
it altogether.^

It may not be superfluous to remark, in connection with the
amount allowable to the widow, that this is, generally, determined
by the law in force at the time of the husband's death, but that,
as in similar collisions between the rights of creditors and others,
the rights of creditors cannot be impaired by subsequent legisla-
tion ; consequently, the surviving widow's claim is determined, as
to the debts of the husband, by the law in force at the time they
were contracted, and cannot be enlarged by later enactments.^

§ 80. To what Extent Liberality should govern the Court. —
The tendency of courts has generally been to give full effect and
realization to the humane and enlightened policy which
siruedwith dictated these enactments, by construing their provis-
iiberaiity. .^^^^ .^^ ^j^^ ^^^^^ Spirit of liberality and consideration.

Not so as to make them a cloak to cover up a substantial invasion
of the rights of creditors, but so as to resolve all reasonably
doubtful questions in favor of the widow and children.^ Thus,
where the statute extended this allowance to "the widow and
children of any deceased person," it was held that the widow was
entitled whether there were children or a child, or not;* and
whether the testator bequeathed property to her in his will or
not,^ and that the allowance may be a sum of money in lieu of
articles of provision, although the testator may have left an ample
supply of provisions for her use,*^ and whether the estate is solvent
or insolvent.7 Where the statute gave the right of election to a
widow for whom a testator had provided in his will, and a testator
provided that " she shall have her dower out of my estate in the

1 Sawyer v. Sawyer, 28 Vt. 245. In * Sawyer v. Sawyer, 28 Vt. 245.

this case, an allowance of $500 out of an 5 McReary v. Robinson, 12 Sm. & M.

estate to which the brother and sister of 318.

the intestate were heirs was affirmed to ^ Nelson v. Smith, 12 Sm. & M. 662.

a widow shown to be in possession of "It is intended as a humane provision

a pension of $240 per annum from the for the widow and her children, wlien

United States, and hving with a wealthy she is presumed to be left in a condition

father, who would not, it was argued, in which slie is unable to provide for

charge her for her board. See further herself": Turner v. Turner, 30 Miss. 428,

on this point, post, § 87. 431.

2 Bell V. Hall, 76 Ala. 546. ^ Loury v. Herbert, 25 Miss. 101.

3 Thorn ps. on Homest., § 936. Post, § 83.

§ 80 EXTENT OF L1BP:UAL1TY. 167

same manner she would be entilled to if this will had not been
made," it was held that the widow had the right to claim the
provision made for her by law, upon waiving her claim under the
will.^ In construing a statute giving to the widow such beds,
bedsteads, bedding, and household and kitchen furniture "as may
be necessary for herself and family, and provisions for a year for
herself and family," the court say : "It cannot be supposed that
the legislature, when it used tlic words ' necessary furniture ' and
' provisions for a year,' designed to use the words in a rigid and
unbending sense, to be construed in all cases without reference
to the circumstances of the parties. If that were so, we should
be obliged to say that many articles of furniture to be found in
all comfortable houses were not absolutely indispensable, and
that the provisions for a year might be reduced to a certain
amount of bacon and corn meal. ... So, too, in regard to the
word family. . . . We are of opinion that the legislature intended,
by the word family, to include such persons as constituted the
family of the deceased at the time of his death, whether servants,
or children who had attained their majority. ... It was the
design of the legislature to furnish the necessary sustenance for
such household for one year after the death of the husband, and
to enable the widow to keep what death had spared of her domes-
tic circle unbroken during that time, notwithstanding the loss of
her husband. This is the humane construction, and is most con-
sistent with the kindly and liberal spirit which marks all our
legislation in regard to widows." '^

It has been held in New York, that this allowance is not limited
to cases where the deceased was a resident of the State in which
the assets are administered ; ^ but the current of au- „. , .

' Willows of

thorities is otherwise.* Expressions in this spirit, non-resident

• !•• !• p • pn/v decedents take

indicating the desire of courts to give full eftect to their allowance
the liberal enactments of the legislature, are met with u,e lex
in numerous cases, although instances are not lacking ""**''' "'

1 Crane v. Crane, 17 Pick. 422, 427. haliitrint or not ; and so long as the legis-

2 Strawn v. Strawn, 53 III. 26-3, 274. lature liave not confined the benefit of
See also Sanderlin v. Sanderlin, 1 Swan, this beneficent provision, it is liard to
441 ; Cheney v. Cheney, 73 Ga. 06. find any reason for narrowing the chari-

5 Kapp V. Public Administrator, 2 ties of the law by judicial interpreta-

Bradf. 258. Says the Surrogate : " The tion " : p. 260 of the opinion,
benevolent design of the statute hns a ■* Pos/, § 89.

subject, whether the deceased was an in-

1G8 PKOVISIONAL ALIMONY OF THE FAMILY. § 81

in which these laws have been construed with technical strictness.
This subject is again referred to in connection with the separate
property of the widow.^

§ 81. Cases illustrative of the Amount of AUo-w^ance deemed
Reasonable. — It is obvious, that, while statutes with respect to
the widow's awards should be liberally construed, yet the allow-
ances should be witliin the bounds of reason, and the construction
given them should be reasonable.''^ It may be of assistance to wid-
ows, executors, and administrators, and to attorneys and courts,
to collate some of the cases illustrative of what appellate courts
deem reasonable, and what unreasonable allowances, in tlie method
observed by Mr. Thompson, in his valuable Treatise on Home-
steads and Exemptions.^ Thus it was held in a late Illinois case,^
that the court would not be justified in approving the report of
commissioners showing on its face the attempt to force results,
and to make up to the widow an amount not warranted by a
proper valuation of the property allowed her by the statute. In
this case the deceased left an estate in personalty of over
$135,000 in value ; the commissioners appraised the personalty
secured by statute to the widow at 1806.50, and estimated the
amount to be allowed her at 17,075, which award was rejected by
the county court to whom the report was made ; whereupon the
widow, administratrix, appealed to the circuit court, and asked
leave to substitute a new estimate of the commissioners, awarding
her $6,629, which the circuit court refused, and affirmed the
action of the county court in rejecting the original report. On
appeal to the appellate court, the action of the circuit was con-
firmed in both respects, on the ground that, whether the circuit
had power to act upon a new report from the commissioners or
not, the new report must be rejected as well as the original one,
as being unreasonable and excessive.

Several cases from New Hampshire indicate the unwillingness
of its court of last resort to allow undue partiality to be shown to
the widow, at the cost of either creditors, children, or collateral
distributees. Thus, where an estate amounted to 12,250, the
debts to 8575, and there were no lineal descendants, an allowance
of $600 to the widow was on appeal cut down to $200.^ Where
the whole estate was worth $11,000, and that out of which the

1 Po!^f, § 87. 3 § f^-'>2.

2 Boyer v. Boyer, 21 111. App. 534, 537. "» Foster i: Foster, 36 N. H. 437.

§ 81 ILLUSTRATIVE CASES. 169

widow was entitled to dower $2,000, an allowance of $2,000 was
on appeal reduced to $300.' Out of an estate worth ^25,000,
there being no debts except voluntary bonds to two sons, dis-
puted, and without valuable consideration, the land assigned as
dower yielding a net income of $200 per year, $1,250 allowed
bv the probate court was reduced to $750.^ So in an insolvent
estate, amounting to $(3,400, in which the widow had been allowed
$000, and her dower was worth $643, besides owning a house in
her own right worth $566, a further allowance was held unrea-
sonable,*^ and set aside.

In Massachusetts an allowance of $895, beside her wearing
apparel, was deemed reasonable for a widow of " elevated quality
and degree." (Her husband had been sheriff of the county at the
time of his death, and for many years a major-general of militia,
" an office of much distinction and trust.") * In another case,
where the real estate amounted to $4,000, the personal estate to
$6,000, and the only heir was the intestate's father, an allowance
of $3,000 was cut down to $1,000, considering that the widow
would get $500 on distribution, as the one-fourth of the residue
after paying debts.^

In Maine the widows seem to fare better. Out of an estate in
which the personalty was insufficient to pay the debts, leaving
$700 to be paid out of the proceeds of real estate valued at $2,000,
tlie widow (of a packet master sailing between Eastport and
Belfast) was allowed $500.^ In another instance, the widow of
one whose estate amounted to between $500,000 and $600,000,
was allowed by the probate judge $75,000, which sum, on appeal
by one of the executors, was by the appellate court increased to
$85,000.'

More liberal views are entertained in some other States. Thus
it is held in Georgia that " the wise and liberal policy of our
legislation certainly designed to include in the year's support
something more than a bare subsistence, with clothes and shelter,

1 Duncan v. Eaton, 17 N. H. 441. ^ Brown v. Hodgdon, 31 Me. 65, 70.

2 Kingmtin r. Kingman, 31 N. H. 182, " Oilman v. Oilman, 53 Me. 184, 191.
191. It sliould lie remembered, however, tliat

8 Cummings v. Allen, 34 N. H. 194, under the statutes of Maine (Kev. St. ch.

197. (55, § 21, eh. 75, § 9) tiiis allowance was

•* Crane v. Crane, 17 Pick. 422, 428. not a temporary one, but constituted the

^ Washburn v. Washburn, 10 Pick, whole of her interest in the personalty

374. of the estate.

170 PROVISIONAL ALIMONY OF THE FAMILY. § 82

and [jei-liaps the means of locomotion for the family." Hence it
is error, in passing upon the report of the commissioners setting-
aside the year's support, to reject evidence to show the amount
of outlay made by the decedent in the maintenance and education
of his adult children, the gifts made to them upon attaining their
majority, and the advances made to some of them, for which they
were not required to account.^ An allowance of $5,000 made by
the ordinary, in addition to certain household and kitchen furni-
ture and other personal property, was on aj^peal to the Superior
Court reduced by the verdict of a jury to $2,600 ; and it was held
by the Supreme Court that the rejection of the evidence above
alluded to, and of the expense of keeping minors at school and
college, unduly restricted the jury, and a new trial was ordered.^

In Illinois the " family " for which provision is to be made by
the allowance is held to include not only the widow and minor
children, but also adult children living with her, a woman who
had been i-aised in the family, the superintendent of the farm
under the widow's control, the housekeeper, cook, and other
house servants. An allowance of $400 for beds and bedding, of
$1,600 for furniture, and of $1,642 for a year's provisions, was
held reasonable out of an estate valued at $500,000.^

§ 82. The Allowance in Testate Estates. — It will appear from
the cases already cited,'* that, as a general rule, the widow and
Unless directed children are the recipients of this bounty, whether the
tifere1s"no husbaud or father died testate or intestate.^ It is
difference ^^^{(j j^ somc States, that, where there is a will making

whether the '. ' . °

estate is testate provisiou for the widow, she is not entitled to the
allowance unless she renounce the provisions of the
will.^ This denial rests upon the doctrine that a person cannot
take under a will and also claim rights contradictory to or in con-
flict with it,' and must necessarily follow in every case where this

1 Cheney v. Cheney, 73 Ga 66, 70. St. 31 ; Ruffin, C. J., in Kimball v. Deni-

2 Clieney v. Cheney, supra ; see cases ing, 5 Ired. L. 418, 420 ; Mclieary v.
cited by the court, p. 71, to sliow that such Robinson, 12 Sm. & M. 318; Nelson v.
claims are favorably considered by courts. Wilson, 61 Ind. 255.

3 Strawn v. Strawn, 53 111. 263, 272. ^ Turner v. Turner, supra ; Brown v.
See Boyer v. Boyer, 21 III. App. 534, Hodgdon, 31 Me. 65, 68 ; Crane v. Crane,
cited ante, p. 168. 17 Pick. 422, 426; Estate of McManus,

* Ante, § 80. 14 Phila. 660.

5 Thomps. on Homest., § 937; Baker "^ Little v. Birdwell, 27 Tex. 688, 691 ;

V. Baker, 57 Wis. 382; Turner v. Tur- Pearson v. Darrington, 32 Ala. 227;

ner, 30 Miss. 428 ; Turner v. Fisher, 4 Langley v. Mayhew, 107 Ind. 198, crit-

Sneed, 209 ; Compiler v. Compher, 25 Pa. icisiug prior Indiana cases.

§ 82 THE ALLOWANCE IN TESTATE ESTATES. 171

doctrine is ai){)licable, as in one of the cases cited, where the
widow had actually enjoyed and consumed the property provided
bv will for her year's supi)ort, or where the provision in the w ill
is sulhcient to meet the immediate wants of the family ; it has
also been denied in cases where, by reason of sufficient separate
proi)erty of the widow, or for any other reason, such wants do not
exist.i 3iit where the testamentary provision is not exi)ressed or
clearly intended to be in lieu of the statutory allowance, the
requirement to renounce the will seems to ignore and defeat the
very object and intent of the law, which is " merely to furnish her
with a temporary allowance, by which she can support herself
and dependent children until her interest in the estate can be set
out to her"; and the more rational view seems to be that she is
entitled to the allowance in addition to the provision made for
her in the will,^ and that the husband cannot deprive The iuisi)and

11 • 1 1 r 1 Ai 4- <- cannot Ijv liis

his Widow of the allowance provided lor by tne stat- ,viii deprive his
ute by any provision in his will.^ In Missouri the ''|!j\",J'„ry '^''*^
allowance to the widow is expressed by statute to allowances.
be " in addition to "dower," a part of which (property selected by
her not exceeding the appraised value of 8400) is to be deducted
from her distributive share in the estate (also given under the
dower act and not under the Statute of Descents and Distributions)
if in excess of $400, but is not liable for debts.* Under this stat-
ute it is held that this allowance to the widow is no part of her
dower proper, although in the nature of dower in being absolute
against creditors and the right of the husband to dispose of by
will;^ she is therefore entitled to such allowance, whether she

^ Leavenworth ?;. Marshall, 19 Conn, former decisions to same effect; Smith

408, 418. So where a widow, under the v. Smith, 7fi Ind. 236. But see Lantrtey

law of Louisiana, accepted a succession i\ Mayhew, 107 Lid. 198, 205, criticising

" purely and simply," the widow was not prior Indiana cases.

entitled to the §1,000 allowed out of her » Collier v. Collier, .3 Oh. St. .%9, .375;

hushand's estate, because, by accepting Ward v. Wolf, 5(5 Iowa, 465; Baker v.

the succession, it ceased to exist; she be- Baker, 57 Wis. 382, .392.
came the owner of the property, and ■* Rev. St. §§ lOo-llO.

lience liable for its debts : Claudel v. ^ It is " for the immediate sustenance

Palao, 28 La. An. 872. of the widow, as is dower for her support

^ Meech v. Weston, 33 Vt. 561 ; Delt- during life ; yet it differs from it in that

zer V. Scheuster, 37 III. 301 ; Loring r. it is made from the personalty owned at

Craft, 16 Ind. 110; Vedder i-. Sa.xton, 46 his death, and it becomes her absolute

Barb. 188 : Williams ?•. Williams, 5 Gray, property": Bryant v. McCune, 49 Mo.

24; Bane r. Wick, 14 Oh. St. 505; White- 546, 647.
man v. Swem, 71 Ind. 530, 534, affirming

172

PROVISIONAL ALIMONY OF THE FAMILY.

83

stands by the husband's will or rejects it to take under the law ; ^
and unless a contrary intention plainly appear from the language
of the will, any bequest to her will be deemed to be in addition to,
and not in lieu of, such allowance.^

§ 83. The Allowance with respect to the Solvency or Insolvency
of the Estate. — The right of the widow and children is paramount
The allowance to that of Creditors, and hence does not depend
entupouThe" upou the solvcucy or insolvency of the estate. In
eslltr^"^'^'' many, if not most, of the States, provision is made by
statute that where the estate does not exceed in value a cer-
Estatesnot tain Specified amount,^ or the amount to which the
widow or children are entitled absolutely, no adminis-
tration shall be necessary, but all the property of the
estate is to be assigned and turned over to the widow,
or if no widow, to the child ren.* It is held in Illi-
nois ^ that in such case the widow must pay the funeral expenses,
and in Indiana*^ the funeral expenses and expenses of last illness,
out of the assets so received by her. In some States the allow-
ance is to be deducted from the widow's distriTjutive share, if the
estate is found to be solvent,' but generally it is left to the widow,
either by express enactment or implication, in addition to her dis-
tributive share if the estate is solvent,* and is in no case liable for
debts of the decedent. It follows that the property is secured to

exceeding in
value the
amount
al'owed to the
widow not ne-
cessary to be
administered.

1 Register v. Hensley, 70 Mo. 189, 195.

2 In re Klostermann, 6 Mo. App. 314,
316 ; Schoeneich v. Reed, 8 Mo. App
.3.56, 362; Hasenritter v. Hasenritter, 77
Mo. 162.

3 In California, if under $1500. prop-
erty all goes to widow ; if tinder J^SOOO,
in the discretion of tlie probate court :
2 Civ. Proc. § 1469. In Georgia, if un-
der S500- Code, §2.571 and following;
Stewart v Stewart, 74 Ga. 355. In Indi-
ana, $500- Rev. St. 1881, § 2419 et .^rrj.
In Michigan, $150- 2 How. St. 1882,
§ 5847. In Nevada, $500 Comp. L.
1873, § 608. In Vermont, 3300- Gen.
St. 1880, § 2114 In Wisconsin, $150:
Rev. St. 1878, § 3935. See post, p. 436.

4 So in Alabama: Code, 1876; Ar-
kansas : Dig. St. 1884, § 67 ; Illinois :
St. & C. Rev. St. 1885, p. 214 ; Missouri :
Rev. St. 1879, § 2 , and Oregon . Gen.
L. 1887, § 1129.

5 McCord V McKinley, 92 111. 11.

e Green v. Weaver, 78 Ind. 494.

■7 So in Alabama, Florida, Maryland
(property selected by the widow not ex-
ceeding $150 in value, and if she have
no children $75 in value, is to be de-
ducted out of her distributive share, unless
the decedent left real estate exceeding
$1000 in value), Missouri (where the $400
in property to be selected by the widow
is to be deducted out of her distributive
sliare in the estate if there be any, but
not the other property or money allowed),
and New Hampshire.

8 In Arkansas, if the estate is solvent,
the widow may select property not ex-
ceeding the value of $150 in addition to
the amount allowed her without refer-
ence to solvency : Dig. St. 1884, § 63.
In California (2 Civ. Proc. § 1466), Michi-
gan (How. St. § 5847), Nebraska (Gen.
St. 1887, cli. 23, § 176), Nevada (Comp.

§84

HOW AFFECTED BY MARRIAGE SETTLEMENTS.

178

the widow and childi-en irrespective of the vahie of the estate.'
In Iowa it was held tliat where it is ascertained that an estate is
insolvent, and that after the final settlement there will remain no
sum whatever in the hands of executors for the widow or chil-
dren, there is no provision of law that would justify an order
directing the executors to pay a ])ortion of the assets to the widow
for her support and that of the minor children.'-^

§ 84. How affected by Marriage Settlements. — It is obvious
that property which may be the subject of a marriage contract,
whether ante or post nuptial, is no less under the con- Waiver of

-^ ^ 1 . 1 allowance for

trol and operation of law than property which passes support of
by descent or under a will, and it has been lield that ^ntl-iuptid
the existence of a marriage contract, by which the ^'^'^Jl^'fpuuiic
widow had released all claims upon her husband's P^''cy-
estate, is no defence to her claim for an allowance out of his
estate for necessaries.^ In New York it was held, that where the
provision in an ante-nuptial agreement was an annuity to the
widow for life, in lieu of dower or any portion of his estate, and

L. 1873, § 604), and Wisconsin (Rev. St.
1878, § 3935), the allowance for the support
is limited in cases of insolvent estates to
one year. In Georgia the appraisers are
directed, in estimating the amount to be
set apart for the support of the family,
to take into account, among other things,
the solvency or insolvency of the estate.
In Maine (Code, 1883, p. 55'2) and Oregon
(Gen. L. 1887, § 1128) the court may
make an additional allowance if the es-
tate turn out to be solvent, or additional
property be discovered. In Indiana it is
iield that the widow takes the allowance
in addition to her distributive share :
Cheek v. Wilson, 7 Ind. 354.

1 Curd V. Curd, 9 Humph. 171 ; John-
son V. Corbett, 11 Paige, 265, 27(5; Com-
pher V. Compher, 25 Pa. St. 31 ; Hill r.
Hill, 32 Pa. St. 511 ; Pride v. Watson, 7
Heisk. 232, 234 ; Hopkins v. Long, 9 Ga.
201 ; McNulty v. Lewis, 8 Sm. & M. 520;
Loury v. Herbert, 25 Miss. 101 ; Mason
V. O'Brien, 42 Miss. 420,427; Silcox v.
Nelson, 1 Ga. Dec. 24 ; Hays v. Buffing-
ton, 2 Ind. 369.

2 In re Hieschler, 13 Iowa, 597. It
does not appear from the report of this
case whether the widow and children
had received anything for their support

or not, and hence it does not establish
the proposition that neither a widow nor
minor children are entitled to an allow-
ance for their temporary support.

8 Blackinton v. Blackinton, 110 Mass.
461. But the ground upon which this
decision is based is the purely techuical
one, that the executors' defence to the
widow's claim cannot be availed of in
the probate court, for the want of equity
powers to try the validity of the con-
tract or give effect to its provisions, and
that on appeal the supreme court of
probate can exercise no general equity
powers, but is bound to make only such
decree as the probate court should have
made. It leaves the question itself un-
touched and unanswered, and rests upon
the reasons given in an earlier case, Sul-
lings V. Richmond, 5 Allen, 187, 191,—
which allowed a widow her distributive
share in an estate notwithstanding her
anfe-niipfial agreement to accept cer'ain
provisions therein in the place of, and as
a substitute for, her doicer and everi/ other
chv'm by her upon his estate, — to wit,
that the probate court had no authority
to enforce a marri.ige contract. The
case of TarbplI v. Tarbell. referred to in a
note, was decided on the same principle.

174 PROVISIONAL ALIMONY OF THE FAMILY, § 84

the husband by will gave her an annuity during her widowhood
only, he has failed to perform upon his part, and tlie widow is not
precluded from claiming the property allowed to her by statute.^
The true principle, however, seems to be, that these laws rest upon
a sound public policy, and that contracts running contrary thereto
are for that reason and to that extent void. It is the policy of
the law to preserve, as far as possible, the integrity and continuity
of the family, and to protect it even against the thoughtlessness
and improvidence of men and women. In this view the home-
stead laws, and laws exempting property from sale under execu-
tion and attachment, are enacted, and courts have decided con-
tracts waiving this exemption prospectively to be void, as being
contrary to public policy .^ The principle has a stronger appli-
cation to widows and orphans when the provision made for
them by law is threatened or assailed by a marriage contract.
It was accordingly decided in Illinois, that the special allow-
ance made by statute for the widow of a deceased person is
as much for the advantage of the children of the deceased as
for his widow, and cannot be affected by an ante-nuptial con-
tract. " The law," says Mr. Justice Scott, " also charges the
husband's estate with the support of his widow and his chil-
dren residing with her, for the period of one year after his death,
at least to the extent of certain articles of property, or their
value in money. This latter right is one created by positive law,
and attaches in all cases, whether there is sufficient property or
not to pay the debts of the decedent. Being a statutory right,
it is one of which the husband cannot deprive his wife and chil-
dren, any more than he can relieve himself of his obligation to
support them while living. It is in no case affected by the widow
renouncing or failing to renounce the benefit of the provisions
made for her in the will of her husband, or otherwise. Our laws
on this subject have always been liberal, but the tendency of more
recent legislation is to enlarge, rather than to abridge, the bene-
ficial provisions in this regard. ... It is an absurd conclusion
that any ante-nuptial agreement can deprive the children of the
means of support, in their tender years, which the law has given.
. . . We are at a loss to understand how this humane provision of

1 Sheldon v. Bliss, 8 N. Y 31. See Thomp. on Homest., § 441, and cases

- So in New York, Iowa, Kentucky, there quoted and cited.
Wisconsin, Tennessee, and Louisiana.

§ 85 HOW AFFECTED BY PREFERRED DEBTS. 175

the law for the family of a deceased party can be affected by an
ante-nuptial contract, however broad and comprehensive in its
terras."^ It is to be observed, however, that this right on the
part of a widow to repudiate an executory marriage contract no
longer exists after she has deliberately accepted its terms ; in
other words, she cannot both execute and repudiate the contract,^
and the children are bound by her election. So it seems that,
where there are no children, the widow has no election unless
given by statute.^

§ 85. How affected by Liens or Preferred Debts of the Dece-
dent.— In some cases it is held that the wife is entitled to her
year's allowance out of tier husband's estate in prefer- widow entitled
ence to a lien of a mortgage given by the deceased aUowancrin
husband in his lifetime.* So, in Texas, it takes pre- iJ[ortgagee/° *
cedence over the lien of a judgment rendered against ^^ judgment
the decedent in his lifetime," and in Pennsylvania, creditor.
since the exemption act of 1850, the widow's claim is good against
all debts which were not liens prior to that act;^ no

' • No lien has

lien, whether that of a judgment creditor of the de- precedence ex-
ceased who had loaned him money to pay for a house

1 Phelps V. Phelps, 72 111. 545. But widow's award cannot be waived, the
in Pennsylvania, where a husband and waiver is simply void.

wife entered into a written agreement to '^ Thomp. on Homest., §042; Scott,

separate, whereby each for a valuable J., in Phelps r. Phelps, 72 111. 54.5, 550;

consideration relinquished whatever mar- to similar effect, Speidel's Ap[)eal, 107

ital rights either might have in the Pa. St. 18.

other's estate, and such separation was * Cole i'. Elfe, 23 Ga. 235. The statute
actual and continuous, it was held that under which this decision was rendered
after his death the wife could not claim provides for an allowance out of the estate
the exemption allowed, as a member of immediately after the death of the testator
the family : Speidel's Appeal, 107 Pa. or mtestate, " notwithstanding any debts,
St. 18. In Missouri it is held that an dues, or obligations of said testator or in-
ante-nuptial agreement between husband testate," and the court decided, in conso-
and wife, that, upon the death of either, nance with numerous previous decisions
the other should claim no interest in the of that State, that " a mortgage in this
estate of the deceased, is not binding on State is nothing more than a security for
the widow in a suit by her for the statu- the payment of a debt; and that the title
tory allowance, where she has received to the mortgaged property remains in the
nothing as a consideration for the al- mortgagor, until foreclosure and sale, in
leged agreement: Mowser v. Mowser, the manner pointed out by statute." The
87 Mo. 437. principle announced was subsequently

2 Weaver v. Weaver, 109 III. 225, 234, affirmed in Elfe v. Cole, 26 Ga. 107,
citing Brenner r. Gauch, 85 111. 368, and Benning, J., dissenting.

Cowdrey r. Hitchcock. 103111. 2G2, 272, to & Giddings i'. Crosby, 24 Tex. 205,

same effect. But Walker and Scott, .JJ., 299.

dissent, holding that Phelps v. Phelps 6 Hill r. Hill, 42 Pa. St. 108, 204:

establishes as law that the statutory Baldy's Appeal, 40 Pa. St. 328. It seems

176 PEOVISIONAL ALIMONY OF THE FAMILY. § 85

and lot of which he died seised,^ or of a mechanic on the house
which he erected, or any lien whatever save that for unpaid pur-
chase money, takes precedence of the allowance to the widow.^
But in a late case it was held that any mortgage, whether for
purchase money or not, takes precedence of the widow's claim,
hut not the lien of a judgment.^ In Alabama, while her claim is
paramount to the rights of the personal representative for the
general purposes of administration, and to preferred debts of the
estate, it does not override liens created by the law, or by act of
the deceased husband.^ In California the order setting out a par-
cel of land for the support of the minor children of a decedent
does not divest the lien of a mortgage given by the decedent to
secure the purchase money,^ In Iowa the widow's claim has
preference over a creditor who furnished materials for the erection
of a house, and omitted to obtain a mechanic's lien by reason of
the administrator's assurance that it was not necessary.^ Since
the property allowed to the widow is not, generally, treated as
assets of the estate, it would seem to follow that the widow is
entitled to it in preference to creditors of any kind, whether for
ordinary debts of the decedent, expenses of last illness, or even
funeral expenses and charges for settling the estate ; " but in
Illinois, where she might take certain enumerated articles, or in
lieu thereof money, it was held that, if she elected to take money,
she made herself a general creditor of the estate, remitted to take
her share with other creditors.^

tliat in these cases no lien existed on ^ Kauffman's Appeal, 112 Pa. St. 645,

any specific property, and irom the Ian- citing numerous authorities,
guage of Thompson, J , in tlie latter case * Loeb v. Richardson, 74 Ala. 311, 314.

it is to be inferred tliat the creditor had ^ Fairbanks v. Robinson, 64 Cal. 250.

obtained no judgment before the intes- •• Estate of Dennis, 67 Iowa, 110.

tate's death. But see tiie cases infra. ^ Kingsbury v. Wilmartli, 2 Allen,

1 Nottes's Appeal, 4.5 Pa. St. 361. 810.

2 Hildebrand's Appeal, 39 Pa. St. 133. » Crnce v. Crnce, 21 111. 46. In this
" It is remarkable," says Woodward, case there were debts of the first, second,
rendering the opinion in this case, " that third, and fourth class, — tiie tlnrd class
the . . . statute under which the widow being trust money, in which were allowed
claims saj's nothing about liens except and placed the claims of two wards whose
liens for the purchase money of real money the intestate had in hand at the
estate. These are not to be impaired by time of his death, and the fourth general
the widow's election of real estate. . . . creditors. The court held, that the widow
And expressio umus exclusio alterins. Be- was a general creditor, and that, as there
cause no other lien was mentioned or were not sufficient personal assets to pay
referred to by the legislature, they meant the third class, the real estate might be
that no other should prevail against the sold, out of the proceeds of whicii the
widow," claim of the widow might be satisfied, if

§ 86

WHEN THE ALLOWANCE TAKES EFFECT.

177

§86. When the Allowance takes Effect. — 'I'liO right of the
widow to the money or property allowed for her and her family's
temporary support is held in some States to be abso- ui^ht vests on
lute, and to vest at once upon the husband's death. ^ iiu>i)aiHr.s

' * . (leatli, or on

In others, it is held to vest upon confirmation or coniirmation by
allowance by the probate court,^ or selection by the
widow or guardian of minor children,^ and may then be recovered
l)y her personal representative;* and if the allowance to her is of
such articles as she may have clioscn, and if they are sold, al-
though by her consent, but without a waiver of her claim to an
allowance, she is entitled to the avails thereof.^ The probate
court lias no power to authorize an executor to sell the articles
provided by law for the support of the widow and her family, and
she may, notwithstanding such order, maintain trespass against
the executor,^ or trover,''' or hold him responsible as a wrongdoer,
but not on his bond.^ The absolute title of the widow, and, in the

sufficient money remained after paying
tlie third class in full.

1 So held in Kellogg v. Graves, 5 Ind.
509; Brown v. Joiner, 3 S. E. R. (Ga.)
IJ7 ; s. c. 5 S. E. R. (Ga.) 407 ; Hastings
r. Myers, 21 Mo. 519; McFarland v.
Baze, 24 Mo. 156, holding that it passes
at once upon the luishand's death, dis-
charged of the lien of tlie debts, and may
be assigned by her by deed even without
consideration ; Cummings i\ Cumniings,
51 Mo. 2(51 ; Johnson /•. Johnson, 41 Vt.
4()7, deducing this consequence from the
peculiarity of the statute, wliicli authorizes
the probate court to assign to the widow
her sliare of tiie estate, not less than one
tliird after payment of debts, &c., and
holding that her share is governed by the
same rules as the share which passes to the
heir; Whitley v. Stephenson, 38 Miss. 113;
York V. York, 38 111. 522, 526 ; Bratney
V. Curry, 83 Ind. 399; Bayless i\ Bayless,
4 Cold w. 359, 361. And tiie failure to file
an inventory and appraisement of tiie
personal pro[)erty, as required by law,
does not deprive the widow of this right:
Adkinson v. Breeding, 56 Iowa, 26, 27 ;
Hardin v. Pulley, 79 Ala. 381.

2 Runyan's Appeal, 27 Pa. St. 121;
Kauffman's Appeal, 112 Pa. St. 645.

'^ Mitcham v. Moore, 73 Ala. 542, 545.
In such case, no title to any particular
property vests until the selection is made:
VOL. I. — 12

Little V. McPherson, 76 Ala. 552 ; though
the rniht to the exemption vests immedi-
ately on the death of the decedent : Har-
din V. Pulley, 79 Ala. 381, 386. In Indi-
ana the widow's right to take property at
the appraised value, not exceeding $500,
continues up to the time of sale, although
she has made a partial selection before
the return of the inventory ; in such case,
injunction will lie to prevent an executor
from selling, where the property is needed
and cannot be replaced by her : Denny v.
Denny, 113 Ind 22.

^ Dorah v. Dorah, 4 Oh. St. 292.

5 Kingsbury y. Wilmarih. 2 Allen, 310;
in Missouri, at any time before such pro-
ceeds are paid out for debts, or in distri-
bution : Rev. St. § 109; but it cannot be
claimed out of the partnership estate of a
firm of which her deceased husband was
a member: Jidian v. \Vrightsman, 73 Mo.
569, 571 el srq. ; nor, where the widow
omitted to make her claim before the
personalty was exhausted in the pay-
ment of debts, can it be allowed to her
out of the surplus in the administrator's
hands from the proceeds of sale of re.il
estate : Ritchey v. Withers, 72 Mo. 556,
559.

6 Carter v. Hinkle, 13 Ala. 529, 533.
^ Graves v. Graves, 10 B. Monr. 31.

* Morris v. Morris, 9 Heisk. 814, 822.

178 PROVISIONAL ALIMONY OF THE FAMILY. § 87

absence of a widow, of the minor children, to the property allowed
them lor temporary support, follows of necessity in all of those
States in which it is assigned to the widow or children without
i'ui'tlicr administration, when it appears that the total value of the
estate docs not exceed the amount so allowed ; for the abandon-
ment of further administration rests solely upon the ground that
there is no property to administer, because what property the
decedent may have left is the property of the widow or children,
in which no other person has any interest.^ But in some States
it is held that, if the widow die before it is allotted to her, her
right thereto abates, and it cannot be claimed by her administra-
tor.2 " This allowance for necessaries," say the commissioners
revising the statutes of Massachusetts, " is not inteuded to com-
pensate the widow for any apparent injustice to which she may,
in any case, be exposed by the statute rules of distriljution, or
by the will of her husband ; but merely to furnish her with a
reasonable maintenance for a few weeks, and with some articles
of necessary furniture, when she is not otherwise provided with
them." It was held, in accordance with this view, that the death
of the widow pending an appeal by the executors from an allow-
ance made to her by the court of probate put an end to her
claim.^ These decisions have, of course, no application to the
widow's distributive share in her husband's estate, which vests in
her at once upon the decease of her husband and passes to her
representatives, although she has not come into the enjoyment of
the property before her decease ;* nor where the property vests in
the widow upon the husband's death .^

§ 87. Separate Property of the Widow aflfecting the Allowance. —
The object sought to be accomplished by the enactment of these
Separate prop- laws, — to meet the actual wants and necessities of
"^'•-i ?M'lt ho the widow and her familv, — and the impossibility of
considerefi in f raniino: a general law determining with accuracy the

ijuiflinR the » (^ ^ _ •-? ...

discretion of a circumstanccs Constituting such necessity, have m-

1 Ante, § 83, p. 172, notes 3 and 4. is conclusively estaLlislied ■ Drew r Gor-

2 Cox I'. Brown, 5 Ired. L. 194; Kim- don, 13 Allen, 120.

ball V. Deminff, 5 Ired. L. 418; Ex parte * Johnson r. Jolinson, 41 Vt. 467, 469;

Dunn, 63 N. C. 1-37 ; Simpson r. Cureton, the statute fixed the minimum of the

97 N. C. 112, 116; Tarbox w. Fisher, 50 allowance at not less than one third of

Me. 236, 2-38. the residue, but the probate court must

3 Adams v. Adams, 10 Met. 170. Con- desi<fnnte the amount.

Tersely, if not appealed from, her right ^ Hastings v. Myers, 21 Mo. 519.

§ 87 SEPARATE PROPERTY OF TTTE WIDOW. 179

duced the Ico-islaturc in many States to refer the . , , , .

'^ •' jiKltro, i)ut i-i no

solution of this (luestion to the probate court, with ijar to the al-
lowance unless
no hmitation upon its discretionary power save such so e.\|)res:^e(i in

general injunctions as " having regard to all the cir-
cumstances of the case," or to " the solvency or insolvency of the
estate," " to make such reasonable allowance as may be neces-
sary," " the amount necessary for sustenance," " a sufficiency for
the support of the widow and her family for twelve months," etc.
" Thouiih no general rules," says Shaw, C. J., "have or can be
established regulating this judicial discretion, yet, to some ex-
tent, the considerations of justice and expediency on which the
law is founded are i)lain and obvious, and from them we may
infer the intention of the legislature. The case supposes the
death of a husband leaving a widow. In the great majority of the
cases he will have been a housekeeper ; in many, a parent ; in
many, leaving children helpless and dependent. In many cases
the widow, by the decease of her husband, may become the head
of a household and family ; new duties and obligations may rest
upon her, causing an immediate demand for necessaries, some-
times even before letters of administration can be granted. The
purpose of the statute, we think, is to make a personal allowance
to her to meet these necessities. But no one of these circum-
stances constitutes a condition to this allowance, or a decisive
test of its fitness. The parties may not have been housekeepers,
or even living together at the time of the husband's decease. She
may have been absent at a hospital or infirmary, for the recovery
of her health, bodily or mental, and stand in immediate need ; or
she may be on a visit to her friends ; or by mutual consent and
for their common benefit they may seek employment in different
places, — as, for instance, the husband at sea, the wife in a school
or factory. But these are all ' circumstances' — and they are often
numerous and various — to be taken into consideration by the
judge to determine whether any allowance shall be made, and, if
any, what. The amount of money left by the husband, and the
amount of the separate estate and means of the wife, are also im-
portant circumstances bearing upon the question of her necessi-
ties." 1 The possession of separate property by the widow, coupled
with the circumstance that there were no children, induced the
court in this case to withhold an allowance. So in Texas the

1 HoUenbeck v. Pixley, 3 Gray, 521, 525.

180 PROVISIONAL ALIMONY OF THE FAMILY. § 88

allowance is upon condition that the widow and children have
no adequate separate property, and hence it was refused to chil-
dren who had separate property of the value of lit'2,493.50.^ In
Louisiana it may be shown, in derogation of her claim, that she
has separate property .^ In New Hampshire the amount of dower
to which the widow is entitled must be considered in determining
upon her allowance.'^ But in other States, and particularly where
the articles of property allowed are enumerated by statute, the
widow and children are entitled to this allowance irrespective of
any separate property she or they may own. This view has
never been questioned in Missouri, and was held in Vermont,^ Ala-
bama,^- and Mississippi.^ In Nevada the statute provides that
the amounts allowed for the support of the family go to the chil-
dren if the widow have sufficient property of her own.^

§ 88. What constitutes a Family. — The terms used to designate
the recipients of this bounty are commonly " widow," " widow
Afamii in the ^^^^ children," or " widow and her family." The num-
popuiar"sense {^er of pcrsous Constituting a familv is sometimes an

is composed of ^ . ,

the perFons important circumstance in ascertaining the proper
gether in one amouut to bc allowed for their maintenance and sup-
llmier one head port, and it is therefore necessary that the legal mean-
er manager. j^^ q£ ^j^g term be understood. It may be difficult to
define the word accurately and scientifically, so as to include all
the specific significations to which it is applied ; but its popular
meaning, and the sense in which it is used in the statutes under
consideration, seem to be plain and unmistakable. Webster's
primary definition is, " the collective body of persons who live in
one house, and under one head or manager." This definition was
adopted by Lindsay, J., in construing the constitution of Texas
as to its exempting from sale under execution the homestead of
the head of a family. " It," (meaning the homestead,) he says,

1 Sloan V. Webb, 20 Tex. 189. of the judgment when obtained to tlie es-

2 Succession of Aaron, 11 La. An. 671. tate : Succession of Ue Boisblanc, 32 La.
The statute provides that one tiiousand An. 17, citing earlier Louisiana cases,
dollars may be applied to the relief of a ^ Duncan v. Eaton, 17 N. H. 441. "
widow in necessitous circumstances; and * Sawyer v. Sawyer, 28 Vt. 24-5, 248.
it is held, that where she may be entitled ^ Johnston v. Davenport, 42 Ala. 317 ;
to this or a greater sum in her own right, Thompson v. Thompson, 51 Ala. 493.
and there is a controversy with respect ^ Coleman v. Brooke, 37 Miss. 71 ;
thereto, she may receive tliis sum out of Whitley v. Stephenson, 38 Miss. 113;
the estate on giving bond to refund if she Wally v. Wally, 41 Miss. 657.

recover, or l)y assigning an equivalent part " Comp. L. 1873, § G09.

§ 88 WHAT CONSTITUTES A FAMILY. 181

•' is intonded to be made, by this constitutiunal provision, the in-
violable sanctuary of the family: not merely the head of the
family, but of all its members, whether consisting of husband,
wife, and children, or any other combination of human beinf2,-s,
living together in a common interest and having a common object
in their pursuits and occui)ations. Such a combination of persons,
so circumstanced, necessarily constitutes a family."^ This defi-
nition is in luirniuuy with the etymological origin of the word, as
well as its present popular acceptation. Webster indicates its
derivation from the Latin famulus, a servant ; thus famiUa, family,
would indicate a body or society of persons serving each other,
ministering to each other's necessities, wants, and comforts. As
m ancient Rome familia included all of the slaves of a house-
hold, a household establishment, family servants, domestics, so
the word family in modern times includes not only parents and
children, or husband and wife, but also brothers and sisters and
other relations, as well as servants and dependants, living together
in a iiousehold establishment, governed or controlled by one per-
son, who is its head or manager. In this sense husband and wife
constitute a family ;^ a widowed sister and her brother for whom
she keeps house ; ^ a son who provides for his widowed mother
and children, who live with him;* a father and his indigent
daughter with her three minor children living with him;^ a
brother, and an unmarried sister and two brothers under twenty-
one years of age, having no means of their own and supported by
the brother ; ^ a widow and the children of her deceased husband
by a former wife ;• a father and his infant son dependent upon
him for support ; ^ a widow with five orphan children of a deceased
sister, who had been members of the family during her husband's
lifetime, and two other children of a sister of her late husband.^
But the mere aggregation of individuals who are not dependent
on each other has been held not to constitute a family in the sense
of these statutes ; neither an unmarried man, who has only ser-
vants and employees living with him,i" nor a father having a, family
in another State, and accompanied by a son who is not dependent

1 Wilson V. Cocliran, 31 Tex. 677, 679 ; ^ Blackwell v. Brougrhton, 56 Ga. 390.
Rock V. Haas, 110 111. 528, 533. « McMnrray v. Shnck, 6 Bush, 111.

2 Kitehell 1-. Burg\vin,21 111.40,45. '^ Sanderlin v. Sanderlin, 1 Swan, 441.
8 Wade V. Jones, 20 Mo. 7-5. ^ Cantrell v. Conner, 51 How. Pr. 45.

4 Connausjhton i'. Sands, 32 Wis. 387 ; ^ Ex parte Brien, 2 Tenn. Ch. 33,

Marsh v. Lazenby, 41 Ga. 153. ^^ Garaty v. Du Bose, 5 S. C. 493.

182 PROVISIONAL ALIMONY OF THE FAMILY. § 89

upon him,' nor a sinj^le person living by himself,^ can be consid-
ered as the head of a family; and conversely, the relation of j)arent
and child, with its consequent condition of dependence, constitutes
a family, although the members may not live together or under
the same roof.^ A widow is entitled to the year's allowance for
herself and step-children with her at the time of the husband's
death, although the children be afterward, without her consent,
taken away ; and in such case no part of the allowance should be
])aid to the children's guardian.* And servants, as well as adult
children, but not boarders, are included under the word family, in
fixing the amount of allowance for a year's support.^ In North
Carolina the statute defines the meaning of the word family, as
used in relation to the rights of widows, to include beside the
widow every child either of the deceased or of his widow, and
every other person to whom the deceased or widow stood in place
of a parent, who was residing with the deceased at the time of his
death, and whose age did not then exceed fifteen years.^

It will appear hereafter, in the discussion of the subject of
dower,'^ that a wife against whom the husband obtains a decree of
divorce for her misconduct is not entitled to dower in
his estate. She is likewise barred of any right to the
]>rovisions made by statute for the support of the deceased hus-
band's surviving family.^

§ 89. Allowance to the Widow alone. — Although the statute
provide this allowance for "the widow and children constituting
,, , the family of the deceased," the widow alone may

If there are no *^ .

minor children, take, if there are no children.^ And under a statute
take the allow- providing that, " if there be no infant children residing
anceaone. ^[W^ the widow, and there be adult or infant children
not residing with her, the provision contained in this section for
the widow, or the value of such portion thereof as she receives,
shall be charged to her in the distribution," it was held that the
title to such allowance vested in the widow if there were no infant

1 Allen V. Manasse, 4 Ala. 554. * Because she cannot be considered

2 Calhoun v. McLendon, 42 Ga, 405; as being included in such family; Dob-
Rock r. Haas, 110 111. 528, 533. son v. Butler, 17 Mo. 87, 90. See iii/m,

3 Sallee v. Waters, 17 Ala. 482. § 89, as to the allowance to the widow
■* Vincent v. Vincent, 1 Heisk. 333; alone.

Sanderlin i\ Sanderlin, 1 Swan, 441. ^ Little v. McPherson, 76 Ala. 552;

5 Strawn v. Strawn, 53 111. 263, 274. Sawyer v. Sawyer, 28 Vt. 245, 247 ; Brown

6 Code, 188.3, § 2119. v. Brown, 33 Miss. 39.
' Post, § 109.

§89

ALLOWANCE TO THE WIDOW ALONE.

183

diildrcn fcsidiiif? with her, ami no adult or infant children not
residint!: with hcr.^ Where the allowance is to the ,,,

^ Allowance to

widow and children, it must be i>aid directly to the ti..- wi.iow and

« . ,, clulilrcn jiav-

widow ; the children are entitled to no part oi it.- ai.k to tiie "
In Iowa the i)roperty allotted to the widow docs not
become her absolute property, but is to be used by lier so long as
there is a family, and when it is no longer needed for the support
of such family it reverts into the general assets of the estate.'^
In Illinois the widow's award becomes her absolute property, and
dis])osable as she sees fit, free from all claims by the children,'^
and the award made by the appraisers cannot be apportioned
between her and the children of decedent by the probate court.^
In Mississippi it is held that, where the children do not live with
the widow, but are provided for by a guardian, it is the duty of
the probate court to apportion the amount allowed between the
widow and children;*^ and where there is no child, the widow's
interest in the property allotted to her exempt from execution
ceases upon her marriage to another husbandJ A similar rule
prevails in California.^ A woman who has been divorced from
her husband is self-evidently not entitled to this ^. ^ .,

■^ Divorced wife

allowance, or any share in the estate of her former not entitled to
husband ; having ceased to be his wife during his life-

1 Newman v. Winlock, 3 Bush, 241.

2 Nevin's Appeal, 47 Pa. St. 230.
Says Strong, J. : " It was assumed lier
affection for the cliildren would be a suf-
ficient safeguard for their interests. In
most cases the widow is the mother of
the chihlren. If she be but a step-motiier,
they are generally safe in her regard, not
only for them, but for the deceased.
Certainly it would not tend to the pro-
motion of domestic harmony to invite
the children (or relatives of the first wife
using the names of the children) to assail
the character of their fatlier's widow,
though but a step-mother, and contest her
right to administer a bounty given by
tlie law for herself and her deceased hus-
band's family. Were such a door open,
there is reason to believe it would not
unfrequcntly call forth some of the worst
passions, and the bounty of the legisla-
ture, instead of being a blessing, would
prove a curse." (p. "Joi.) To tiie same
effect Johnson v. Corbett, 11 Paige, 205.

In Georgia it is held that a widow may
sell land set apart as a year's support, on
behalf of herself and children, when this
is necessary for their support : Cox r.
Cody, 75 Ga. 175. But where she re-
marries, sells the land, and takes title in
herself and husband, the sale is invalid :
Vandigrift v. Potts, 72 Ga. 665.

3 Gaskell v. Case, 18 Iowa, 147; Wil-
mington V. Sutton, 6 Iowa, 44; Schaffner
I'. Grutzmacher, 6 Iowa, 137 ; Paup v.
Sylvester, 22 Iowa, 371 ; and she has no
right to sell such property and appro-
priate the proceeds : Meyer v. Meyer, 23
Iowa, 359.

* Weaver i-. Weaver, 109 111. 225,
204.

^ Scoville's Estate, 20 111. App. 420,
420, and cases cited.

e Womack r. Boyd, 31 Miss. 443.

" Carpenter ('. Brownlee, 38 Miss. 200.

8 Hamilton's Estate, 00 Cal. 576, hold-
ing that the allowance terminates on re-
marriage without further order of court.

184 PKOVISIONAL ALIMONY OF THE FAMILY. § 89

time, she cannot be considered bis widow after bis deatb.^ In
Pennsylvania the same rule is applied to a woman who has been
Nor one who divorccd a tnetisa et thoro,- to a woman who had de-
had deserted ggi^tcd hcr biisband more than twelve years before his

her husband ''

for a long time. (Jeatli without reasonable cause ,3 and to a wife who
had left bcr husband and renounced all conjugal intercourse a
considerable time before his death.^

The rules generally governing the disposition of property of a
decedent situated in a State other than that of his domicil at the
„ , time of his deatli, demand that his personal property

Nor to non-res- ' ^ .

ident widows, gball be disposed of according to the law of his last
domicil, after payment of any debts he may owe in the State of
the rei sitm ; ^ and where the provisions of the statute securing
the allowance are not applicable to the widow of a deceased resi-
dent of another State,^ it would seem that such allowance must
be made in the State of the domicil, and satisfied out of the prop-
erty there ; or if there are not sufficient assets there, then out of
the assets in the ancillary administration, upon application to the
ancillary administrator.^ It will be noticed that in such case the
claims of the creditors in the State where the property is found
must take precedence of such allowance.^ In Alabama, ^ Missouri,!^
and Pennsylvania,^! a non-resident widow is not entitled to these
provisions. In New York, however, it was decided that even an
alien widow, who had never been in this country, is entitled to
this allowance ; ^^ and in Louisiana, where the widow " if in needy
circumstances" is allowed the usufruct of |1,000 in lieu of a home-

1 Dobson V. Butler, 17 Mo. 87, 90. & Medley v. Dunlap, 90 N. C. 527 ;

2 Hettrick r. Hettrick, 55 Pa. St. 290. ■post, cli. xvii.

The reason given is, that it was the pur- « As is held in North Carolina : Med-

pose of the act to make an immediate ley ''. Dunlap, s!(/M-a ; though she subse-

provision for the wants of the family quently become a resident of the State :

when the head of it is removed by death, Simpson v. Cureton, 97 N. C. 112.

and has no application where the family ^ Medley v. Dunlap, «?/;«•«, p. 529;

relation did not exist. Shannon v. White, 109 Mass. 146.

3 Tozer ;;. Tozer, extract from the ^ Simpson v. Cureton, 97 N. C. 112,
opinion of Lowrie, J., in 2 Am. L. Reg. 115.

(1854), 510. But in Missouri the wife's ^ Pearson ex parte, 76 Ala. 521.

abandonment of the husband, at least if 1° Richardson v. Lewis, 21 Mo. App.

within a year of his death, will not bar 531, 535.

her right to the statutory allowance: "Spier's Appeal, 26 Pa. St. 23.3;

Mowser r. Mowser, 87 Mo. 437. Coates's Estate, 12 Phila. 171; Piatt's

4 Odiorne's Appeal, 54 Pa. St. 175. Appeal, 80 Pa, St. 501, 504, citing earlier
So also where the separation was by cases.

contract: Speidel's Appeal, 107 Pa. St. I'Mvapp v. Public Administrator, 2
18. Bradf. 258.

§ 90 ALLOWANCE TO THE CHILDREN ALONE. 185

stead, it was allowed to one although neither slie nor the children
had ever been domiciled in Louisiana.^ So it is held in Georgia
that the wife of a non-resident intestate may sue there for lier
year's support, yet the amount of the recovery is controlled by
the lex domicilii.^

§ 90. Allowance to the Children alone. — As the widow alone,
if there arc no children, may claim the allowance under a statute
securing it to the widow and children, so the children children alone
alone are entitled if there is no widow. Their right au'^lance! if^
does not depend upon the assertion of it by the d" widow,
mother. 3 And where the children of a former wife live separate
from the widow, under the control of their guardian, it is the duty
of the probate court to make such an apportionment between the
widow and the children as will, under the circumstances, and
taking into account the sum necessary for the support of each,
be just and equitable.* In such case the posthumous Posthumous
child of a decedent is entitled to a share in the sum children.
allowed for the year's support.^ And so the widow is entitled un-
der a statute securing her certain specific exemptions where there
were infant children residing with her, if she be enceinte at the
time of the husband's death, and afterwards delivered of a cliild.^
The administrator of the joint estate of a deceased children of dif-
husband and his first wife, under the law of Texas, ferent mothers,
cannot appropriate the entire allowance for one year's support,
though furnished from the community property of the first mar-
riage, to the exclusive use of the children of the first marriage,
where there are also minor children of the deceased husband by
the second marriage ; and the fact that the mother of the children
of the second marriage left the homestead, and permitted the
children of the first marriage to occupy it, does not debar the for-
mer from their jjro rata interest in the amount of the allowance.'
The children of a widow who dies intestate, a house- Children of
keeper and head of a family, are entitled to the prop- widow. "^

1 Succession of Christie, 20 La. An. » Edwards v. McGee. 27 Miss. 92 ;

o83 ; on the ground that the lex domiciiii Whitcomb v. Reid, 31 Miss. 5G7; Wood-

of tlie husband controlled. bridge v. Woodbridge, TO Ga. 733.

■^ Mitchell V. Word, 64 Ga. 208, Jack- •» Wom:uk r. Boyd, 31 Miss. 443.

son, J., dissenting, on the ground that the ° Womack v. Boyd, xupra.

amount is controlled by the lex rei sitce, <"' Ilusbnnds r. Bullock, 1 Duv. 21.

the allowrince constituting jin element of ' Harmon i\ Bynum, 40 Tex. 324.

the administration : lb., p. 219.

186 PROVISIONAL ALIMONY OF THE FAMILY. § 91

erty which the hiw sets apart for the support of a widow and
children, the same as if the intestate were a Avidower.^ And
the children have such a substantial interest in the property
set apart for the widow's support, that a marriage contract, in
which the widow had waived such an allowance, is held void as to
them.2 But where the widow and minor children are entitled to
occupy the ordinary dwelling-house and the messuage thereto
free of rent for one year, and the guardian of the minor children
removes them from her, he cannot maintain an action against her
to recover any part of the rental value of the premises for such
Children not year.^ In New York it is held that, while the widow
entitled out of |g entitled to her reasonable sustenance out of the

till inS0i\ 6tlL

estate. estate of her deceased husband, whether solvent or

insolvent, no provision is made for the sustenance of the children
of an insolvent decedent, the statutory provision being confined
to the widow.* The same is held to be the law in North
Carolina.'^

§ 91. Out of what Property to be allowed. — Since the admin-
istration of estates is ordinarily confined to the personal property
left by a decedent, and the executor or administrator
is gener^iy'^^ IS usually his personal representative, his real estate
pe'rSnaTesLe passiug at oucc to the hcirs, devisees, or dowress, the
""^^' allowance for the temporary support of the widow and

family is rarely a charge upon the real estate, but granted, gener-
ally, out of the personal property left by the decedent only.^ Hence
money representing the proceeds of real estate cannot be allowed
to the widow under this claim,' although she be entitled to all the
personalty of the estate, leaving the expenses of administration to
be deducted out of the proceeds of the sale of real estate,^ and
even if the personalty had been specifically devised ;9 and where,
having a riglit to select, and she selects a judgment founded upon
a promissory note, inventoried among the effects of the estate,
which had been partially satisfied by a levy upon real and per-

1 Lesher v. Wirth, 14 111. 89 ; Himes's ^ jeily v. Elliott. 1 Ind. 119 ; Paine
Appeal 94 Pa. St. 381, 383; Rev. St. v. Paulk, .39 Me. 15; Drowry i;. Bauer,
M,, I no. 68 Mo. 155; Hale v. Hale, 1 Gray, 518,

2 Phelps V. Phelps, 72 111. 545. See 523; Motier's Estate, 7 Mo. App. 514.
„„,g^ § 84. •? Paine v. Paulk, supra; Drowry v.

3' Weaver v. Low, 29 Ind. 57. Bauer, supra; Eitchey?;. Withers, 72 Mo.

4 Johnson v. Corbett, 11 Paige, 265. 556.

5 C(.x V. Brown, 5 Ired. L. 194 ; Kim- » Brazer v. Dean, 15 Mass. 183.
ball V. Deming, 5 Ired. L. 418. » Brown v. Hodgdon, 31 Me. 65.

§ 91 OUT OF WHAT PROPERTY TO BE ALLOWED. 187

sonal estate, she is entitled to the proceeds of the h'vv upon the
personal estate, and to a release from the executors of the un-
redeemed real estate.^ And under these circumstances slie is also
entitled to the interest accrued uj)on the note after the date of the
inventory and appraisement.^ Where the statute enu- s^rth-i^i^ spocif-
merates the specific property to whicJi the widow is icaiiy aiiowx-d

* tr I •' ^ by statute caii-

entitled, the allowance must be out of such articles not be suppie-

. (• 1 1 1 11 I i 1 iiieiited out of

actually on hand at the time ot the husband s death, otiur pn.purty
and no property or money not on hand can be as-
signed to her.3 But if the articles so enumerated, or, where she
has the right to select, the articles so selected, are sold But if sold,
by the executor or administrator, she is entitled to the la^eTife^^ "'*^
proceeds of the sale.^ Where the statute fails to des- P>>>^eeds,
ignate the specific nature of the allowance, it may be or ?eii them
allotted in money .^ In Illinois, however, it was held,
that if the widow elected to take her allowance in money, she
thereby became a general creditor of the estate, and must share
with other creditors;^ but she may cause the real estate to be
sold to raise the necessary money to pay her statutory allowance;'
and in Pennsylvania her allowance of $300 may be out of per-
sonal or real estate, and remains charged on the real estate until
paid.^ It is self-evident that there can be no allow- ,„

r _ Allowance can-

ance to the widow or children out of propertv to which not be made out

p /. , , , a of property not

the decedent had no title at the time or his death.-^ beionninj^'to
In Illinois it is held that there is nothing in the " '"^^^"'^ '

1 Oilman v. Oilman, 54 Me. 531. 120, 122; Ex parte Reavis, 50 Ala. 210;

2 Oilman v. Oilman, supra, p. 536. Estate of McRoyiioUls, 61 Iowa, 585.

3 Baylcss v. Bayless, 4 Coldw. 359; ^ Cruce v- Cruce, 21 111. 46. See this
Johnson v. Henry, 12 Ileisk. 606. case, mite, § 85, p. 176, note 9.

* Cummings v. Cununings, 51 Mo. 261. '• Deltzer r. Scheuster, 37 III. 301.
In Oeorgia, wiiere the Code (§ 2571) is ^ Detweiler's Appeal, 44 Pa. St. 243.
construed as including real estate in the ^ Summcrford v. Oilbert, 37 Oa. 59 ;
property which may be set apart for the Murphy & Co. v. Knlh, 24 La. An. 74 ;
year's support of the family, it is held the allowance should he made from prop-
that, where land has been so set apart, it erty belonging unqualifiedly to the estate
may be sold without further order of the and not from such as is in controversy :
ordinary, and the proceeds applied for Eddy's Estate, 12 Phil. 17 ; Baucus v.
the support of the family : Miller i\ De- Stover, 24 Hun, 109, 114. In Missouri
foor, 50 Ga. 566; Tabb v. Collier, 68 Oa. the allowance cannot be made out of the
641 ; Cleghorn v. Johnson, 69 Oa. 369. estate of the partnership of which the de-
A sale by the widow fairly made will ceased was a member : Julian r. Wrights-
pass the title to the land to the pur- man, 73 Mo. 569 ; but in Massachusetts it
chaser: Steed (-•. Cruise, 70 Oa. 168, 176. has preference over partnership creditors

5 McNulty 1-. Lewis. 8 Sm. & M. 520; against tlie partnersliip property left by

Hoar, J , in Drew v. Oordon, 1.3 Allen, a deceased surviving partner : Bush v.

188 PROVISIDNAL ALIMONY OF THE FAMILY. § 92

statute respecting the estates of deceased persons that in the
slightest degree prevents a husband from disposing of his per-
sonal property free from any claim of his wife, whether by sale,
gift to his children, or otherwise, in his lifetime.^ The allowance
is not to be made out of a grandfather's estate, but only out of
that of a deceased father or mother.^

§ 92. Time and Procedure to obtain the Allowance. — Where
the widow herself administers the estate, she can easily avail her-
self of the benefit of the provisions made in her favor

Allowance . ,.., , j-ii

bhoiiid be made by Simply taking credit in her settlement with the
i"o»'P y court for the amount allowed her by order of court,

the award of appraisers or commissioners, or the amount fixed by
the statute. In such case, also, she will rarely suffer in conse-
quence of neglect or tardiness in taking the necessary steps to
secure her allowance. But in many cases it is impracticable for
her to administer, either from ago, infirmity, ignorance, or in-
ability to give bond, and then, from the exigency of her situation
and the very nature of the relief secured to her by the statutes
under consideration, a speedy and summary remedy to obtain her
in summary rights is iudispensablc,^ and is in most States provided
proceeding. ]jy enabling the widow to obtain her allowance by
simple motion or petition, if the court or commissioners should
Notice to ad- oi^it to grant it without such motion.* Notice to the
ministrator. administrator is not in every State necessary,^ but is
in some States required by statute,^ and the safer course and
better practice is undoubtedly for the court to require notice to be
given, at least in cases where a considerable amount is in ques-

Clark, 127 Mass. ill. In Alabama, the reason for the probate judge further

right of the widow to claim exemption dehiying tlie setting off of these allow-

of her husband's share in partnership ances : Curtis v. Probate Judge, 35 Mich,

property is not lost or waived, although 220.

the surviving partner, administering on * Calvit r. Calvit, ."2 Miss. 124; Council

the estate of his deceased partner, has v. Chandler, 11 Tex 249. But the allow

prematurely paid debts out of his own ance cannot be made until she lias

funds: Little w. McPlierson, 76 Ala. 552. accounted for funds in her hands Cliuruh-

1 Padfield v. Padfield, 78 III. 16. ill r. Bee, 60 Ga. 621.

2 Succession of Geisler, 32 La. An. ^ Morgan ?). Morgan, .36 Miss. 348.
1289, overruling Succession of Coleman, '^ Goss v. Greenaway, 70 Ga. 130, 132.
27 La. An. 289. In such case the administrator is a neces-

3 It was held in Michigan, that where sary party : McElmurray v. Loomis, 31
the action of the probate judge in denying Fed. Rep. 395; and objections may be
allowances has been reversed on appeal, made at or before the term for which the
the fact that a motion is pending to set notice is given : Parks v. Johnson, 5
aside the order of reversal is no valid S. E. R. (Ga.) 243.

§ 92 TIME AND rnOCEDURE TO OBTAIN ALLOWANCE. 189

tion.^ Tlic administrator is not required to wait for May he made
an order of court, but may make the necessary ex- Sr"'Xut''*'
pcnditures as the exigencies occur, and the court will o'-'^'^'- "^ '^^""'"f-
allow such sums as may be reasonable in the settlement ; ^ or the
widow may simply retain the property she is entitled to, which
tlie administrator will not be permitted to recover ; ^ but the pro-
bate court has exclusive jurisdiction in such case,* and if she claim
and retain property not secured to her, he may assert his right
thereto against her and her vendee;^ and on the other hand, the
court may order the property to be assigned to her.*^ In Illinois
the appraisers fix the widow's award, and the probate court, while
it may for good cause shown order another appraisement or re-
move the appraisers," has no power to modify the award or esti-
mate, nor substitute the judgment of the court for that of the
appraisers. '^

Where the entire estate is not greater than what is allowed to a
widow without administration, she may defend her title in equity,
although the probate court has made no order in the matter.^
Where an application by the widow or minor children is necessary
at all, it should be made as early as possible, since, as Application, if
a general rule, it cannot be entertained when the time "houlTbe
for which the temporary allowance w^as intended has "^'''^^ *^'"'-^''
expired .10 Thus it was held that after a lapse of four ^;,*^''„,^'J"bT
years from the husband's death the probate court had barred,
not the power to grant the allowance,!^ much less after thirty
years. 1^ In North Carolina it was held that the application must
be made during the first term of the court after the grant of let-
ters, and that a petition filed two years thereafter was too late ; ^^
but where no letters were granted until eight years after the hus-
band's death, the widow was held entitled to her allowance during

1 Cummings v. Allen, 34 N. H. 194; ^ Boyer >: Boyer, 21 III. App. 534.
Wright V. Wright, 13 Allen, 207 ; Heck v. » Scoville's Estate, 20 111. App. 426.
Heck, 34 Oh. St. 369; Palomares's Estate, and cases cited.

63 Cal. 402. 9 Hampton i\ Physick, 24 Ark. 5G1.

2 Sawyer v. Sawyer, 28 Vt. 245, 248; i' Ordinarily, tlie application should be
Frierson v. Wesberry, 11 Rich. L. 353; made as soon as the inventory of the es-
Clayton v. Wardell, 2 Bradf. 1, 7; Fel- tate is returned: Kingman v. Kingman,
lows V. Smith, 130 Mass. 376. 31 N. H. 182; but a delay of twenty-five

^ Eans V. Eans, 79 Mo. 53, 6-5. days is not unreasonable : lb., p. 187.

* Griswold V. Matti.x, 21 Mo. App. 282, " Hubbard r. Wood, 15 N. H. 74.

285. ^- Mathes ;-. Bennett, 21 N. H. 188.

5 Bell V. Hall, 76 Ala. 546. ^^ Gillespie v. Hymans, 4 Dev. 119.

6 Heller v. Leisse, 13 Mo. App. 180, 182.

190 PROVISIONAL ALIMONY OF THE FAMILY. § 92

the term.i In Indiana, wliere the widow is authorized to select
" at the time of the vahiation " certain articles of property, it was
held that it was not the duty of the executor or administrator to
set a])art and tender the property, and that, if she does not select
before it passes into other hands, she must be deemed to have
waived her privilege.^ So, in Mississippi, it was decided that
the authority to grant and apportion such allowance between the
widow and children resided exclusively in the probate court, and
that all parties claiming rights in such apportionment must be
held to the presentation of their claims before the report of the ap-
praisers shall have been confirmed by the probate court under the
provisions of the statute, or else be deemed to have waived them
in favor of those beneficiaries whose claims are presented ; and
that hence a chancery court has no power to grant relief to chil-
dren petitioning for a portion of such award against the widow,
to whom it had been made.^ But where such award had been set
out by the appraisers, and, the estate turning out to be insolvent,
the commissioners of insolvency declined to take cogniaance of
her claim for the year s support, it was held that the claim might
be asserted at any time before the final settlement of the estate,
the time for asserting it not having been limited to the year
succeeding the decedent's death, or to any particular time.^ In
Pennsylvania it has been repeatedly decided that the right of a
widow to retain real or personal property of her husband's es-
tate of the value of $300 is a personal privilege which she may
waive ; and that it is waived entirely if she neglect to demand an
appraisement, and pro tanto if she retain less than the value of
1300.5 3ut where a liusband deserted his wife, and the separation
continues without fault of the husband, she is not required at her
peril to take notice of his death; and if she make her applica-
tion witliin reasonable time after learning of his death, although
eighteen months afterward, and after the real estate had been
sold, the account on the estate had been filed, and the auditors
to distribute appointed, it must be allowed.^ In Alabama ' and

1 Ex parte Enters, 63 N. C. 110. See Appeal, 34 Pa. St. 2-56; Burk v. Gleason,

Rizer's Estate, 15 Phila. 647. 46 Pa. St. 207; Rnskiii's Appeal, 38 Pa.

•i Jolinson v. Robertson. 7 Blackf. 42-5 ; St. 65 ; Hufman's Appeal, 81 Pa. St. 329;

Tucker v. Henderson, 68 Ala. 280, 282. Lawley's Appeal, 9 Atl. R. 327.

3 Dease v. Cooper, 40 Miss. 114. ^ Terry's Appeal, 55 Pa. St. 344, 346 ;

* MeNiiltyr. Lewis, 8 Sm.&M. 620,526. Rank's Estate, 12 Phiia. 67; Hurley's

5 Somers's Estate, 14 Pliila. 261; An- Estate, 12 Pliila. 47.
dress's Estate, 14 Phila. 263; Davis's 7 jyiitciiani j;. Moore, 73 Ala. 542, 545.

§ 93 ADDITIONAL ALLOWANCES. 191

Texas it is the imperative duty of tlic judfre of pro- Duty of judge
bate to malce the aUowiiiice, upon or without the a,'n"o'wi'thour"
motion of the widow ; ^ and the widow and cliildrcn api'iitatiou.
do not forfeit or lose their riglit to the same from their neglect
to apj)ly, or the failure of the chief justice (i)robate judge) to
make it in time ; but if the estate is solvent, it is too late to make
such application when the estate is ready for partition and distri-
bution. " The time during which the statute intends to secure
the property to the widow and children has then j)assed, and a sub-
secpient right to it, by virtue of such allowance, is expressly repu-
diated." '^ In Illinois tlie widow's claim is held not to be included
in the statutory provision requiring demands to be presented
against a decedent's estate within two years, and may be allowed
although not presented within two years.^ In Missouri, by the
terms of the statute, the allowance may he claimed at anytime
before it is paid out in discharge of debts, or distributed ; but
where the personal assets are exhausted before the claim is made,
it cannot be allowed out of tlie proceeds of real estate sold for
the payment of debts.* In Wisconsin a widow was allowed her
statutory allowance, notwithstanding she had, within a year, sur-
rendered the estate devised to her, for the benefit of creditors,
including her exemptions.^

§ 93. Additional Allowances. — Whether a second claim for the
widow's allowance can be entertained or granted, must obviously
depend npon the nature of the original allowance. If There mav be
this was intended for immediate relief only, and was u, wane" i' if" he
granted before there was an opportunity of determin- j'^'lIl'^l'^nowlTd'
ino; the extent of the allowance to which the situation ""'^ intended

^ to he partial

of the widow and her family, the value of the property only.
left by tlie deceased, the amount of debts, and other circumstances
entitled her, it is apparent that such allowance cannot be looked
npon as an adjudication upon the matter, and that, in the absence
of a restraining statute, the probate court has power to make a
new allowance upon proper proof of the circumstances justifying
it.^ In many States, the statute ex})rcssly, or by necessary impli-

1 Connell v. Cliamller, 11 Tex. 249. 2 ijttle v. Birdwell, 27 Tex. 688, 691.

But wliere an allowaiue has been made ^ Miller v. Miller, 82 III. 4(j3.

and the widow for many years forbears ^ Ante, § 80; Kitc-hey v. Withers, 72

the enforcement of it, she will beestopped Mo 556, 559.
from asserting it: Tiebout r. Millican, 61 '' Henry's Estate, 65 Wis. 551.

Tex. 514. ^ Hale v. Hale, 1 Gray, 518.

192 PROVISIONAL ALIMONY OF THE FAMILY. § 93

cation, grants the power to make additional allowances.^ But
where it is allowable out of the personal estate only, there can be
no further allowance when that is exhausted, although it be in the
payment of debts.^ And if, upon the appraisement of the specihc
articles to which the widow is entitled, she elect to take money in
lieu thereof, this election concludes her in the absence of fraud,
and she cannot afterward have a larger allowance.^ And so, if
the widow has drawn her support from her husband's estate dur-
ing the year succeeding his death, although it was not formally
set apart to her, and although she rendered valuable services to
the estate during that period, she is entitled to no further allow-
ance by way of the year's support.* The petition for further
allowance must show that the former provision is insufficient or
exhausted.^ The appraisers appointed to set out for the use of
the widow and minor children their temporary allowance are
ministerial officers, and their acts may be revised by the court,^
but tlie court cannot modify the appraisement and substitute its
own judgment for that of the appraisers."^ Nor can the circuit
court, on appeal, exercise any power which the probate court could
not have exercised.^ A court of probate wdiich is without power

1 In Arkansas the widow may select wearing apparel, and household furniture,
property nut exceeding the value of $150, and such reasonable provisions for their
in addition to the amount absolutely support as the probate judge may allow,
allowed, if the estate is solvent : Dig. St. On return of the inventory, or subse-
1884, § 63. In C'«///;jrn/a, if the amount quently, the judge may on his own motion
set apart be insufficient for the support or on application set apart for the use of
of the widow and children, or either, the the family all property exempt from
probate court makes such additional execution ; and if this be deemed insuffi-
allowance out of the estate as may be cient for their support, the probate judge
necessary during the process of settle- may make additional reasonable allow-
ment : 2 Civ. Proc. § 1466 ; Roberts's ance during the pendency of the settle-
Estate, 67 Cal. 349. In Georgia, if the ment, but not longer than one year if the
estate is kept together longer than one estate is insolvent : Comp. L. 1873, § 603.
year, the allowance is to be renewed by In Vermont the maintenance is to be out
tlie original or by newly appointed of the personal or income of real estate,
appraisers : Code, 1882. In Iowa the but never longer than until the widow's
allowance may by subsequent order be share in the estate be assigned her:
diminished or increased: Code, § 2377. Gen. St. 1880, §2109. So in Wisconsin:
In Maine the allowance may be made from Kev. St. 1878, § 3935.
time to time until the final settlement: ^ Hale v. Hale, supra; Ritchey v.
Rev. St. 1883, p. 552, § 23. In Michigan Withers, 72 Mo. 556.
tlie judge is to allow such amount for ^ Telford v. Boggs, 63 111. 498.
maintenance as he may deem necessary, ■* Blassingame v. Hose, 34 Ga. 418.
in case of insolvency not longer than one ^ Luther's Estate, 67 Cal. 319.
year : How. St. 1882, § 5847. So in Ne- « Applegate v. Cameron, 2 Bradf. 119.
6ras/>o ,• Gen. St. 1887, ch. 33, § 176. In ' Miller i'. Miller, 82 111. 463. See an<e,
Nevada the widow and minor children p. 189.
remain in possession of tiie homestead, ^ Telford v. Boggs, 63 III. 498.

§ 93 ADDITIONAL ALLOWANCES. 193

to revoke or revise its own decrees and judgments, cannot set
aside its own allowance and decree a smaller sum, unless the
original judgment was reversed, or reformed on appeal, or ad-
judged void.^ But where the probate judge refuses to grant an
application to adjudge an estate insolvent for the want of suffi-
cient evidence to support it, he may, on a new application sup-
ported by suihcient evidence, grant the same.^ And an order
allowing certain amounts to be paid periodically during the
settlement of the estate may be modified so as to reduce the
future payments, if it be shown that the circumstances have
changed ; but without such proof an order reducing the allowance
made is an abuse of discretion .^

1 Pettee v. Wilmarth, 5 Allen, 144. » Baker v. Baker, 51 Wis. 538, 548.

2 Bucknam v. Phelps, 6 Mass. 448.

VOL. I. — 18

194 EXEMPTION OF THE HOMESTEAD. § 94

CHAPTER X.

EXEMPTION OF THE HOMESTEAD.

§ 94. Nature of the Homestead Right of the Surviving Family. —
The policy which dictates the provisions for the support of the
Shelter to wife family immediately after the death of its natural pro-
and children in y](jgj. ^nd protectop also requires the homestead to

case of niiprov- i ^

idence or mis- Iqq sccured to the surviviuff husband or widow and

fortune, as well °

as in case of miuor children. The obvious intent of homestead
the head of the laws is uo Icss to sccurc a homc and shelter to the
family. family, when bereft of its father or mother, beyond

the reach of financial misfortune, which even the most prudent
and sagacious cannot always avoid,^ than to prote^^t citizens and
their families from the miseries and dangers of destitution ^ by
protecting the wife and children against the neglect and improvi-
dence of the father and husband.^ The homestead exemption
would be divested of its most essential and characteristic feature,
if, upon the death of the head of the family, it should be with-
drawn from the widow and children; hence nearly all the statutes
upon this subject provide for its continuance to the surviving
constituents of the family.* It has been held that " the exemp-
tion is not to the debtor, as such, but to the head of a family.
The subject of the protection is the family,— the head of the
family being referred to as its representative. It would be an
unreasonable and unnatural conclusion to hold that this provision
was not intended for the security of families, deprived of their
natural protector. That the head of the family must be the
debtor, in order to secure such protection, is neither within the
letter nor within the spirit of the law. Whenever there is a
family and a family homestead, it is to be presumed that there is
a head to the family, or one peculiarly charged with responsibility
for the protection of the family ; and the homestead is to be

1 Wassell V. Tunnah, 25 Ark. 101, 103. ^ Cook v. McChristhn, 4 Cnl. 23, 26.

2 Franklin v. Coffee, 18 Tex. 413, 415. * Thomp. on Honiest., § 540.

94

HOMESTEAD RIGHT OF THE SURVIVING FAMILY. 195

regarded as the family homestead of the head of such family,
within the meaning of the Constitution." ^

Tiie homestead exemption is not strictly an estate, or property,
passing to those who are, under the law, entitled to enjoy it ; bat
rather a protection to them in its enjoyment against Homestead not
the demands of creditors ; as the creditors could not ^;; ^^^^^^^^j^i
enforce their demands out of the property constituting
the homestead during the lifetime of the debtor, so neither they,
nor the creditor of any member of the surviving family, can
enforce them after his death, so long as there is a family, or, in
most of the States, a widow.^ But where a man has lost his
family, the exemption ceases with the reason for it.^ This right
of the surviving widow and minor children is described as an
exemption, continuing during the minority of the children and
the life or widowhood of the widow in Alabama,* Colorado,^
Florida,^ Georgia,^ Illinois,^ lowa,^ Kansas,!^ Kentucky," Louisi-
aiia,^2 Maine,i3 Massachusetts,!* Michigan,!^ Minnesota,i*5Missouri,i7
New Ilampshire,!^ New Jersey ,i^ New York,20 North Carolina,^!

1 Willard, J., in In Re Kennedy, 2
S C. 2H>, 227; see RofE i-. Johnson, 40
Ga. 555, 558.

2 Black ;•. Curran, 14 Wall. 46.3, 469 ;
Burns v. Keas, 21 Iowa, 257; Hicks v.
Pepper, 1 Baxt. 42, 44 ; Myrick, J., in
Estate of Moore, 57 Cal. 437, 442, 444.

3 Hill V. Franklin, 54 Miss. 632.

4 Code, 1886, § 2543. But if the estate
is insolvent, the homestead vests abso-
lutely in the widow and minor children :
Ibid. ; and hence descends to the heirs :
Dossey v. Pitman, 81 Ala. 381 ; unaffected
by the statutory preference of the whole
to the half blood : Eatman v. Eatman, 83
Ala. 478.

5 Gen. St. 1883, §§ 1633, 16.34.

6 McClell. Dig. 1881, p. 520, §§ 1, 3.
The constitution provides that the exemp-
tion " shall accrue to the lieirs of the
party having enjoyed or taken the bene-
fit of such exemption " ; and it is held
that in this State the widow takes no
homestead riffht, because the constitution
gives none : Wilson v. Fridenburg, 19 Fla.
461, 466; that the exemption from sale
for the debts of the owner is all that
enures to the heirs : Brokaw v. McDougall,

20 Fla. 212, 224. Where there are no
debts, the heirs take by descent : Wilson
V. Fridenherg, 21 Fla. 386, 389.

" Hodo V. Johnson, 40 Ga. 439, 441 ;
Rutledge v. McFarland, 75 Ga. 774.

8 St. & Cur. St. 1885, p. 1101, par. 2.
See Raber i-. Gund, 110 111. 581, 589.

9 Code, §§ 2007, 2008.

1*^ Vandiver v. Vandiver, 20 Kans. 501 ;
Stratton v. McCandliss, 32 Kans. 512;
Dayton v. Donart, 22 Kans. 256, 269.

11 Gen. St. 1887, p. 577, § 14. Gay v.
Hanks, 81 Ky. 552.

12 Rev. St. 1876, §§ 1691, 1693 ; Const.
1879, art. 219.

13 Rev. St. 1883, p. 684, § 66.

14 Pub. St. 1882, p. 739, § 8.

15 2 How. St. 1882, § 7721.

16 St. 1878, p. 767, § 1.
1" Rev. St. § 2693.

18 Gen. St. 1878, p. 330, § 1.

19 Rev. St. 1877, p. 1055, § 1.
23 Code Civ. Pr. § 1400.

21 Const, art. 10 ; the right of the widow
to the homestead being paramount to that
of children, by virtue of dower : Watts v.
Leggett, 66 N. C. 197, cited and approved
in Gregory v. Ellis, 86 N. C. 579, 588.

196

EXEMPTION OF THE HOMESTEAD.

§94

Ohio,^ South Carolina,^ Tennessee,^ Texas,^ Virginia,^ and West
Virginia.^ It does not, therefore, affect the rights of either
On its termi- Creditors or heirs upon the expiration of the time to
a\uicredkOTs which the exemption is limited; the property con sti-
^^^'^- tuting tlie homestead then passes to those entitled to

it under devise or descent, subject to the claims of creditors,'^
as if no homestead had intervened.^ In Arkansas ^ and North
Carolina,!'' the widow, having a homestead in her own right, is not
entitled to the exemption of that of her deceased husband ; and
in Louisiana ^^ she receives it only if in necessitous circumstances.'^^
In Delaware, Indiana, Maryland, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and
Rhode Island, the statutes do not refer to homesteads further
than that their exemption may be included in the amount of
property which the head of a family may select as exempt from
execution.

In Vermont the homestead constitutes not an exemption sim|)ly.

1 Rev. St. 1880, § 5437. In this State
the widow is entitled to the homestead
only while a minor child lives with her:
Taylor v. Thorn, 29 Oh. St, 569, 574.

2 Rev. St. 1873, p. 476, § 5; see Elliott
V. Mackorell, 19 S. C. 238, 242; Ex parte
Ray, 20 S. C 246; Yoe v. Hanvey, 25
S. C. 94.

3 Code, 1884, § 2943.

* Hoffmann v. Neuhaus, 30 Tex. 633,
636 : " As long as there is a family having
a head, and as long as tliis head of a family
occupies the homestead, it cannot he in-
terfered witli for any purpose." In Texas
an allowance is to be made to the widow
out of the deceased husband's estate in
lieu of a homestead, if there he none such
belonging to his estate : Rev. St. § 1995
et spq^; Clift v. Kaufman, 60 Tex. 64 ; the
right tliereto is not forfeited by subse-
quent marriage : lb., p. 66, citing Pressley
V. Robinson, 57 Tex. 453, 460. But an
allowance in lieu of a homestead will be
deemed abandoned if not claimed for
mnnv years: Tiebout v. Millican,61 Tex.
514.'

5 Code, 1887, § 3635 c^ scr/.

6 2 Kelley's Rev. St. 1879, p. 593, § 13.

" See discussion of this subject in con-
nection with the sale of real estate for the
payment of debts, post, § 483.

8 Thomp. on Homest., § 548, and au-

thorities ; Booth r. Goodwin, 29 Ark. 633,
636; Taylor v. Thorn, 29 Oh. St. 569,
574 ; Heard v. Downer, 47 Ga. 629, 631 ;
Chalmers v. Turnipseed, 21 S. C. 126,
138; Garibaldi v. Jones, 48 Ark. 230.
See as to the rights of mortgage creditors,
Barrett v. Durham, 5 S. E. R. (Ga.) 102.

9 Dig. 1884, pp. 140, 141; Const. 1868,
art. 12, §§ 4, 5,

1*^ Wharton v. Leggett, 80 N. C. 169,
170, citing Const, art. 10, § 3.

" La. Acts, 1852, p. 171.

12 If the widow and any of the chil-
dren, altiiough not her own offspring, own
property amounting to or exceeding $1000
in value, they take nothing under this
provision of the law • Succession of Les-
sassier, 34 La. An. 1066; and if they own
less, m the aggregate, tliey will receive
sufficient to make the amount J^IOOO, in-
cluding the amount allowed for the imme-
diate sustenance of tlie family: Stewart
V. Stewart, 13 La. An .398; althougli the
widow herself, or any of the minors, were
in necessitous circumstances, and pos-
sessed nothing, or less than SIOOO: McCall
V. McCatl, 15 La. An. 527; and moneys
received by the widow or children from
benevolent societies are deducted from
the amount allowed her: Succession of
Wellmeyer, .34 La. An. 819, Coyle v.
Creevy, 34 La. An. 539.

§ 94 HOMESTEAD RIGHT OF THE SURVIVING FAMILY. 107

but passes absolutely to the widow and children ; ^ and Homestead an
in Wisconsin the homestead descends free of all judg- absolute estate.
ments and claims against the deceased owner, except mortgages
and laborers' and mechanics' liens, to the widow, if there are no
children, and if there are children, to the widow during widow-
hood, and on her marriage or death, to his heirs; if there is issue
and no widow, then to such issue.^ If the homestead be devised,
the devisees take the same free of judgments and claims, except
mortgages and liens.^ The Missouri statute was likewise at one
time construed to vest the fee to the homestead in the widow,
subject to cotenancy of all the children during minority ;^ but at
the session of the General Assembly next following this decision,
the law was amended so as to expressly limit the widow's interest
to an exemption during her life.^ Where the widow takes an
absolute title to the homestead, subject to the cotenancy of minor
children, it follows that upon her death the title vests in her heirs,
equally free from the claims of any creditors of the late husband,^
and, in so far as she herself became the head of a family and
transmitted homestead rights as such, from her own creditors."

The language of the statutes of Nebraska ^ and Nevada ^ seems
to indicate the same intention, but the statutes have not, so far
as known to the writer, received judicial construction on this
point. In Mississippi the surviving wife or husband takes the
homestead (together with other exempt property) by descent, to-
gether with the children as tenants in common ; and on his or
her death it descends as other property by law of that State.^*^ In
Alabama the widow and minor children take the fee if the estate
is insolvent ; 11 but the insolvency must be declared during the
minority of the children claiming an absolute fee ; the declaration
after majority does not revive and enlarge the homestead estate,
which terminated with the majority.!^

In California, Louisiana, Nevada, and Texas, the law recognizes

1 Day V. Adams, 42 Vt. 510, 516. » Comp. L. 1887, ch. 36, § 17.

2 Rev. St. 1878, § 2271. 9 1 Comp. L. 187-3, § 189.

3 Rev. St. 1878, § 2280. i" Ac-ts Miss. 1865, p. 138, § 3 ; Code,
* Skouten v. Wood, 57 Mo. 380, 383; 1880, § 1277.

Rogers V. Marsh, 73 Mo. 64, 69. " Code, 1886, § 2543 ; Hartsfield i:

6 Laws Mo. 1875, p. 60, § 1 ; Rev. St. Ilarvoley, 71 Ala. 231 ; hence the estate,
1879, § 2693. where there are no children, descends to

« Freund v. McCall, 73 Mo. 343, 346; the widow's heirs: Dossey v. Pitman, 81
Cannle >: Hurt, 78 Mo. 649. Ala. 381.

7 French v. Stratton, 79 Mo. 560. ^'- Baker v. Keitli, 72 Ala. 121.

198 EXEMPTJON OF THE HOMESTEAD. § 95

Community ^ kiiid of property known in the civil law as commu-
property. j^j^^, proj)ertj, wbicli to some extent affects the dispo-

sition of the homestead upon the death of either of the tenants
in community. 1 In Texas it is held that, upon the death of a con-
nubial partner, the interest of the deceased goes to the heir in
community property, the homestead remaining subject to the
homestead right of the surviving partner ;2 but the latter cannot,
by a sale or conveyance, deprive the minor children of their inter-
est in the community property descended from their deceased
parent.^ If the surviving spouse, remaining unmarried, file an
inventory and appraisement of the community estate, he or she
may dispose of the same without administration or proceeding in
the probate court ; * and this is construed as authorizing the sur-
vivor to sell the homestead as well as the other property of the
community,^ after recording the inventory and appraisement.^
In California the statute vests the homestead property selected by
husband and wife in the survivor of tliem, absolutely, free from
any debts or liabilities contracted before the death ; and this
language is held to deprive the children of any homestead rights
against claims accruing subsequent to such death, although the
homestead may have been set apart by the probate court as such,
in favor of the surviving husband and children.''

§ 95. "What Tenement constitutes the Homestead descending. —

The homestead thus transmitted to the surviving family of one

dying is the homestead in fact, — the dwelling-place

Homestead is "^ ^ . ' ° ^

the actual occupicd by the family, with all the land and its appur-
tenances to the extent allowed by the statute,^ — at the
time of the death .^ Unless so expressed by statute, the survivors

1 Lord V. Lord, 65 Cal. 84. As to the ^ Kirkland v. Little, 41 Tex. 456, 460,
nature of community property, see post, citing earlier cases.

§ 122. ^ Watson v. His Creditors, 58 Cal. 556,

2 Bell V. Schwarz, 37 Tex. 572, 574; 557, citing Rich v. Tubbs, 41 Cal. 34, and
Carter v. Randolph, 47 Tex. 376, 380; Estate of Delaney, 37 Cal. 176, 181 ; Her-
Eubank v. Landram, 59 Tex. 247. rold v. Reen, 58 Cal. 443.

3 Walker v. Young, -37 Tex. 519 ; Clark ** The widow is liable for rent of prem-
V. Nolan, 38 Tex. 416, 419, citing earlier ises occupied in excess of the home-
cases, stead allowance: Titcomb's Estate, M_\ r.

* Act, Aug. 26, 1856, §§3,7; Pasch. 55; but not otherwise, and repairs and
Dig. art. 4648, 46-52. permanent improvements will be appor-

* Dawson v. Holt, 44 Tex. 174, 177, tioned equitably between the widow and
citing former Texas cases; Jordan v. heirs: Engelhardt i-. Yung, /»//«.
Imthurn, 51 Tex. 276. 9 Sossaman v. PowelC 2i Tex. GiJ4,

666; David c. David, 56 Ala. 49.

§95

WHAT CONSTITUTES THE HOMESTEAD.

199

do not acquire, in consequence of .such death, the right to select a
homestead out of the body of the decedent's estate ; ^ and where
the statute confers such right, the homestead must be set out and
determined by the proper tribunals in accordance with the stat-
utory provisions.^ Nor is the mere intention of the decedent to
occupy a particular tract of land as a homestead, who died before
such intention was carried into effect, sufficient to entitle the
widow to the exemption of such tract as a homestead.-^ A fortiori,
the widow cannot abandon the homestead occupied by the deceased
and his family at the time of his death, and select another, as
aeainst the rij-hts of creditors.* The abandonment of a homestead
by the widow or minor children has been held to destroy their
homestead right in the premises;^ but however proper the appli-
cation of such principle may be during the lifetime of the debtor,^
it is necessary to observe that the temporary absence ^^^^^^^ ^^
of his widow does not constitute abandonment, either widow no

n luinrloiiin

by her or the minor children," and that the tendency

abaiuloninent.

1 Thomp. on Homest., § 542 ; Hoback
V. Hoback, 33 Ark. 399; Pettus v. Mc-
Kinney, 56 Ala. 41 ; Dexter v. Strobach,
56 Ala. 233 ; In re Crowley, 71 Cal. 300,
305 (confining the right to tlie premises
on wiiich husband and wife resided when
their declaration was filed); Maloney v.
Refer, 17 Pac. R. (Cal.) 539.

2 Cameto v. Diipuy, 47 Cal. 79, 80;
HatorfE v. Wellford, 27 Graft. 3-56, 364;
Roff 0. Johnson, 40 Ga. 555, 561. In
Alabama the widow of the deceased
owner of a lot and storehouse, not oc-
cupied as a dwelling, the family residing
at the time of iiis death in a rented house,
is entitled to select the storehouse as a
homestead : Hartsfield v. Harvoley, 71
Ala. 231.

3 Keyes v. Bump, 59 Vt. 391, 395;
Goodall V. Boardman, 53 Vt. 92, 101 ;
Drucker v. Rosenstein, 19 Fla. 191, 195;
Talmadge v. Talmadge, 66 Ala. 199, 201
(the deceased was a resident of Illinois
at tlie time of his death, and his family
were denied a homestead in Alabama
because tlie intention to acquire a domi-
cil there was defeated by his death); or
after it is sold Fant v. Talbot, 81 Ky.
23. But in Engelhardt v. Yung, 76 Ala.
534, 541, it was held that where a house
and lot was purchased witli the intention
and for the purpose of improving aud

repairing, and making it a permanent
residence, the death of the purchaser be-
fore the consummation of bis purpose
did not prevent its being regarded as a
homestead, and as such exempt from the
payment of debts.

■» Chambers v. McPhaul, 55 Ala. 367 ;
Rogers v. Ragland, 42 Tex. 422, 443 (re-
versing s. c. 34 Tex. 617) approved in
Hendrix v. Hendrix, 46 Tex 6, 8. But
while she cannot do so as against the
rights of the creditors before the death
of the husband, yet she may exchange
the liomestead derived from him for
another as against her own creditors ■
Schneider v. Bray, 59 Tex. 668, 670.
See post, §98, as to the widow's right to
alienate the homestead descended to her.
" Hicks V. Pepper, 1 Baxt. 42, 45 ;
Kingman v. Higgins. 100 III. 319, 325;
McCormack r. Kimniel, 4 III. App. 121 ;
Farnan v. Borders, 119 III 228; Burch v.
Atchison, 82 Ky. 585; Paul v. Paul, 136
Mass. 286; and a sale is an abandonment :
Garibaldi i: Jones, 48 Ark. 230, 237. Re-
moval of tlie family constitutes a pn'mn
facie case of abandonment, and when
coupled with the acquisition of a new
homestead elsewhere is conclusive : Kaes
V. Gross, 92 Mo. 647, 656.

6 Thomp. on Homest, §§ 263-287-
' Carter v. Randolph, 47 Tex. 376,

200

EXEMPTION OF THE HOMESTEAD.

95

of courts is to relax the requirement of literal occupation by the
widow,^ and to dispense with it altogether in the case of orphan
minors.^

The widow and children take the same estate which the de-
ceased husband or father possessed in the homestead, and no
o-reater;-^ if the estate is less than a fee, it ceases with

!>ame estate ^ ' '

descends tiiat the cxpiratiou of the term.* The mere use of the

husband or . tit i i t /y • j. j.

father pos- premiscs as a homestead has been held sumcient to
shelter the possession against creditors ; ^ but there
must be some title, right, or interest in the land upon which the
Possession homcstcad is claimed.^ Possession alone, without
againsrimra-"*^ Ownership in the land as a basis for the homestead
mount title. claim, canuot be set up to defeat a recovery in eject-
ment under a paramount legal title ; '' nor can the widow or minor
children claim exception from the bar of limitation.^ An equi-
table title to land is held, in most States, sufficient to

Equitable title
sufficient.

support the homestead against all the woiid but the

381 (where the widow had not occupied
the homestead for two years after the
husband's death) ; Titman v. Moore, 43
111. 169, 173; Franklin v. Coffee, 18 Tex.
413, 416; Evans v. Evans, 13 Bush, 587;
Euper V. Alkire, 37 Ark. 283 ; Clements
V. Lacy, 51 Tex. 150 ; Cox r. Harvey, 1
Tex. Unrep. Cas. 268, 273-275.

1 Locke V. Rowell, 47 N. H. 46, 49;
Phipps V. Acton, 12 Bush, 375, 377 ;
Brettun v. Fox, 100 Mass. 2.34. 236; she
may rent it out and receive the rents,
and the possession of the tenant will be
her possession : Garibaldi v. Jones, 48
Ark. 230. So, while a lease for life is
generally an abandonment, this is not
the case where the lessor reserves the
right to return to the homestead : Gates
V. Steele, 48 Ark. 539. Where however
a portion of a tract of land is rented out
before it is occupied as a homestead, the
fact that the remainder is subsequently
so occupied will not stamp the portion
leased as a homestead : In re Crowey, 71
Cal. .300.

- Thomp. on Homest., § 242 ; Booth v.
Goodwin, 29 Ark. 6.33, 634, and Althei-
nier i-. Davis, 37 Ark. 316, both of these
cases holding that minors can neither
waive nor abandon their homestead
rights ; Johnson v. Gaylord, 41 Iowa, 362,

367 ; Showers v. Robinson, 43 Mich. 502;
Farrow v. Farrow, 13 Lea, 120, 124, hold-
ing that occupation by the minor children
at the time the right accrues is meant
by the statutory requirement " occupy-
ing the same " ; Rhorer v. Brockhage,
86 Mo. 544, 548.

3 Smith V. Chenault, 48 Tex. 455, 461 ;
McGrath v. Sinclair, .55 Miss. 89, 93;
Deere r. Chapman, 25 111.610; Helm v.
Helm, 30 Gratt. 404 (holding that, where
a husband died without leaving children,
and not having claimed a homestead, the
widow is not entitled to such), 406; Es-
tate of Lessassier, 34 La. An. 1066.

4 Brown v. Keller, 32 111. 151, 154;
Weber v. Short, 55 Ala. 311, 318 (over-
ruling Pizzala v. Campbell, 46 Ala. 35,
which held that a homestead right could
not exist in leasehold estate).

5 Brooks V. Hyde, 37 Cal. 366, 372,
commenting on Calderwood v. Tevis, 23
Cal. 335, which denies homestead protec-
tion to property wrongfully possessed ;
see also Jones v. Hart, 62 Miss. 13.

« Smith V. Smith, 12 Cal. 216, 223;
Randal r. Elder, 12 Kans. 257, 261 ; Stamm
V. Stamm, 11 Mo. App. 598.

■^ McClurken c. McClurken, 46 111. 327,
330.

f Smith V. Uzzell, 61 Tex. 220.

95

"WHAT CONSTITUTES THE HOMESTEAD.

201

holder or beneficiary of the legal title ;i while in others the right
is not allowed to attach until the owner has the legal title.^
Whether the homestead may be supported by an estate held
jointly, or in common, or in partnership with others, is held dii-
ferently in different States, and the authorities conflict sometimes
in the same State. The subject is exhaustively treated in Thomp-
son's Avork on Homesteads and Exemptions.^ In Arkansas the
widow and minor heirs of a tenant in common are entitled to a
homestead out of the common estate.*

The right transmitted to the surviving members of Law of tiie
the family is determined by the law as existing at the dece.i'ent'f
time of the death of the person from wliom it de- tSnt'o?™''
scends ; no subsequent change of the law will affect homestead.
their rights.^ But as to creditors, it must be remem- j^. ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^_
bered that their rights cannot be impaired after the it">s not im-

" pairpfl after

debt is contracted ; so that a homestead or other creation of
exemption law is in derogation of the Constitution of
the United States, in so far as it attempts to withdraw from the
reach of the creditor property which was within his reach before ; ^

1 Allen V. Hawley, 66 111. 164, 168;
Blue V. Blue, 38 111. 9, 18 ; Macmanus v
Campbell, 37 Tex. 267; McKee v. Wil-
cox, 11 Mich 358, 361 ; Fyffe v. Beers, 18
Iowa, 4, 11 ; Doane v. Doane, 4(3 Vt. 485,
493; Cheatham v. Jones, 68 N. C 153;
Hartman v. Munch, 21 Minn. 107 ; Tar-
rant 0. Swain, 15 Kans. 146, 149; Me-
Cabe ('. Mazzuchelli, 13 Wis. 478, 482
In Alabama the homestead may be
claimed without regard to the nature or
character of tlie title, whether legal or
equitable, or of the estate, whether in
fee, for life, or for years : Tyler v. Jewett,
82 Ala. 93.

2 Thurston v. Maddocks, 6 Allen, 427,
428 ; Holmes v. Winchester, infra ; Garaty
1-. Du Bose, 5 S. C. 493, 499 ; but later
South Carolina decisions seem inclined
to follow the weight of authority, and
liold tliat there may be a homestead in
land lield by an equitable title : Munro
V. Jeter, 24 8. C. 29, 36 ; Ex parte Kurz,
24 S. C. 468, 471.

8 § 180 e^ seq. See also Smyth, Home-
stead & Exemp., § 120 pt seq. ; Snedecor
V. Freeman, 71 Ala. 140 ft seq.; Sims v.
Thompson, 39 Ark. 301, 304 ; Holmes v.

Winchester, 1.38 Mass. 542 ; Trowbridge
V. Cross, 117 III. 109; Titzgerald v. Fer-
nandez, 71 Cal. 504, 507.

* Ward V. Mayfield, 41 Ark. 94, rely-
ing on Greenwood v. Maddox, 27 Ark.
648, 660, in which there is a collection of
cases pro and con on the general question
of homesteads of tenants in common ; fol
lowed in Sentell v. Armor, 35 Ark. 49, 50,
and Sims v. Thompson, 30 Ark. 301, 305.

° Register v. Hensley, 70 Mo. 180, 194
Yeates v. Briggs, 95 III. 79, 83 ; Taylor
V. Taylor, 53 Ala. 135; Munchus v. Har-
ris, 69 Ala. 500. 508; Slaughter v. Mc
Bride, 60 Ala. 510; Emmett v. Emmett,
14 Lea, 369, 370; Davidson v. Davis, 86
Mo 440. But as to the manner of as-
serting and contesting the right, the
statute at the time governs : Dossey v.
Pitman, 81 Ala. 381, 383.

t' Gunn V. Barry, 15 Wall. 610, 621,
reversing same case, 44 Ga. 351, 353;
Munchus V. Harris, supra; Slaughter ;■.
McBride, su/>rn ; Cochran v. Miller, 74
Ala. 50, 57 ; Blum' v. Carter, 63 Ala. 235,
237 ; De Witt v. Sewing Machine Co , 17
Neb. 533 ; Hosford v. Wynn, 22 S. C. o09,
310; Davis v. Dunn, 74 Ga. 30,

202 EXEMPTION OB" THE HOMESTEAD. § 96

although it was held, formerly, that a State law divesting a vested
riaht was not for that reason unconstitutional.^ In North Caro-
Una it is held, notwithstanding the decision in Giinn v. Barry,
that it is immaterial whether the judgment debts were contracted
prior or subsequent to the date of the homestead law ; tlie defend-
ant is still entitled to the exemption.^

Where the law requires a declaration of a debtor's intention
to hold certain property as a homestead to be recorded, the
making and recording of such declaration by a widow, after the
debtor's death, will not protect the homestead against debts con-
tracted by the deceased husband.^ And see, on this point, the
discussion of the effect of incumbrances on the homestead of
widow and children.^

§ 96. Homestead Rights of the Widow. — The rights of the
widow to the property constituting her homestead are to be dis-
Homestead tinguishcd according to the nature of her relation to
erfteidiir^' ^^^^ Same. If she be the owner of the property in fee,
fee, which she may occupy as the head of a family or

otherwise, the law makes no distinction between her and home-
stead tenants in general, either as to the liability of such property
for her own debts, or as to any incidents affecting her right to the
or in the Same. But if the property passed to her from her

homestead of deceased husband, not hv devise or the law of descent,

deceased ■> .- _

husband. or as dowcr, but by the statute, so as to be enjoyed

by her as a homestead, she holds such property exempt from the
claims of creditors, her late husband's as well as her own, and
mostly, also, against her husband's heirs. This, as has been
shown, is the law in most States,^ giving her the enjoyment of the
homestead, whether there be a child or children or not, either fur
the period of her natural life, or as long as she may remain un-
married, subject to the cotenancy of minor children. If there be
no children at all,^ or no minor children,'^ she takes the homestead

1 Watson V. Mercer, 8 Pet. 88, 110; tache v. Rodaquest, 11 Bush, 42, 4(; ;
Beers v. Haughton, 9 Pet. 329, .359. See Rliorer v. Brockhage, 13 Mo. App 8'.i7,
Thomp. on Homest., § 10. affirmed 86 Mo. 544; Groover v. Brown,

2 Edwards v. Kea'rsey. 74 N. C. 241, 69 Ga. 60, 64; Allen v. Russell,_39 Oli.
243, citing numerous earlier cases. St. ;i36 ; Gay v. Hanks, 81 Ky. 552.

3 Reinhardt v. Reinhardt, 21 W. Va. ^ Estate of Ballentine, 45 Cal. 690,
76, 82 ; Wray v. Davenport, 79 Va. 19, 25. 699 ; s. c. Myr. 86 ; Keyes v. Hill, 30

4 Post, § 100. Vt. 759, 765; Brown v. Brown, 68 Mo.

5 Ante, § 94. 388 ; Yoe v. Hanvey, 25 S. C. 94, 97 ;

6 Moore v. Parker, 13 S. C. 486, 489; Riley v. Smith, 5 S. W. R. (Ky.) 869.
Glover v. Hill, 57 Miss. 240, 242; Eus-

§ 96 HOMESTEAD RIGHTS OF THE WIDOW. 203

as the reinaining constituent of the family for whose protection
the law is intended. In some States, however, this Exceptions ia
view is not deemed warranted by the language of the '"'"*^ ^''*"='-
constitution or statute ; it has been held in North Carolina, that
a widow is not entitled to the homestead where the husband left
adult or minor children;^ nor where he left minor children, but
no debts, the homestead law being intended to furnish protection
against creditors, but not against heirs.^ So in Alabama,^ Geor-
gia,-* Illinois, and Michigan,^ the widow is denied the right of
homestead as against heirs,<^ or their assigns.' In Iowa, either
spouse may, upon the death of the other, occupy the homestead,
regardless of the question which was the owner of the fee, and
whether there was issue or not ; ^ but in Missouri, if the wife be
the owner and die, no homestead descends to either husband or
minor children.*^ In Wisconsin the exemption continues after the
owner's death, not only in favor of the widow and children, but
of devisees also, and heirs.^^

The widow may also hold the homestead property as the rep-
resentative of minor children, or as having become the head of
the family upon the death of her husband. In such widow's home-
case, whatever may be the effect of her acts upon her ^S oTth?*^
own rights to or interest in the homestead, she cannot family,
waive, renounce, release, or in any manner affect the interest of
the children secured to them by the statute.^i As against credi-

1 Wharton v. Leggett, 80 N. C. 10'.), homestead allowance in value, it cannot
171 ; Savior c. Powell, 90 N. C. 202. An be sold in partition proceedings : lb.,
act of the legi^^lature extending the home- p. 626

stead right was held unconstitutional : ^ Turner v. Bennett, 70 111. 263, 267 ;

Wharton v. Taylor, 88 N. C. 280. Eggleston v. Eggleston, 72 III. 24 ; Son-

2 Hager v. ^ixon, 69 N. C. 108, 110. tag r. Schmisseur, 76 111. 541.

3 Thornton v. Thornton, 45 Ala. 274. " Fight v. Holt, 80 111. 84.

4 Kemp r. Kemp, 42 Ga. 523, 520. » Burns v. Keas, 21 Iowa, 257, 258;
(Neither widow nor children.) Nicholas i-. Purczell, 21 Iowa. 265; Dodds

5 Robinson ;;. Baker, 47 Mich. 610; i-. Dodds, 26 Iowa, 311. In this State
the court intimate, however, that the the widow is not entitled to both dower
widow should have her dower and home- and homestead ; hence, if the homestead
stead right saved to her in the homestead be either sold upon the widow's applica-
land whenever it can be done consistently tion, or assigned to her in fee as dower,
with justice: p. 624; Patterson v. Patter, she occupies her own homestead, and no
son, 49 Mich. 176. Neither widow nor longer the one coming to her from her de-
children are entitled to the homestead ceased husband by reason of his death :
riirlit unless the estate is insolvent and Meyer v. Meyer, 23 Iowa, 359, 373.

in'' debi : Zoellner v. Zoellner, 53 Mich. ^ Keyte v. Peery, 25 ^[o. App. 304.

621); where the right attaches, and tiie i" Johnson «. Harrison, 41 Wis. 3Sl, .'^85.
estate is indivisible and exceeds the ^ JVIiller v. Marckle, 27 111. 402, 404;

204 EXEMPTION OF THE HOMESTEAD. § 96

tors, the right of possession is in a minor child of the deceased,
whether the mother is legally the widow or not ; i and where the
statute does not allow dower and homestead in the same estate,
she may either waive or hold her dower, as to herself, and claim
the homestead in behalf of her children.^ But acting for herself
alone, she may bind herself by any acts of omission or commission,
in the same manner as any other person sui juris ; she is bound
in a partition proceeding, if she fail to claim her homestead, by
the decree rendered, and her right to such is thereby barred.^

It seems hardly necessary to mention, that neither a woman not
lawfully married,^ nor a wife who prior to her husband's death has
been notoriously unfaithful to him and is not a mem-
ri^htnescend bcr of liis family at the time of his death,^ or has
mcmbeTof'the abandoned him,^ nor one who has been divorced," can
family. claim a homestead against the husband's real estate.

But where a wife, whose husband has abandoned her, has secured
But may if wife a homcstcad under the statute providing for such
be divorced for ^iQ will bc entitled to such homestead, although

the husband s ^ ^

fault. si^e subsequently obtained a divorce from her hus-

band.^ Nor does a wife lose her homestead rights if she leaves
her home by reason of the husband's cruelty ;9 and in an action by
her to recover lands claimed as homestead, if the defendant allege
that she of her own wrong had deserted her husband, she may
show that she left him because of his cruelty, although such facts
were not alleged in the pleadings.i^

Plate V. Koehler, 8 Mo. App. 396, 398 ; ^ Dickman v. Birkhauser, 16 Neb. 686 ;

Sliowers v. Robinson, 43 Midi. 502, 51.3; Duke v. Reed, 64 Tex. 705, 713 ; nor

Gatton V. Talley, 22 Kans. 678, 682; can a liusband claim a liomestead in his

Johnston v. Turner, 29 Ark. 280, 292; wife's property after abandoning her:

Harmon v. Bynum, 40 Tex. 324, 326. Hector v. Knox, 63 Tex. 613.

1 Hence, where the decea.sed left one '^ Stamm r. Starnm, 11 Mo. App. 598;
minor cliild, the allowance to the widow Wiggin r. Buzzell, 58 N. H. 329, 330;
and child cannot be assailed by creditors even if for her husband's fault: Staid v.
on the ground that the alleged widow Stahl, 114 111. 375. But a divorce a
was not the lawful wife: Lockhart v. wensa et thoro will not debar her riglit :
White, 18 Tex. 102, 109. Castlebury v. Maynard, 95 N. C. 281, 285.

2 Adams v. Adams, 46 Ga. 630, 631. 8 Blandy v. Asher, 72 Mo. 27, 29 ; so

3 Wright I'. Dunning, 46 111.271,275; in the community property, wher^ the
Hoback ;;. Hoback, 33 Ark. 399, 404. wife obtains a divorce and the custody

4 Owen V. Bracket, 7 Lea, 448; and of the children, she retains a homestead
though living at the time the debt was during her life: Tiemann v. Tiemann, 34
created witli the man she afterwards Tex. 5-22, 525; Vanzandt v. Vanzandt,
marries, on her premises : Rock v. Haas, 23 111 536, 542.

110 111. 528, 534. 9 Keyes v. Soanlan, 63 Wis. 345.

s Estate of Coraeto, Myr. 42, 44. . ^ Bradley v. Deroche, 7 S. W. R. 779.

§ 97 HOMESTEAD AS AFFECTED RY WIDOW's DOWER. 205

111 Illinois it is hold that one person cannot constitute a faniil\ ,
nor a person and his or her children permanently separated fioiu
him, and hence cannot claim a homestead ; ^ nor a woman hav-
ing once been married, surviving the husband, having no issue,
and acquiring title to property after death of the husband.^

§ 97. The Homestead as affected by the Widow's Do-wer. — At
common law the widow is entitled to the usufruct during her life-
time of one third of all the real estate of which the hus- ^ , ,

Dower belongs

band was seised during the coverture, without regard to tiie widow

n . 1-11 1- absolute! v;

to the existence of minor children, or the condition homestead only
of decedent's family .^ This principle is substan- Surviving " '"^'
tially embodied in the statutes of the several States. ^'^""'>'-
The purpose of the homestead acts is to secure a home for the
family, including the widow within the scope of its beneficial intent
only in so far as she may represent, or constitute a member of, the
family. It is therefore a question, whether the widow is intended
to enjoy the benefit of both these provisions cumulatively, or
whether her claim to or acceptation of the one excludes her
interest in the other. In most of the States this question is
determined by the statutes themselves ; and as these statutes giving
differ from each other, so a different conclusion is adcTitwn'to'"
reached in the different States by the courts called ^^^wer.
upon either to construe doubtful phraseology of statutes, or to
announce the principle governing where the statutes are silent.
In Alabama,* Illinois,^ Massachusetts,*^ Michigan,'^ Missouri,^ Ne-
braska,^ New Ilampshire,^'^ Tennessee,^^ Yermont,^^ Virginia,i3 and
Wisconsin,^* the right of homestead is held to be cumulative to

1 Rock r. Haas, 110 111. 528, 533. and of warranty : Tirrel v. Kenney, 1.37

2 Ibid. Mass. 30 ; but if she obtains an assign-
8 See as to dower, poxt, § 105 et seq. ment of dower in tlie same land, and con-
* McCuan v. Turrentine, 48 Ala. 68, veys her interest to another, she thereby

70, citing earlier Alabama cases; but waives and relinquishes her right of home-
only as against creditors ; for unless the stead : Bates r. B.ites, '.)" M.iss. 392, .S05.
widow prove the estate to be insolvent, ■■ Showers r. Robinson, 43 Mich. 502,
she will get merely her dower : Thornton 510.
V. Tiiornton, 45 Ala. 274, 275. s Gragg v. Gra^ff, 65 Mo. 343, 345 ;

5 Walsh I'. Reis, 50 111. 477; 60 111. Seek r. Haynes. 08 Mo. 13, 17.

277, 281 ; Hall v. Harris, 113 111. 410. 9 Guthman v. Guthman, 18 Neb. 98.

« Cowdrey v. Cowdrey, 131 Mass. 186, i^ Burt i-. Randlett, 59 N. H. 130.

i88, citing earlier Massachusetts cases; " Merriman v. Lacefield, 4 Heisk. 200,

conveyance " in order to release her 222; Jarman v. Jarman, 4 Lea, ()71.

rights under the homestead exemption i- Chaplin v. Sawyer, .S5 Vt. 286, 290.

act " does not bar her dower, although i3 Scott v. Cheatham, 78 Va. 82. 83.

the deed contain full covenants of seisin " Bresee v. Stiles, 22 Wis. 120, 126.

206 EXEMPTION OP THE HOMESTEAD. § 98

and independent of dower, so that a widow may have both ; while
in Iowa,i Georgia,^ and North Carolina,^ she is put to
quiring her to her clectiou to take one or the other, but is not enti-
^ '^^^' tied to both. In Florida she takes no interest in the

homestead, except such as may be included in her dower.'* Tlie
wife's release of dower, in an ante-nuptial contract, does not affect
her right to a homestead in the husband's property after his
death .5

§ 98. The Widow's Right to sell the Homestead. — Whether the
widow can assign, convey, or sell her right to the homestead, is a
There can be matter of somc doubt, and the authorities are not har-
Tere exenll)- Hionious. The language of the statute securing the
t'o"- right to the widow must be decisive, of course, and in

many instances leaves no doubt in this respect; but it is not
always clear enough to enable courts to reach a conclusion with-
out recourse to construction. If the right to the homestead con-
sists of the mere exemption from compulsory sale for debts, or
even of a present right to possession as against heirs, it seems to
result that the right ceases as soon as the owner thereof abandons
the homestead, or surrenders possession to a grantee, and then
the owner of the fee is entitled to possession.^ In such case a
sale would pass no right whatever to the vendee, because the great
object of the law, to secure a fixed home for the family, would be
defeated by permitting the alienation of that home.'' It is held
^ , ,, . , , in Kansas, however, that a sale by the widow of the

But the right ' ' "^

of the widow homcstcad before its abandonment as such confers

against heirs .i.iiiji -r

may be con- upou the vcndcc the right to hold the property tree
^^^'^ ■ from all debts of the deceased husband (except such

as are not excluded by the homestead law), although the property
be afterward abandoned by the widow and children.^ Where
the statute creates a new estate, which is given to the widow, in

1 Stevens v. Stevens, 50 Iowa, 491 ; ^ McDonald r. Crandall, 43 111. 231,
Whitehead v. Conklin, 48 Iowa, 478. 238 ; Eldridge v. Pierce, 90 111. 474, 480,

2 Adams v. Adams, 46 Ga. 630. citing numerous Illinois cases ; Barber v.

3 Watts V. Leggett, 66 N. C. 197, 201 ; Williams, 74 Ala. 331, 333.

but if the homestead is laid off in the ' Garibaldi v. Jones, 48 Ark. 230, 237 ;

lifetime of the husband, she may take Whittle v. Samuels, 54 Ga. 548, 550. It

dower in the remaining estate: McAfee seems, however, that no one except minor

V. Bettis, 72 N. C. 28, 30. children can question the validity of a

4 Brokaw v. McDougall, 20 Fla. 212, widow's sale of the homestead: Drake v.
224 ; Wilson v. Fridenburg, 19 Fla. 461. Kinsell, 38 Mich. 232, 237.

5 Mack V. Heiss, 90 Mo. 578, 582. 8 Dayton v. Donart, 22 Kans. 256, 270.

§ 99 HOMESTEAD RIGHTS OF MINOR CHILDREN. 207

derogation of tlio rig-hts not only of creditors, but also of heirs
and devisees, there the enjoyment of such estate includes the
power to transfer, lease, or sell it, and hence the widow's vendee
or assignee takes the same title which slie had.^ A fortiori, the
right of alienation exists where the statute confers the property
upon the widow in fee, or by such absolute title as the husband
held before his death.^

A distinction has also been drawn between the debtor's volun-
tary exchange of exempt property for property not exempt, and
such exchange for other property also exem})t.^ Such a distinc-
tion can throw but little direct light on the subject under consid-
eration, which is not the rights of homestead tenants in general,
but of those conferred by the death of the head of a family ;
but is of interest in emphasizing the dual capacity in which a
widow may hold homestead rights. As to the power to alienate
the homestead during the lifetime of both parents of a family,
see the remarks of Judge Thompson in his work on Homesteads
and Exemptions, which throw great light on the nature of the
widow's right in this respect, and his diligently collected authori-
ties on this point.*

§99. Homestead Rights of Minor Children. — Children during
the period of their legal infancy are the peculiar objects of the
protection intended by the homestead laws; while in Minor children
some of the States a widow is denied a homestead EisiSin
against the claims of heirs,^ minor children are en- **'' states,
titled to such in all the States in which homestead laws exist,

i Eldridge v. Pierce, supra, distinguish- Cal. 374, 378; Mack r. Heiss, 90 Mo. 578,

ing between a statute creating a new es- 588.

tate, and one securing only an exemption : - Thus it is held in Illinois, tliat the

p. 480 ; White >\ Plummer, 90 III. 394, homestead descending lO the surviving

399, Mr. Justice Craig dissenting on the husband or wife is a freeliold estate :

ground that the statute docs not intend Snell v. Snell, 123 111. 403, 406, which

more than a mere exemption: p. 400; thej^ may lease for any term not extend-

Plumraer v. Wliite, 101 111. 474. In Aliens- ing beyond liis or her life, or convey by

worth ('. Kimbrough, 79 Ky. o32, tiie rule deed after it lias been set out: White r.

is stated to be, that, where the homestead Plummer, 90 111. siiprn ; Browning i'. Har-

right is derivative, the legal title is in the ris, 99 111. 456,463 ; but not before : Best

heirs, subject to the right of occupancy ; v. Jenks, 123 111. 447, 459.
but where it is original, tlie title is in the '' Schneider v. Bray, 59 Tex. 668, 670,

party claiming the homestead, witli the citing numerous cases; Watkins i\ Davis,

right to dispose of it as well as its pro- 61 Tex. 414, 416.
ceeds. See also Holbrook v. Wightman, * Thomp. on Homest., §§ 452-534.

31 Minn. 16S. 170; Watkins v. Davis, 01 & See ante, § 97.

Tex. 414, 416; Graham i-. Stewart, 68

208 EXEMPTION OF THE HOMESTEAD. § 99

whether the father, the mother, or both parents have died. Tims
it has been held that, upon the death of a man who had acquired
a plantation and lived upon it, while his wife and children lived in
another State, the homestead right existed in his children, although
the wife died, and neither she nor the children had ever lived upon
the plantation.^ Upon the death of the owner of a homestead
leaving cliildren, some of whom are of age and one a minor, it
vests alone in the minor child until its majority ;2 and the guar-
dian of one minor child is as much the head of a family, so as to
entitle him to the homestead and exemption, as if the family
embraced more than one minor child.^ That minor children do
not lose their homestead rights in consequence of an abandon-
ment of the premises or residence elsewhere, has already been
mentioned.*

The distinction between the personal rights of the widow as

such, or considered as a constituent member of the family, and the

authority vested in her as the representative^ or head^

Widow cannot ,. r -i i i i . • • i - • i. • •

deprive them 01 a family, must be kept m sight m ascertaining
by her act. whether her acts in respect of the homestead are
binding upon the minor children or not. Where the homestead
rights are given to the children, or the widow and children, or to
the family, it is obvious that no release, waiver, or abandonment
by the widow can deprive the children of their rights, if there be
a practical necessity or occasion to assert them.^ Although the
widow's interest in the homestead may cease upon her marriage,
yet the rights of her minor children are not thereby affected.^
So where the husband succeeds to the homestead as tenant by the
curtesy consummate, if he desert his family, it continues in favor
of any minor child residing upon the premises^ In North Caro-

1 Johnston v. Turner, 29 Ark. 280. Ware, 80 Mo. 363 ; Rhorer r. Brockhage,

'■^ Simpson v. Wallace, 83 N. C. 477, 13 Mo. App. 397, 401, 404, affirmed 86

481, citing earlier North Carolina cases. Mo. 544.

3 Rountree v. Dennard, 59 Ga. 629, 6 Heard v. Downer, 47 Ga. 629, 631 ,

630; Little v. Woodward, 14 Bush, 585, Rogers v. Mayes, 84 Mo. 520, holding tiiat

588; Meacham i>. Edmonson, 54 Miss. 746, ejectment would lie on behalf of the

749 ; Hudson v. Stewart, 48 Ala. 204, mmor against his mother's vendee.
206. ■^ Laws of 111. 1871-72, p. 478, § 2, chan-

< Ante, § 95; Farrow v. Farrow, 13 ging the law as held in Wolf v. Wolf, 67

Lea, 120. 111. 55, 56, that between a father and the

5 Miller v. Marckle, 27 111. 402,405; minor children the question of homestead
Harmon v. Bynum, 40 Tex. 324, 326 ; could not arise. It is now held that the
Johnston v. Turner, 29 Ark. 280, 292; homestead right of a minor child is para-
Wilson V. Fridenburg, 19 Fla. 461, 471 ; mount to the husband's curtesy : Loeb v.
Shelton v. Hurst, 16 Lea, 470; Roberts v. McMahon, 89 III. 487, 490.

§ 100 HOJIESTEAD EIGHTS OF WIDOW AND CHILDREN. 209

lina it lias been held that where a guardian ad litem failed to
interpose the minor children's claim to the homestead in a pro-
ceeding by an administrator to sell the real estate of his intestate
for the payment of debts, the purchaser at the administrator's
sale nevertheless takes subject to the homestead rights of the
children. 1

Lawful children by a former husband of a woman who lived
with the decedent many years, but was not married to him, are
not entitled to a homestead in decedent's lands, although he rec-
ognized them as his children in his homestead declaration and
described himself as the father of a family comprising them, but
had not legally adopted thcm.^

Some curious and intricate complications involving the home-
stead rights of children and widows arising out of successive
marriages, are disposed of in the cases of Pressley v. Robinson,^
and Putnam v. Young.*

§ 100. Homestead Rights of "Widow and Children as affected by
Incumbrances. — The statutes of most States provide that the
homestead exemption shall not apply against debts Homestead
created in the purchase or erection of the homestead, [^"venlor^f'^*
or against mortgagees under mortgages duly entered I'en;
into by both husband and wife. That the homestead property is
liable for the purchase money for which the owner became in-
debted in acquiring it is not only just, but inevitable, since upon
any other condition its acquisition would become impossible in all
or most cases in which the purchaser has not sufficient means to
pay the full price at once. It is equally apparent that such home-
stead descends to the surviving family subject to the vendor's
lien, and to the claims of those who furnished money, materials,
or labor for its erection.^ And, generally, the home- to liens which
stead descends charged with such debts of the de- ab^e'^a^'aj^l'sr
ceased owner as could have been enforced against it the deceased,
in his lifetime, but discharged of any which could not have been

1 Allen V. Shields, 72 N. C. 50-4, 506. 2 Romero's Estate, 17 Pac.R.(Cal.) 434.

Kodnian, J., comments severely upon the ^ 57 Tex. 453.

practice of leaving the rights of minor ^ 57 Tex. 4G1.

children to the protection of a guardian ^ Jh^?, §95; Farmerr. Simpson, 6 Tex.

ad liti=m appointed upon the suggestion of 803, 310; Clements r. Lacy, 51 Tex. 150,

the adverse party: " Too often such an 159; Commercial Bank r. Corbett, 5

appointment is, to use the language Sawy. 543, 547 ; Fournier c. Chisholm,

of an old lawyer quoted by Blackstone, 45 Midi. 417; Palmer v. Simpson, 09 Ga.

committere agnnin hipo." 792, 798.

VOL. I. — 14

210 EXEMPTION OF THE HOMESTEAD. § 100

SO enforced.^ But it is held in Texas, that a deed of trust to
Otherwise in SGCure a dcbt docs uot Operate as an absohite transfer
some States. q£ ^^^^ property to which it refers, and is in legal effect
but a mortgage with power of sale ; that the exercise of this
power must be sought, after the debtor's death, through and by
aid of the court, and that such deed, whatever rights it secures
to the creditor during the debtor's lifetime, after his death se-
cures only priority over such claims against the estate as by the
statute it is entitled to in the course of administration ; from
which it follows that funeral expenses, expenses of last sickness,
expenses of administration, as well as the allowance to the widow
and children in lieu of homestead and other property exempt from
forced sale, are all entitled to priority over such deed of trust or
mortgage, except where it represents the vendor's lien. Hence
the existence of a deed of trust, although joined in by the wife,
is no bar to the widow's right of homestead.^ And in Louisiana
the mortgagor of property exempt as a homestead is allowed to
sell it free from the mortgage,^ and to defend the homestead
against the claims of a prior mortgagee.* In Virginia the home-
stead exemption does not protect against a deinand for damages
for breach of promise to marry, on the ground that such demand
is not a debt, but a quasi tort.^

The right to redeem by paying off the mortgage or paramount
debt seems plainly to follow from the nature of the homestead
Right to re- riirht of widow or children;^ and if the administra-

deem b^' pa}'- '-'

ing off the debt, tor rcdccm the mortgage with assets of the estate.

1 Harpending u. Wylie, 13 Busli, 158, 2 McLane i'. Paschal, 47 Tex. 305, 369 ;

162; Rogers r. Marsh, 73 Mo. G4, 69; Robertson r. Paul, 16 Tex. 47-2 (f>iinoun-

Moninger t>. Ramsey, 48 Iowa, 368 ; Rein- cing the law as above, but allowing tlie

hardt v. Reinhardt, 21 W. Va. 76, 82 (on creditor's demand as being a vendor's

the authority of Speidel v. Schlosser, 13 lien); Reeves v. Petty, 44 Tex. 2i9, 251

W. Va 686, 701, in which it is decided (refusing to decide the " troublesome "

that the homestead exemption dates from question as to the homestead rights

tlie time of recording a declaration to that against a mortgagee); Petty?;. Barrett,

effect by the owner, and tliat it will not 37 Tex. 84; Blair v. Thorp, 33 Tex. 38,

avail against debts contracted before the 48 (approving Robertson v. Paul, supra) ;

recording of such declaration, in favor of Batts v. Scott, 37 Tex. 59, 66; Armstrong

eitlier the husband, liis widow, or minor r. Moore, 59 Tex. 646, 648. See Thomps.

children after his death) ; Warhmund i\ on Honiest., § 327.

Merritt, 60 Tex. 24, 27 ; Mabry v. Harri- 3 Van Wickle r. Landry, 29 La. An.

son, 44 Tex. 286, 294; Douglass r. Boyl- 330, Spencer, J., dissenting, 332.

ston, 69 Ga. 186, citing earlier Georgia * Fuqua v. Chiiffe, 26 La. An. 148.

cases ; Cook v. Roberts, 69 Ga. 742 ; Tyler ^ Burton v. Mill, 78 Va. 468, 481.

V. Jewett, 82 Ala. 93. « Norris v. Moulton, 84 N. H. 392, 399.

§ 100 HOMESTEAD RIGHTS OF WIDOW AND CHILDREN. 211

they take, without contrihutiou, the whole estate;' Init if
this is not done, the widow redeeming will stand as assignee of
the mortgage until others interested shall pay their legal propor-
tion.2 It follows that the widow and children are entitled to a
homestead in the equity of redemption in the real „^,^^^j^^^j
estate au-ainst all persons except the mortgagee and riKht in equity

~ ' . ' . . of redemption,

his assigns ;3 and that if the equity of redemption is
acquired by the mortgagee, the mortgage debt is to be shared
between the widow and him in the proportion of the value of the
mortgaged property held by each.* If the lands are encumbered,
or cannot be partitioned without material injniy, they may be
sold, and the homestead set apart out of the proceeds/'^ So if the
homestead be destroyed by fire, and the administrator or in proceeds
collect the insurance thereon, he will hold the money «f i"^"''*"^:^-
as trustee for the widow, creditors, and heirs, and the widow is
entitled to the use of the insurance money for life.^

A contrary view has been reached in Missouri, where it is held
that the statute gives a homestead in land, but not in the proceeds
of the sale of land, the court expressly disclaiming the Different rule
applicability of the equitable rule of treating money as "' i^i'^-^oun.
land and land as money;' and this principle was applied by the
Court of Appeals to the case of a widow, refusing her any share
of the proceeds of the sale of the liomestcad after discharging
the mortgage debt.^ But where the land is sold in proceeding for
partition, the value of the homestead may be computed according
to the Northampton tables, and the value paid to the widow and
children out of the proceeds of the sale.^

1 II, ij. * Norris r. Morrison, 45 N. H. 490,

2 Norris v. Morrison, 45 N. H. 490, 501.

499. 5 Estate of McCauley, 50 Cal. 544, 546 ;

3 Norris v. Morrison, 45 N. H. 490, Jolinson v. Harrison. 41 Wis. 381, 385;
498. See also Raber v. Gund, 110 111. 580, McTaggert r. Stnitli, 14 Rush, 414, 4U) ;
589. The court may decree other lands Jackson v. Reid, 32 Oh. St. 443, 446 ;
to be sold before that on which tlie home- Merritt r. Merritt, 97 III. 243, 249 ; Gar-
stead is located: La Rue v. Gilbert, 18 ner v. Bond, 61 Ala. 84, 88; Griffie v.
Kans. 220, 222; Calmes v. McCracken, 8 Maxey, 58 Tex. 210, 216; Swandale v.
S. C. 87, 97, 100; Homestead Association Swandale, 25 S. C. 389.

V. Ensloe, 7 S. C. 1 ; Burton v. Spiers, 87 c Culbcrtson r. Cox, 29 Minn. 309, 317.

N. C. 87, showing that, upon the cessa- " Casebolt v. Donahlson, 67 Mo. 308,

tion of the homestead right by sale of 312; Woerther v. Miller, 13 Mo. App.

567.

the property under the deed of trust, the
debtor would be entitled to tlie exemp-
tion of any of his property to an equal
^alue. '' Graves i-. Cochran, 68 Mo. 74, 76.

debtor would be entitled to tlie exemp- ^ Woerther r. Jliller, 13 Mo. App. 567,

tion of any of his property to an equal 570.

212

EXEMPTION OF THE HOMESTEAD.

101

§ 101. Homestead Rights as affected by Inconsistent Disposition
of the Estate by the Deceased Owner. — The right of the surviving
widow and minor children to the homestead premises
is obviously paramount to that of the deceased hus-
band or father to dispose of them ; else it would be in
his power to defeat the intent and purpose of these
1 Hence a testamentary disposition of the homestead estate
inconsistent with the rights of the surviving members
of the family is void."^ The homestead estate bears
great resemblance to dower in this respect, and many
governing the latter are applied by analogy to the

Homestead
rights not sub
ject to testa-
mentary
disposition.

laws.'

Principles gov
erning dower
applicable to
homesteads.

princi|)les
former.^

It may be stated, also, that in most States the alienation of

, homesteads without the consent of both husband and

Alienation of i <• i •

homestead by wife IS held Unavailing to prevent them irom claim-
does not de- ing the protection of the homestead law.^ But where

1 See anie, § 94 ; Tliomps. on Homest.,
§544; Eaton v. Robbing, 29 Minn. 327,
329; Jarman v. Jarnian, 4 Lea, 671.

2 Kaes V. Gross, 92 Mo. 647, 659;
Sclineider v. Hoffmann, 9 Mo. App. 280;
Eproson v. Wheat, 53 Cal. 715; In re
Davis, 69 Cal. 458; Runnels v. Runnels,
27 Tex. 515, 519 ; Bell v. Bell, 4 Southern
R. (Ala.) 189; Succession of Hunter, 13
La. An. 257 ; Brettun r. Fox, 100 Mass.
2-34 ; Valentine, .J., in Martindale v. Smith,
31 Kans. 270, 273 ; Brokaw r. McDougall,
20 Fla. 212, 226 ; Hendrix v. Seaborn,
25 S. C. 481.

3 Per Bakewell, .T , in Dnudt v. Musick,
9 Mo. App. 169, 175 ; Best v. Jenks,
123 111. 447, 459 et seq. So a widow
cannot take a bequest clearly intended
to be in lieu of a homestead, in addi-
tion to her statutory homestead, hut
must elect between the two : McCormick
V. McNeel, 53 Tex. 15, 22 ; Meech v.
Meech, 37 Vt. 414, 419; Davidson v.
Davis, 86 Mo. 440, overruled in Kaes v.
Gross, 92 Mo. 647, 659, on the ground that
the statute negatives the husband's right
to compel his widow to elect; but ac-
cepting letters testamentary under a will
constituting her a legatee does not tend
to show that she waived her statutory
homestead, if the will does not clearly
make the bequest in lieu of the home-

stead : Sulzberger v. Sulzberger, 50 Cal.
385, 387. But where the homestead is a
mere exemption from execution for debts
there is no occasion for election by the
widow : Aken v. Geiger, 52 Ga. 407. So
the wife's right to homestead is held to be
inclioate, like inchoate dower, until it is
assigned and set oif in severalty : Norris
V. Moulton, .34 N. H. 392. 397 : Gunnison
V. Twitcliei, .38 N. H. 02, 66; Tidd v.
Quinn, 52 N. H. 341 ; and when set apart
in lands encumbered, the widow may re-
quire its exoneration by sale of other
property to pay the debt, as in case of
dower assigned : Burton v. Spiers, 87 N. C.
87, 93.

4 Garner v. Bond, 61 Ala. 84, 87 ; Al-
ford V. Lehman, 76 Ala. 526; Thimes v.
Stumpff, 33 Kan. 53 ; Barber v. Babel, 36
Cal. 11, 15; Goodrich v. Brown, 63 Iowa,
247 ; Ayres v. Probasco, 14 Kans. 175, 190 ;
Connor v. McMurray. 2 Allen, 202 ; Am-
plilett V. Ilibbard, "29 Mich. 298, 304 ;
Hoge ?'. HoUister, 2 Tenn. Ch. 606; Rog-
ers c. Renshaw, 37 Tex. 625 ; Hait v.
Houle, 19 Wis. 472 ; Ferguson v. Mason, 60
Wis. .377, 386 ; Hall r. Harris, 113 111. 410 ;
Cox V. Harvey, 1 Tex. Unrep. Cas. 268.
But in Virginia the husband's waiver of
the homestead riglit is held to bind the
widow : Scott r. Cheatham, 78 Va. 82, 87,
citing Reed v. Union Bank, 29 Graft. 719,

§ 102 RIGHTS AFFECTED BY ADMINISTRATION. 213

a liiisband sells the huiiiL'stcad without the consent of privewifeor
his wife, and the wife subsequently acquires it under ^/homestead"
execution against him on a judgment for alimony, he "o'''-
and his vendee are estopped from claiming the homestead as
exempt, as against hei-;^ nor can the guardian of an insane widow,
or anybody but the widow herself, waive her homestead rights.^
So the widow^'s right to the homestead is not affected by a mort-
gage in which slie did not join.^ It has been repeatedly held,
that neither the minor children's nor tlio widow's right ^^

Nor, generallv,

to the homestead can be barred by an ante-nuptial con- a nianiage
tract.^ But in a late case decided in Missouri it was
held that by an ante-nuptial contract mentioning a waiver of
dower, but not of homestead, the widow relinquished her dower
but not her homestead rights, thus leaving the inference that a
waiver or relinquishment of her homestead rights would have been
deemed binding upon her.^

An exception to the absolute right of the widow, as against a
testamentary disposition of the homestead by her deceased hus-
band, is maintained in Mississippi, where the statute is construed
as giving the right to an exemptionist to dispose of the property
exempted from execution by law ; and it is hold that such prop-
erty (including the homestead) descends only in case of intestacy,
although it is not liable to be sold for debts.^

§ 102. Homestead Rights as affected by Admiuistratiou. — It
follows from the absolute nature of homestead rights, that the
homestead can in no view constitute assets in the hands of the

which holds the wife hound by the hus- the provisional support of the family.

band's waiver. And if the wife volunta- In Iowa it was Iield that the words "rights

rily joins with her liusband in alienating of dower and inlieritance " in a marriage

the land, she loses her liomestead right, contract do not include homestead : Ma-

though the husband secretly intends so haffy r. lMahaffy,08 Iowa,55, G2. In Kan-

to reinvest the funds as to defraud her of sas the widow and minor children can

her homestead rights: Beck i-. Beck, 64 occupy the liomestead, independent of an

Iowa, 155, Adams and Beck, JJ., dis- ante-nuptial contract, until it is suscepfi-

senting. ble of partition (on the widow's remar-

' Keyes v. Scanlan, 03 Wis. 345. riage or arrival at age of all tlie children) :

2 Katcliff V. Davis, G4 Iowa, 467. Hafer i-. Hafer, 33 Kan. 449. 464; wlien

8 White V. Curd, 5 S. W. R. 5.53. subject to partition and distribution, how-

* McMaliill V. MclMahill, 105 111.596, ever, her contract will be enforced : Hafer

601, citing McGee v. McGee, 91 111. 548, v. Hafer, 36 Kan. 524.

553, distinguishing between dower and ^ Mack v. Heiss, 90 Mo 578, 582.

homestead in this respect. See also ^ Norris r. Callahan, 59 Miss. 140, 142,

Phelps V. Phelps, 72 111. 545, drawing a citing Turner ?•. Turner, 30 Miss. 428;

similar distinction between dower and Nash v. Young, 31 Miss. 134.

214 EXEMPTION OF THE HOMESTEAD. § 102

Homestead not administrator, since it vests in the widow and cliil-
assets in ad- ^j^.^j^ f^.^.^ f^-on^ tlic husband's debts, differing in this

niinistrator s t r i.^

Lands. respect even from the property allowed lor the pro-

visional support of the family.^ Its use is reserved to the family
during the whole period of administration ; ^ the authority of the
probate court over it is limited to segregating it from that part
Sale by the ad- of the dccedcnt's estate which is subject to adminis-
do'es not affect tratiou ; whcH that is done, its jurisdiction ceases.^
the homestead fjence a salc of the homestead by the administrator

rights of widow "^ i -i i

or minors. y,r[\\ ^ot divcst the rights of the widow and children,
unless it is made to pay debts contracted before the homestead
was acquired, or any privileged debts to which it may be sub-
ject ; 4 and in such case the burden of proof that the homestead
was liable for such debts is upon the purchaser.^

In most States when the right of homestead occupancy ceases
by the death of the widow and the majority of the children,
Eights of cred- the estate passes to the heirs, or becomes subject
is homestead ^^ ^^^ claims of Creditors, as though no intervening
ceases. homcstead right had existed.*^ If the intervention

of the homestead has prevented a creditor from recovering his
debt, the usual rule against delay in subjecting real estate to
the payment of debts does not apply.' In some of the States the
land may at once be sold, if necessary to pay the debts, subject to
the right of occupation by the widow and children ;S but in others
such sales are strongly objected to and promptly denied, because
they tend to sacrifice the interests of all parties concerned, since
" but few purchasers, not venturing on a mere speculation in

1 Sossaman v. Powell, 21 Tex. 664, ^ Rogers v. Marsh, 73 Mo. 64, 69;
666, approved in Hanks i'. Crosby, 64 Showers i'. Robinson. 43 Mich. 502, 507.
Tex. 483; Carter v. Randolph, 47 Tex. « Thouip. on Homest., §548, and au-
376, 379 ; Estate of Tompkins, 12 Cal. thorities ; Chalmers v. Turnipseed, 21
114, 120; Baker v. State, 17 Fla. 406, S. C. 126, 138, 140; Booth v. Goodwin,
409. 29 Ark. 633, 636; Taylor v. Tliorn, 29

2 O'Docherty v. McGIoin, 25 Tex. 67, Oh. St. 569, 574.

72. ■? Bursen v. Goodspeed, 60 111. 277, 281 ;

s Estate of James, 23 Cal. 415, 418 ; Wolf v. Ogden, 66 111. 224.
Estate of Orr, 29 Cal. 101 ; Estate of » Lunsford v. Jarrett, 2 Lea, 579 ;

Hardwick, 59 Cal. 292 ; Cummins v. Den- Poland v. Vesper, 67 Mo. 727, 729; Ev-

ton, 1 Tex. Unrep. Cas. 181, 184. ans v. Evans, 13 Bush. 587 ; MoCaleb v.

* Sliuler V. Rogers. 64 N. C. 289; ante, Burnett, 55 Miss. 83. 86; McTaggert v.

§95, p. 201, notes 5 and 6; Sabalot y. Pop- Smith, 14 Bush, 414 ; Allensworth i;. Kim-

ulus, 31 La. An. 854; Trammell v. Neal, brough, 79 Ky. 332; Barrett v. Richard-

1 Tex. Unrep. Cas. 51; McCloy v. Arnett, son, 76 N. C. 429, 431 ; Flatt v. Stadler,

47 Ark. 445, 454. 16 Lea, 371.

§103

PROCEDURE IN SETTING OUT.

215

which they supposed they had niucli to gain and little to lose,
would buy property subject to such au iucuuibrance." '

§ 103. Procedure in Probate Courts in setting out the Homestead.
— Where the homestead right of the widow and minor children
is secured to them by the statute, it vests at once upon Homestead
the death of the owner, without preliminary formali- Sy;;',^^!^^*''^
ties in any court.^ But when, for any reason, it be- upon th^ own-
comes necessary to set apart the homestead from the
remaining real estate of the decedent, so as to designate the par-
ticular parcel or tract to which the homestead right and may be set
attaches, the proceeding may generally be had in the by 'tife*"probate
probate court having control of the administration of *^""''t.
the estate.3 The judgment of the probate court is, in cases where
it has jurisdiction, final and conclusive unless directly attacked ; *
but the application may, unless exclusive original jurisdiction is
vested in the probate court, be made in the first in- ^^ ^^^^ ^^
stance to a court of plenary jurisdiction ;^ and eject- ?''4'^^'|j;[.^j^
ment will lie to recover possession.*^ So the homestead
may be ascertained in a proceeding to foreclose a mortgage upon
property including an unascertained homestead."

1 Brickell, J., in Rottenberry v. Pipes,
53 Ala. 447 ; Hinsdale v. Williams, 75
N. C. 430 ; McCloy u. Trotter, 47 Ark. 445 ;
Nichols ('. Sliearon, 49 Ark. 75,82; H.art-
man v. Schultz, 101 111. 437, 443, citing
earlier Illinois cases ; in Michigan the
right to sell lands subject to homestead
rights is doubted, but the sale cannot
be impeached collaterally : Showers v.
Robinson, 43 Midi. 502, 507; Jolly v.
Lofton, 01 Ga. 154.

■•2 Skouten v. Wood, 57 Mo. 380 ;
Freund v. McCall, 73 Mo. 843, 846;
Rogers v. Marsh, 73 Mo. 64, 69 ; Wilson
V. Proctor, 28 Minn. 13, 15; until sever-
ance the widow and heirs hold as coten-
ants, and after sale by the administrator
to pay debts, the purchaser becomes a
cotenant ; and if, as such, he purchase
an outstanding title, he cannot deprive
her of the homestead therein, but she will
have the riglit to protect it by contribut-
ing her share of the original incumbrance :
Jlontague v. Selb, 106 111. 49, 56.

8 Coughanour v. Hoffman, 13 Pac. R.
(Idaho), 231 ; McC.'uiley's Estate, 50 Cal.
544; Mawson v. Mawson, 50 Cal. 539;

Turner r. Whitten, 40 Ala. 530; Thomp-
son V. Thompson, 51 Ala. 493 ; Howze t'.
Howze, 2 S. C. 229, 232 ; Scruggs v. Foot,
19 S. C. 274; French v. Stratton, 79 Mo.
560; Guthman i: Gutliman, 18 Neb. 98;
Cummins v. Denton, 1 Tex. Unrep. Cas.
181, 184.

4 Cannon >: Bonner, 38 Tex. 487, 491 ;
but the right of appeal is given to any
person interested in the decree : Byram
v. Byram, 27 Vt 295 ; or to remove the
proceeding to a higher court by certiorari :
Connell v. Cliandler, 11 Tex 249, 252 ; in
Massachusetts the probate court has no
jurisdiction where the right is disputed
by heirs or devisees: Woodward v. Lin-
coln, 9 Allen, 2.39.

5 Runnels r. Runnels, 27 Tex. 515, 520 ;
Andrews r. Melton, 51 Ala. 400; Roff v.
Johnson. 40 Ga. 555, 557; in Alabama
the jurisdiction formerly vested in the
probate court is taken away by act of
April 28, 1873: Pettus v. McKinney, 56
Ala. 41.

6 Booth r. Goodwin, 29 Ark. 633, 637.
T Coles c. Yorks, 31 Minn. 213.

216 EXEMPTION OF THE HOMESTEAD. § 104

No particular formality is required to give jurisdiction to the
probate court, excer)t an inventory of the real estate,

rroceedings in ■*■ ^ \ ^ "^

probate court and a description of the tract or parcel of land consti-
tuting the homestead, and proof of the insolvency of

the estate where the homestead right depends on such fact ; ^ and
there should be a petition praying for the order.^ The

at any time _ ' r j o ^

before widow application may be made at any time before a sale by

lias waived or t • • , q t p, -, ,-, -,^

barred her the admmistrator,'' and even alter a sale the allow-
^^^^ ' ance may be made,"^ if by her acts the widow has not

waived her right, or estopped herself.^ The proceeding in the
Such proceed- probatc court in setting apart a homestead does not
l"ffeciThe"tkie ^ff^ct the title by which the property is held, but is
to the property, gimply to withdraw, for the benefit of widow and chil-
dren, certain assets exempt by law from the claim of creditors.^
Where the question of the homestead right depends upon the title
to the property, and objection is made in the probate court, it
must be tried in another forum ; ^ and any person having an
adverse interest may appear to defeat the application.^

§ 104. The Rights and Burdens connected with the Enjoyment
of the Homestead. — The ov.ncr of a homestead interest in lands
has the right to protect the same against wrong or
strad^right^en! injury by others to the full extent of his ownership,
ages^or fny ' and is entitled to be compensated in damages for any
injury thereto, yioi^tion of such right. Thus it is held that a rail-
road company is liable for the damage done to a house, by the
unlawful construction and use of a side track so near to the same
as to cause the walls to shake and render the house unfit for a
dwelling, to the widow having the right to occupy the same as

1 Hudson V. Stewart, 48 Ala. 204, 208; 69; Coniiell v. Chandler, 11 Tex. 249 ; in

Tanner ;;. Thomas, 71 Ala. 2.33 ; Connell Texas, however, the application in solvent

V. Chandler, 11 Tex. 249. The court estates must be made before the estate is

must act judicially upon the commis- ready for distribution : Little v. Birdwell,

sioner's report: Turnipseed i;. Fitzpatrick, 27 Tex. 688, 690.
75 Ala. 297 ; see Dossey v. Pitman, 81 ^ Holden v. Pinney, 6 Cal. 234, 236.

Ala. 381 ; in California the probate court ^ Estate of Burton, 63 Cal. 36 ; Rich v.

does not acquire jurisdiction unless a Tubbs, 41 Cal. 34 ; Scliadt v. Heppe, 45

petition is filed : Cameto v. Dupuy, 47 Cal. 433, 437 ; Coffey v. Joseph, 74 Ala.

Cal. 79. 271, 27.3.

■^ Jordan v. Strickland, 42 Ala. 315; ' Riggs v. Sterling, 51 Mich. 157, 159;

McCuan v. Turrentine, 48 Ala. 68. Cochrane v. Sorrell, 74 Ala. 310 ; Farley

3 Rottenberry v. Pipes, 53 Ala. 447, v. Riordon, 72 Ala. 128; Estate of Chal-
450; Smith's Estate, 51 Cal. 563, 565; mers, 64 Cal. 77; Estate of Burton, 64
Ex parte Strobel, 2 S. C. 309, 311. Cal. 428.

4 McCuan v. Turrentine, 48 Ala. 68, ^ McLane v. Paschal, 62 Tex. 102, 105.

§ 104 RIGHTS AND BURDENS OF THE HOMESTEAD. 217

a homestead, ullhuugh it hud not been ascertained that there
were no debts of her husband for which the homestead might be
liable.^ In another case, a raih-oad company was held liable for
injury to the land and crops of the homestead in her possession,
caused by the negligent construction of the railroad across a creek,
whereby the waters of the creek were thrown back upon her lands.^
But an action in assumpsit will not lie for use and occupation
of the homestead before the same has been set apart in a proper
judicial proceeding.^

Together with the rights of ownership, the law also casts upon
the homestead tenant the burden of paying the taxes And must also
upon the property and the expenses of keeping it in J^

bear the bur-
eiis of

repair. Hence the administrator will not be allowed ownership.
credit in his administration account for disbursements to pay
taxes and repairs of the homestead property occupied by the
widow, although it had not been formally selected by or assigned
to her.*

1 The track had in this case been laid Tex. 592, 599. See also International R.
and used more than five years before the R. Co. v. Tininiermann, 61 Te.x. 660, 662.
death of tiie husband ; but it was held ^ McCuan v. Tanner, 54 Ala. 84.
that the nuisance was a continuous one, * Wilson c. Proctor, 28 Minn. 13, 15.
and that the widow was entitled to dam- The costs may be apportioned according
ages for the injury to her right of occu- to tlie benetits received: Englehardt v.
pation : Cain f. Chicago, R. I. »& P. li. Co., Yung, 76 Ala. 5-34, 541. The homestead
54 Iowa, 255, 259, 261 et seq. tenant has a right to the annual interest

2 The widow and her deceased husband or income, nor should she be held respon-
had been jointly owners of the homestead, sible for any diminution in the corpus
and damages were awarded to the widow occasioned by the legitimate use thereof,
in her own name for injury to the land or for loss or destruction not her fault :
and crops before she became the sole Chalmers v. Turnipseed, 21 S. C. 126,
owner: Railroad Company v. Knapp, 51 140.

218 ESTATES OF DOWER AND CURTESY. § 105

CHAPTER XI.

ESTATES OF DOWER AND CURTESY.

§ 105. Nature and Purpose of Dower. — However interesting
and instructive it might prove, the task of tracing to its inception
the custom of setting apart for the use of the widow a portion of
her husband's lands and tenements after his death lies beyond the
scope of the present treatise, which must be confined, in this re-
spect, to a brief statement of the principles upon which this form of

, ., the devolution of property rests.i It is important, how-
Support of wife r L J 1 . 1 1 T . 1 i-
and her young evcr, to kuow that the motivc which led to its adoption

original pur- into the couimon law of England was the intention to
pose of dower, p^^^^-^jg f^^. |-|-^g sustenance of the wife and younger

children at a time when the husband and father could no longer
minister to their wants, and as a compensation for the inability
which the common law imposed on the wife to acquire property
Dower at com- during covcrture.^ The common law, in accomplish-
mon law meiit of this purpose, provides that the widow shall

have the third part of all the lands and tenements whereof the
husband was seised at any time during the coverture, to hold to
herself for the term of her natural life.^ The significance of this
secured to the provision is, that it places the right of the widow
widow beyond ^evond the reach of the husband, for her right

the power of •' r i

the husband, attachcs to " all the lands and tenements whereof the

1 Scribner, in his able work on the Saxons, and was adopted by the Normans

Law of Dower, considers the attempt to as one of the legal institutions of the

trace it to its origin a fruitless one, and land : 1 Scrib. on Dower, 8,9. Blackstone

cites a number of American decisions in says that the introduction of dower has

which the judges indicate the same view : by some been ascribed to the Normans,

Nott, J., in Wright v. Jennings, 1 Bai. L. as a branch of their local tenures (citinu'

277, 278; Lacy, J., in Hill v. Mitchell, 5 Wright, 192), but suggests that no feudal

Ark. 608, 610; Catron, C. J., in Combs reason can be given for its invention, for

V. Young, 4 Yerg. 218. But he treats his that it was first introduced in that sys-

readers to a very interesting chapter on tem by the Emperor Frederick II.; and

this subject, referring to the current that it is possibly the relic of a Danish

theories, and deducing from the authori- custom, introduced into Denmark by

ties that, as all the charters coerced by Swein, the father of Canute. 2 Bla.

the English people from the princes of Comm. 129.

the Norman line recognize dower in lands ^ Banks v. Sutton, 2 P. Wms. 700,

as an existing legal right, it formed one 702; 2 Bla. Comm. 130.

of the ancient customs of the Anglo- ^ ^ Bla. Comm. 129.

§ 106 DOWEll IN THE SEVERAL STATES. 219

husband was seised at any time during- the coverture," in which
she had not freely relinquished her dower, thus protecting her
and the surviving- family against the caprice as well as the
improvidence of the husband. The law, in its wise precaution,
devised various safeguards to counteract the husband's abuse of
his wife's confidence in him and prevent him from obtaining her
relinquishment by undue influence.^

The favor with which dower is regarded at the comuKJu law
has by no means abated in the American States. On the con-
trary, the solicitude for the protection of the widow ^ „

■J ' ^ ^ Dower equally

and minor children of a person dying has induced favomi in

. , PI . America.

considerable extension oi the right oi dower in sev-
eral of them, beside those provisions for the homestead and tem-
porary support of the family, which have already been considered,^
and a preference of the widow over the next of kin as heiress.^
If, possibly, the tendency of modern legislation is toward an
extreme in this direction, which may encroach upon the rights of
creditors,* it is nevertheless satisfactory to observe the trend of
public consciousness toward a recognition of the family as an
organic element of the State,^ and the earnestness of the popular
branches of State governments in its protection.

§ 100. Dower under the Statutes of the Several States. — The
common law rule as to the extent of the right of dower is retained
in most of the States, which, bv express enactment, ,

, , . states securing

secure to the widow the enjoyment, during the period dower as at

, „ „ , . 1 f. 11 ,1 1 1 p 1 • 1 ji common law.

of her life, of one third of all the lands ot which the
husband was seised, or in which he had an estate of inheritance,
or of which some one else was seised to his use, during the covert-
ure, or marriage, and to which the Avidow had not relinquished
her right of dower, or debarred herself, in the manner and for
the reasons set out in the statute. In various wordings, the rule
is substantially so laid down in Delaware,^ Florida," Illinois,^ Ken-

1 Note the various statutory enact- tlie exception, pcrliaps, of claims to ances-
nients regulating the relinquishment of tral estates, no class of persons is likely to
dower, and the rigid application of tliem suffer from the liherality of legislatures
by the courts. to wife and children but creditors.

2 Ante, §§ 77 et seq., 91 et seq. ^ See ante, § 6.

3 Ante, § 67. ^ Laws, 1874, p. 515, § 6.

4 1 Scrib. on Dower, ch. i. § ."4, hints "^ McClell. Dig. 475, § 1.

that others than lineal descendants have ^ st. 1885, ch. 41. In this State, ten-

likewise claims upon the estate of the de- ancy by the curtesy is abolished, but

ceased by the ties of blood and the laws both husband and wife are each endowed

of nature. It seems, however, that, with of one third of the lands.

220

ESTATES OF DOWER AND CURTESY.

U06

States in which
dower is af-
fected by num-
ber of lineal
descendants.

tucky,^ Maiiie,^ Massachusetts,^ Michigan,^ Missouri,^ Nebraska,^
New Jersey/ New Yoi-k,^ North Carolina,9.0hio,^^Oregon,^i Rhode
Island,^^ Virginia,^^ West Virginia,^* and Wisconshi,^^ In some
of the States the widow is entitled to different propor-
tions, depending upon the existence or absence of lineal
descendants; as in Alabama,^^ Arkansas,^*" Delaware,
and Pennsylvania,^^ where the widow is entitled to
dower in one half of the lands owned by the husband at the time
of his death, if he left no lineal descendants, and to one third if
. , J there be such. In Georgia ^^ and New Hampshire ^'^

Dower in land " '■

of which hus- ghe takcs dower in one third of all of the lands of
seised, or which wliich the husband died seised, or which came to him
rffjiit of the" ^"^ in right of his marriage; and in Georgia and Ten-
marriage. nesscc ^1 the dwelling-housc, except in cities or towns.

Dower in land is not to be valucd in computing the dower. In Con-

of which hus-
band died
seised.

necticut,^^ Tennessee,^^ and Vermont,^* the widow takes
one third during life of all the lands of which the
States in which husband died seised. In the States of California,^^
Colorado,2'3 Indiana,^^ lowa,^^ Kansas,^^ Minnesota,^*^
Mississippi,^^ Nevada,^^ and Connecticut,^^ tenancy by

dower and
curtes}' are
abolished ;

1 Gen. St. 1887, ch. 52, § 2.

2 Rev. St. 188.3, ch. 103, § 1.

3 Pub. St. 1882, p. 740, § 3.

4 2 Howell's St. 1882, § 5733.

5 1 Rev. St. § 2186.

6 Comp. St. 1887, ch. 2.3, § 1.

7 Rev. 1877, 320, § 1.

8 3 Banks & Bro., 7th ed., p. 2197, § 1.

9 Code, 1883, § 2102.

1" Rev. St. 1880, § 4188.

11 Code, 1887, § 2954.

12 Pub. St. 1882, 6.37, § 1.

13 Code, 1887, § 2267.

14 Kelley's Rev. Stat. 1878, ch. 70, § 1.

15 Rev. St. 1878, § 2159.

i« Code, 1886, § 1894. If the estate is
solvent; if insolvent, she takes only one
third, whether there are children or not.

1" Dip. 1384, § 2-592.

18 Bright. Purd. Dig. 1883, p. 631, § 1.
Expressed, in this State, to be " in lieu of
dower at common law."

19 Code, 1882, § 1763. The dower
attaches to all the lands owned during
coverture and not conveyed away by him
or under judicial sale during his life :
Hart I'. McCollum, 28 Ga. 478, 480; but
a purchaser at sheriff's sale a/Cer his death

cannot defend against the widow's dower
on the ground that the husband did not
die seised of the land : Wiece v. Maibut,
55 Ga. 613, 614.

20 Gen. L. 1878, p. 474, § 2.

21 Vincent v. Vincent, 1 Heisk. 333,
339 ; Puryear v. Puryear, 5 Baxt. 640,
642.

22 Gen. St. 1888, § 618. In case of
marriages before 1877 ; see infra.

23 Thomp. & St. St. § 2398'.

24 Rev. L. 1880, § 2215.

25 Civ. Code, § 173.

26 Gen. L. 188.3, § 10.39.

27 Rev. St. 1881. § 2482. The act
making the change cannot affect existing
contracts: Wiseman?;. Beckvvith, 90 Ind.
185, 188.

2? Miller's Rev. Code, 1886, § 2440.

29 Comp. L. 1885, ch. 3-3, § 28.

3T Gen. L. 1875 (Session Acts), p. 74,
§§ 1-5 ; giving homestead and one third
of other lands in fee simple. See Stat.
1878, p. 572, § 1, also p. 564, §§ 2, 3.

31 Rev. Code, 1880, § 1170.

32 Comp. L. 1873, § 1.57.

33 In case of marriage after 1877 ; Gen.
St. 1888, §§ 623, 2796.

§ 106 DOWER IN TUE SEVERAL STATES. 221

the curtesy and dower are abolished by statute; in frivinginhcrit-
lieu whereof the husband and wife take certain shares ""•^'^ '" '"•■"•
under the statutes of descent and distribution, usually more ad-
vantageous, to the widow at least, than their rights under the law
of curtesy and dower.i In such case the interest of the widow
docs not, iiowcvcr, extend to land owned and alienated by the hus-
l)and during coverture, but is confined to that which he owned
at the time of his death ;2 and the principle protecting dower
right against debts incurred during the husband's lifetime does
not apply .'^ In Louisiana the common law doctrine of dower has
not been adopted, but there, as well as in Texas ^ (in Dower affected
which the Spanish law prevailed until 1839, when an l^iun-fy'^o"'"
act "defining dowers" was passed by the Republic, Property.
but repealed on February 5th following, leaving the old law in
force ^), California,^ and Nevada,^ a species of })roperty unknown
to the common law is recognized, called community, a term
applied in the French law to the title or ownership of the property
of two persons who are intermarried.^ The succession of this
property upon the death of either the husband or wife excludes
the application of a tenancy by either curtesy or dower. In Mary-
land the statute does not define dower ; but it is provided that the
statutes of descent shall not be construed as affecting the right

1 See ante, §§ 66, 67. of the husbanrl to dispose of the same by

2 Carr r. Brady, 64 Ind. 28, establisli- will is denied: Beard v. Knox, 5 Cal. 252,
ing also tlie doctrine that it is in tlie 2-5G.

power cf the legislature to take away an ^ Hanna v. Palmer, 6 Col 156, 160.
inchoate right to dower, on wliicli point * Rev. St. 18R8, art. 1653.
former Indiana cases are cited. But the '" Dallam's Dig. 82. Husband and
legislature cannot impair the VL'sted rights wife take a life estate in one third of the
of a purchaser from the husband; the property of the other spouse deceased,
widow therefore has no interest in such ^ Civ. Code, §§ Ifil, 167, 1401, 1402.
land on the husband's death, occurring "^ Comp. L. 187o, §§ 152, 160, 161.
after the cliange in the law took effect: ^ Poxt, § 122. "The community con-
Taylor i'. Sample, 51 Ind. 423, citing to sistsof the profits of all the effects of which
same effect May v. Fletcher, 40 Ind. 575, the husband has tlie administration and
and Bowen v. Preston, 48 Ind. 367, the enjoyment, either of right or in fact, of
latter case referred to as containing a the produce of the reciprocal industry
collection of the authorities on this point. and labor of both husband and wife, and
In California, where " all property, of the estates which they niaj' acquire
acquired by either husband or wife, ex- during the marriage, either by donations
cept such as may be acquired by gift, be- made jointly to them both, or by pur-
quest, devise, or descent, shall be common chases, or in any other similar way, even
propertj'," the entire control of which is although the purchase be oidy in the
given to the husband with absolute power name of one of the two, and not of both " :
to dispose of it, and upon the death of Code La. 1870, § 2402 ; Clark r. Norwood,
husband or wife one half of the common 12 La. An. 598.
property goes to the survivor; the right

222 ESTATES OF DOWER AND CURTESY. § 107

of dower ;^ consequently the right exists tliere as at common
law.2 It was so in Minnesota before the statute of 1875 abol-
ished dower.3

§ 107. Marriage as a Requisite to Dower. — Marriage is self-

evidently an essential prerequisite to dower. At common law

marriages not solemnized in facie ecdesice are held

Mai-riage in '^ . -, . ^ -i a ,\ ^ •

church indis- not to coufcr the riglit of dower ; * the obvious reason
dowtJi't iom- being that the spiritual courts of England, which
mon law. ^^^^^^ passcd upou the validity of espousals at the an-

cient common law, refused to recognize marriages not solemnized
according to the ritual of the Established Cliurch. But as the
legality of marriages does not depend, in America, upon the sanc-
tion of the church, whose authority binds only those who render
a voluntary submission,^ it follows that all the inci-
sufficie']lt7n''^^ dents, rights, and obligations attach to a marriage
America. recoguizcd as valid in law, whether solemnized in

church, or as a civil contract purely, or, as is sometimes the case,
in both forms. Hence it may be said, that, in all the States in
which dower is given by law, it follows any marriage which is
held to be lawful.*^

But where a marriage is void in law, although entered into by

the female in the most perfect good faith and innocence, she is

nevertheless, among otlier harsh consequences attend-

marrla^ris ant upou an uulawful connection, debarred of any

void ill law; ^^q^^qy right. The most common instances of void

1 Hinck. Test. L. § 1264. the rule, " semper prcesumifur pro ne-

2 Chew V. Chew, 1 Md. 103, 172. gante."

3 Washburn v. Van Steenwyk, 32 ^ Carmichael v. State, 12 Oh. St. 553,
Minn. .336, .347; Guerin v. Moore, 25 555, citing the celehrated case of Dai-
Minn. 462. rj-mple v. Dalrymple, 2 Hagg. Cons. II.

* Bish. on Mar. & Div. 217 h; 1 Scrib. 54, in which the law of Scotland is re-

on Dower, ch. vi. § 8 e/ scrj. In the case viewed at great length and contrasted

of Queen v. Millis, 10 CI. & F. 534, upon with the English law on this subject, and

a full discussion, a marriage between a quoting from Lord StowcU (Sir William

member of the Established Church in Scott) this passage: "Marriage, in its

Ireland and a Presbyterian, performed origin, is a contract of natural law ; it

by a regularly placed minister of the may exist between two individuals of

Presbyterians at his residence, according different sexes, although no third person

to the rites of the Presbyterian church, existed in the world, as happened in tlie

was held insufficient to support an indict- case of the common anc;estors of man-

ment for bigamy, after cohabitation be- kind. It is the parent, not the child,

tween the couple so marrying, and one of civil society. In civil society it be-

of them, during the lifetime of the other, comes a civil contract, regulated and pre-

having married some one else. The de- scribed by law, and endowed with civil

cision was rendered upon an equal di- consequences."
vision of the Lords, under application of ^ i Scrib. on Dower, cli. vii. § 1.

§10'

MAKRIAGE AS A REQUISITE TO DOWER.

223

marriages arc those in which one or both of the parties have a
husband or wife by a former marriage, not dissolved. In such
case, tlie woman can have no dower, for she has not been a wife.^
In this connection, however, it must be remembered that no pe-
culiar ceremonies are requisite, either by the common or canon
law, for the valid celebration of the marriage.^ If, therefore, a
man and woman, whose marriage is void because at but if validated
the time of the marriage ceremony one of them had J^;.,;^^f ;V';.^ „^
a spouse by a former undetermined marriage living, husband, and

I •' COlltllilU'U CO-

continue to cohabit and recognize each other as bus- i.ubHatiun,

„ in, dower is given.

band and wife after the death of such first spouse,
this will either constitute, or authorize the presumption of, a valid
marriage between them, after the dissolution of the former mar-
riage by the death of the first spouse.^ The presumption of death
arising upon the absence of a person for seven years, unheard
from, is also relied on, in some cases, in support of marital
rights, where the second marriage takes place after the expiration
of this period;'^ and courts, as a general thing, exact full and

1 Higgins r. Breen, 9 Mo. 407, 501;
Smitli V. Smith, 5 Oh. St. 32 ; Smart i'.
Whaley,6 Sm. & M. 308, 312; De France
V. Johnson, 26 Fed. Rep. 891 ; Jones v.
Jones, 28 Ark. 19, 26, liolding that proof
of cohahitation, and liolding eacli other
out to the world as husband and wife, are
not sufficient proof of marriage, where
at the time the marriage is alleged to
have been contracted there was a wife by
a former marriage living, not divorced.

2 2 Kent Comm. *86 : " The Roman
lawyers strongly inculcated the doctrine,
that the very foundation and essence of
the contract consisted in consent freely
given by parties competent to contract.
. . . This is the language equally of the
common and canon law, and of common
reason."

3 Donnelly v. Donnelly, 8 B. Mon. 113.
117, adjudging dower to tiie wife in such
case. But it has since been held, in
Kentucky, under a statute so providing,
that all marriages are void " when not
solemnized or contracted in the presence
of an authorized person or society " :
Estill )'. Rogers, 1 Bush, 62, 64 ; Fenton
V. Reed, 4 John. 52. In Smith v. Smith,
1 Tex. 621, it was held that, under the
Spanish law (before the introduction of

the common law) prevalent in Te.\as, a
marriage, though the imshand luighthave
had a former wife living, imposed upon
the second wife, if ignorant of this fact,
all the obligations and invested her with
all the rights of a lawful wife, so long
as this ignorance continued ; and that
under the Spanish jurisprudence, a puta-
tive is converted into a real marriage by
the removal of the disability, however
that may be effected. See also Yates v.
Houston, 3 Tex. 433, 447 ; Jackson v.
Claw, 18 John. 346, 340; Adams v. Ad-
ams, 57 iliss. 2t)7. 270, commenting on
and apparently reversing Ruudle v. Pe-
gram, 49 Miss. 751, and Floyd i-. Calvert,
53 Miss. 37, all arising under the Missis-
sippi constitution, legalizing the marriage
of persons not married, but cohabiting as
man and wife.

* Woods r. Woods, 2 Bay, 476, 480.
The judges were unanimously of the
opinion, " that tlie presumption of law
in support of marital rights was much
more favored than a presumption against
them, especially when such unfavorable
presumption went to bastardize the is-
sue of a marriage apparently legal and
proper."

224 ESTATES OF DOWER AND CURTESY. §1^7

satisfactory proof of the first marriage, where it is sought to be
interposed as a defence against the claims of the wife.^

The consent of a free and rational person constitutes an esscn-
. tial ingredient of the marriage contract ; hence the

JIarnage of " °

idiot void. marriage of an idiot is void,^ and the same rule pre-
So of an insane ^alls where either of the parties was insane at the
person; ^jj^g ^]^g marriage contract was entered into.''^ That a

marriage coerced by compulsion, fear, or violence, or induced by
or if coerced fraud or error, is voidable, rests upon the same rea-
mdS bv ^^^ ' * ^^^ ^^ ^^^^ party imposed upon so elects, he or
fraud. ' q\iq may waive the wrong and thereby render the mar-
riage good. Voluntary coliabitation after discovery of the fraud
or error, or the removal of the fear, amounts to such waiver.^

Marriages between persons within the prohibited degrees of
consanguinity or affinity, between persons of different races, or
Marriages pro- wlicre the statutory regulations have not been ob-
hibited by law. gg^ved, or either of the parties is not of the required
age, &c., are also held void or voidable under the provisions of
some of the State statutes, the details of which cannot be consid-
ered here.^ It is self-evident that, if a marriage be voidable, but
not void, the wife will be entitled to dower if it be not dissolved
during the lifetime of the husband."

The validity of marriages is to be determined, as a general
proposition, by the law of the country where it is solemnized ; if
Validity of valid there, it will be valid everywhere ; if void there,
mhSf bylaw''" i* i^ void elscwherc^ Exceptions recognized are po-
of the country lyo-amous and incestuous marriages;^ and marriages

where solein- •' ~ piiii

nized. contracted elsewhere, in violation of a local law, by

citizens subject to such law.^^

1 Hull V. Rawls, 27 Miss. 471. ^ 1 Washb. R. Prop. *169, § 2.

2 1 Scrib. on Dower, p. 123, § 17 ; M Washb. R. Prop. *170, § 4, citing
Waymire v. Jetmore, 22 Oh. St. 271, 273. Story, Confl. of L., § 113 ; Clark v. Clark,

" Jenkins v. Jenkins, 2 Dana, 102 ; 8 Cush. 385 ; Cambridge v. Lexington, 1

Crump V. Morgan, 3 Ired. Eq. 91, 94; Pick. 505; Putnam i' Putnam, 8 Pick. 433.

Foster v. Means, 1 Speers Eq. 569, 574 ; See Johnson v. Johnson, 30 Mo. 72, 88.
Powell V. Powell, 18 Kans. 371, 377; 9 Story, Confl. of L., § 113 a But only

Stuckey v. Mathes, 24 Hun, 461. if incestuous by the law of nature : Sut-

i Bassett v. Bassett, 9 Bush, 696; ton r. Warren, 10 Met. (Mass.) 451; Ke-

Tomppert v. Tomppert, 13 Bush, 326; gina ;;. Chadwick, 11 Ad. & Ell. (Q. B.)

Willard v. Willard, 6 Baxt. 297. n. s. 205.

& Hampstead v. Plaistow, 49 N. H. " But only if the local law expressly

84, 98. invalidates within the locality the niar-

6 See 1 Washb. R. Prop. *169 et seq. ; riage contracted elsewhere in violation of

1 Scrib. on Dower, ch. ill. to viii. incl. its provision : Brook v. Brook, 3 Sm. &

§ 108 ALIENAGE AS BARRING THE DOWER RIGHT. 225

§ 108. Alienage as Barring the Dower Right. — TllC COmmoil
law disability of aliens to transmit or acquire lands by descent
renders them incapable of taking as tenants in dower. ^^^^^ ^^ ^^.^^
It is accordiniiiy laid down as an established rule at age on right of
common law, that " if a man takctli an alien to wife,
and dieth, she shall not be endowed," and also, "if the husband
be an alien, the wife shall not be endowed." ^ Tliis rule is, how-
ever, rendered almost inoperative, botli in England and the United
States, by reason of the great changes in the law affecting the
right of aliens to enjoy, acquire, and transmit property, botii real
and personal, by purchase, devise, and descent. This subject is
treated elsewhere, in connection with the question of the power
of aliens to devise real estate,^ to which the reader is referred.
There are now but few States in which alienage continues to be a
bar to the full enjoyment of real estate in all respects, although
the right is, in some of them, coupled with the condition of resi-
dence, declaration of intention to be naturalized, or claim of the
property within a limited period of time. In Wisconsin the statute
distinguishes between resident aliens and non-residents (whether
aliens or not) in respect of dower, by limiting the right of wo-
men residing out of the State to take dower only in lands out of
the State of which the husband died seised.^ In Michigan and
Nebraska a similar distinction exists ; and it is held in these States,
that the non-residence contemplated by the statute refers not only
to the time of the husband's death ,* but also to the time of the
making of the conveyance ; so that in either event she is not enti-
tled to dower in the lands conveyed by the husband during covert-
ure.^ The law of New York entitles an alien to dower " who has
heretofore married, or who may hereafter marry, a citizen of the
United States." ^ Under this law it was held that an alien widow,
having married an alien prior to its passage, and never having
resided in this country prior to her husband's death, was not en-

G. 481 ; Commonwealth r. Fliint, 4 Cnsh. party," as annoimoed by .Judge Story :

49, 50 ; Putnam v. Putnam, 8 Pick. 433, 7 Cranch, 603, 619.

434 - '-inte, § 19-

1 1 Scrib. on Dower, p. 152, § 3, citing ^ Bennett v. Harms, 51 Wis. 251. 254.

numerous te.xt writers, and tlie case of * Pratt r. Tefft, 14 Mich. 101, 200.

Fairfax v. Hunter, which is based upon ^ Ligare r. Scmple, 32 Midi. 438, 413 ;

the doctrine "that an ahcn can take lands approved and followed in Atkins r. At-

by purchase, though not by descent ; or in kins, 18 Neb. 474.

other words he cannot take by tlie act *^ Laws, 184.5, ch. 115, § 3; 3 Banks &

of law, but he may by the act of the Bro., Rev. St. 1882, p. 2170, § 3.

VOL. I. — 15

226 ESTATES OF DOWER AND CURTESY. § 109

titled to dower in the lands of which her husband died seised as a
citizen of the United States,^ notwithstanding the act of Congress
providing that " any woman who might lawfully be naturalized
under the existing hiws, married or who shall be married to a
citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a
citizen of the United States." ^ This act is construed as apply-
ing to a woman married to a person who was at the time of the
marriage a citizen of the United States, and that the subsequent
naturalization of her husband worked no change in her status.

An Alabama case decides that the wife of an Indian is not dow-
able of lands selected by her husband under the treaty between
the United States and the Creek tribe, and by him sold; not,
however, on account of any incapacity of the widow to take
dower, but because the title of the deceased husband was such as
would not support dower in his wife.^ In Tennessee the alien
widow of a husband who had settled and acquired real estate
there was allowed dower, but not homestead.*

§ 109. Misconduct of the Wife as a Bar to her Dower. — At
common law the elopement and adultery of the wife did not oper-
Aduiteryand ate as a bar of dower ;^ nor would equity refuse to
wKirdower interfere to enforce the performance of marriage arti-
uiider Statute ^\q^ though the husbaud might have proved tliat his

of Westmin- jo o

ster. wife is living separate from him in a state of adultery,''

But by tlie Statute of Westminster 11.,^ if a wife elope from her
husband and continue with an adulterer, she shall be barred of her
dower, unless her husband willingly, and without coercion of the
Church, reconcile her and suffer her to dwell with him. That
the husband consented to the adultery, having bargained and sold
the wife to the adulterer, is no defence to her.^ But adultery
alone, without elopement from her husband, does not debar her of
dower; 9 nor elopement alone Avithout adultery; there must be a
(^oncurrence of both elements of wrong.^^ No crime committed by

1 Burton v. Burton, 26 How. Pr. R. M3 Edw. I. c. 34.

474. 8 Although, in an action of trespass

"' Act Feb. 10, 1855; 10 St. at Large, by the husband, his license and the no-

p. 664, § 2. toriously lewd character of the woman

3 Chinnubbee v. Nicks, 3 Port. 362. may be proved in mitigation of damages :

4 Emmett v. Emmett, 14 Lea, 369, 373. Coot v. Berty, 12 Mod. 232.

5 2 Scrib. on Dower, ch. xviii., § 1, cit- 9 Cogswell v. Tibbetts, 3 N. H. 41, 42.
ing Hethrington v. Graham, 6 Bing. 135, ^'' Siiaffer v. Richardson, 27 Ind. 122,
lU Kng. C. L. 31. 126, citing Graham v. Law, 6 U. C. C. P.

^ Seagrave v. Seagrave, 13 Ves. 4.3Q 810, in which it was held that a woman
443. who first deserted her husband and tiien

§ 109 MISCONDUCT OF WIFE AS A BAR TO DOWER. 227

tho wife, save as stated, dejjrives her of dower; so that even one
convicted of being accessory to the murder of her husband, and
imprisoned for life, is entitled to dower in his estate.^

Tlic substance of the Statute of Westminster is held to be the
law in some of the States, whether by re-enactment, or as adopted
witli ancient English statutes generally ; so held in statute of
Indiana,^ Missouri,"^ New Hampshire,* North Carolina,^ rL-enacted or
South Carolina,^ Viroinia,' and West Virginia.^ In ^l^^^^j^,,
others, the statute is held not to be in force, as in ^ot in force
Delaware,^ Iowa,'" Massachusetts," New York,'^ and "' ^'^ers.
Rhode lsland.i3

Since a woman can have dower only in the lands of a deceased
hisband, the question arises what are the rights of a woman wlio
has been divorced. Lord Coke says, " Ubi nullum Divorce for
matrimonium, ihi nulla dos^^ •,'^^ but he confines the "vife^enoraUy
maxim to divorces a vinculo matrimonii, and expressly bars her dower,
excepts divorces " a mensa et tJioro only, as for adultery." In
America adultery is a sufficient ground for a divorce a vinculo ;
and if that is granted upon the husband's petition, the adultery or
other misconduct of the wife for which the divorce is pronounced
is thus made, generally, the ground debarring her of dower.i^
This subject is regulated by statute in most of the States, the
prominent tenor of which is to allow the wife her dower rights in
all cases in which the divorce is granted upon her petition, and to
annul it where it is granted upon the husband's petition, with dis-
cretionary power, in many instances, in the court trying the cause,
to dispose of all property questions in the decree of divorce. ^^ It

lived in adultery was not thereby barred ^ Thomburg v. Thornburg, 18 W. Va.

of lier dower ; Wiseman v. Wiseman, 73 522, 525.

Tnd. 112, 113; a fortiori, where the hus- « Rawlins v. Ruttel, 1 Houst. 224.

band deserts the wife, and she, believing '' Smith v. Woodworth, 4 Dill. 584,

liiin dead, marries another : Payne v. 587.

Dotson, 81 Mo. 145. " Lakin v. Lakin. 2 Allen, 45.

1 Owens V. Owens, 6 S. E. R. (N. C) >- Schiffer r. Pruden, G4 N. Y. 47, 40.
794, 13 Bryan v. Bacheller, 6 R. I. 543, 545.

2 Gaylor v. McHenry. 15 Ind. .383. » Co. Litt. 32 a.

3 MoAlister v. Novenger, 54 Mo. 251, '^ Moulton v. Motdton, 7G Me. 85.
253. ^^ A diligent and careful compilation

* Cogswell '". Tibbetts, .•iupra. of the statutory provisions on this subject

5 Walters v. Jordan, 13 Ired. L. .361, in the several States, as in force in 1887,

364. will be found in a note appended to chap-

'^ Boll )'. Nealy, 1 Bni. 312. ter vii. of 1 Washburn on Real Property,

7 Stegall V. Stegall, 2 Brock. 256. pp. *258 et seq.

228 ESTATES OF DOWEIl AND CURTESY. § 109

is self-evident that a divorce from bed and board docs not defeat
dower.^

Bishop, in his Commentaries on the Law of Marriage and
Divorce, says : " Still, in the absence of any statutory provision,
the unwritten law of our l^tates, in general, docs not recognize
the status of marriage in a woman wlio has no husband. Conse-
quently, it does not recognize in her the existence of property
rights which hang directly upon the status." ^ In accordance
with this view, it has been decided that where a woman has been
divorced for her misconduct, whether in Missouri or elsewhere,
her rights depending on the marriage are ended in so far as they
are not actually vested in her, and that evidence of the divorce
may be given, although obtained in a foreign jurisdiction and
without actual notice to her, in defence of her action for dower.'^
Where the divorce was pronounced against the hus-

Biit not divorce . ^ i •

for misconduct band for liis misconduct,* although in a foreign
jurisdiction,^ the wife is entitled to her dower ; and
where, pending a proceeding for divorce by the wife, the husband
in another State obtained a decree against her, it was held that,
whether the foreign decree was valid or not, it couid not affect
her right to dower in his lands in the State of the wife's domicil.^
In Alabama it was held that, while a majority of the adjudged
cases and the strength of the argument lead to the conclusion that
the result of a divorce from the bonds of matrimony is to bar the
wife of all claim to dower in her husband's estate,'^ yet under the
statutes of that State a divorce obtained by the husband on the
ground of voluntary abandonment does not bar the surviving
widow of her right of dower.^ But this ruling was expressly dis-

1 Jarnio;an v. Jarnigran, 12 Lea, 292; * Friend v. Friend, 53 Mich. 54-3, 548;
Taylor v. Taylor, 9?> N. C. 418. Stalil v. Stahl, 114 III. 375. In Tatro v.

2 2 Bish. Mar. & Div. § 170 c (5th ed). Tatro, 18 Nob. 395, it is held that, upon a
^ Gould V. Crow, 57 Mo. 200, 202. divorce being granted the wife, a decree

The statute of Missouri provides that, for alimony in gross will be presumed to

"if any woman be divorced from her be in lieu of dower.

husband for the fault or misconduct of the ^ Harding v. Alden, 9 Me. 140, 146;

husband, she shall not thereby lose her McGill v. Deming, 44 Oh. St. 645.

dower ; but if the husband be divorced ^ Turner v. Turner, 44 Ala. 437,

from the wife, for her fault or misconduct, 450.

slie shall not be endowed." See, to same ^ Per Stone, J., in Williams v. Hale,

effect. Van Cleaf v. Burns, 43 Hun, 461, 71 Ala. 83, 85. See collection of numer-

in which case, however, the wife appeared ous authorities by Judge Stone, p. 86.

in person to defend the divorce proceed- 8 Williams v. Hale, supra.

ings, in another State.

§ 110 WHAT PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO DOWER. 229

avowed in a later case, announcing the doctrine that a divorced
wife could under no circumstances claim dower at the death of
her husband ;^ and the same view is taken in lowa,^ and so, under
the statute, in Kentucky.'^

§ 110. What Property is subject to Dower. — It will be con-
venient to consider first the class or kind of property of which the
widow is dowable, and next the estate or degree of interest of the
husband therein necessary to support the wife's right of dower.

Dower is ordinarily understood to be applicable to ^^ a-

•^ i ' Dower ordina-

real property only ; •* in some of the States, however, ri'y applies to
the statute provides for dower in personal property,

» . . . . , ,^ L . - in some States

reterrnig in some instances to the {)roperty assigned given in per-
for the temporary support of the family, in analogy ^^^^ ^^'
with the ancient custom of supporting the widow out of the estate
during the period of quarantine,^ and in others to the distributive
share allowed her by law out of the personalty. At common law
the widow is dowable of all lands, tenements, or hereditaments,
whether corporeal or incorporeal, of which the husband was seised
of an estate of inheritance during the coverture.^

Minos and quarries which have been opened in the lifetime of
the husband are subject to the widow's dovver.'^ But ,,• a

"> Mines and

not so, in some States, unimproved lands, of which it quarries.
was said that they could not be utilized by the widow ' **" ^'
without forfeiting her estate in dower, because by the principle of
the common law the alteration of the property, even if it became
thereby more valuable, would forfeit the estate in dower.^ But
the reason for excluding wild lands from the widow's dower right
does not extend to wild lands which were used by the husband in
connection with his dwelling-house and cultivated lands, for the
purpose of procuring fuel and timber for repairs.^ And a differ-

1 Hinson v. Bush, 4 South. R. 410 Moore v. Rollins, 45 Me. 493 ; Lenfers v.

2 Marvin i-. Marvin, 59 Iowa, 699, ap- Henke. 73 111. 405, 406.

proved in Bojies i'. Latham, 61 Iowa, 174. * Conner v. Shephard, 15 Mass. 164,

3 McKean v. Brown, 83 Ky. 208. 160; Webb v. Townsend, 1 Pick. 21, 22;
* Dow y. Dow, 30 Me. 211,216; Lamar Fuller v. Wason, 7 N. H. 341; Ford v.

V. Scott, 3 Strobh. 562, 563; Davis's Es- Erskine, 50 Me. 227, 230.

tate, 36 Iowa, 24, 30; Bryant v. McCune, » White v. Willis, 7 Pick. 143, 144 ;

49 Mo. 546. but strictly confined to the supply neces-

° Infra, p. 2.30, note 8. sary for the occupation and enjoyment of

^ A)ite, § 106; 1 Washb. on R. Prop, the dwellin<j-liouse ami cultivated lands

*152, § 1. assi^rned as dower: White v. Cutler, 17

7 Coates V. Cheever, 1 Cow. 460, 474 ; Pick. 248. 251 ; Shattuck v. Grafr<i, 23

Billings V. Taylor, 10 Pick. 460, 462; Pick. 88, 91 ; Durham v. Angier, 20 Me.

230 ESTATES OF DOWER AND CUilTESY. § 111

eiit rule exists in most of the States, in which dower is allotted in
all the lands of the husband, whether wild or cultivated.^

Shares in incorporated companies are sometimes treated as
Shares of stock I'sal cstatc, and subjected to dower.^ Cut, as a gen-
in incoipo- ^j.^^ rulc, sharcs in corporations are considered as

rated com- ' '

patiies. mere personal chattels,^ and are, as such, not dow-

able as real estate.

Accretion becomes a part of the land to which the alluvion

attaches, and is thus an incident of the ownership of him who

owns the land ; hence the widow of a riparian owner

is entitled to dower in such accretion.^

Crops growing upon lands assigned to the widow as her dower

become her property, and she is entitled to the same as against

the executor or administrator;^ but she is not entitled

^°^^' thereto before the assignment;^ and in Arkansas it is

held that, where the husband had mortgaged the growing crop,

although the wife did not join in the instrument and died before

the mortgage was satisfied, it constituted no part of his property

at the time of his death, and the widow was not entitled to dower

therein.^

In those States in which personal property is made subject to
the dower of the widow, a distinction is recognized

Dower does not .

attach to per- between it and her dower m real estate ; the for-
hushahd's mcr may be sold or disposed of by the husband at
^^'^^^' his pleasure, as the widow's right does not attach

until his death.^

242, 246, citing and approving Mosher v. lature passed an act declaring the capital

Mosher, 15 Me. 371 ; Ballentine v. Poyner, stock in all railway companies incorpo-

2 Hayw. 110; Owen v. Hyde, 6 Yerg. 334, rated under the laws of Kentucky personal

339 ; Fuller v. Wason, supra ; Ford v. property.
Erskine, supra. ^ 1 Washb. on R. Prop. *166, § 22; Mc-

1 Macaulay v. Dismal Swamp Co., 2 Dougal v. Hepburn, 5 Fla. 568, 572.
Rob. (Va.) 507, 524; Allen v. McCoy, 8 •* Lombard v. Kinzie, 73 111.446; Gale
Oh. 418; Campbell, Appellant, 2 Dougl. v. Kinzie, 80 111. 132.

141, 142 ; Hickman v. Irvine, 3 Dana, 121, ^ Ralston v. Ralston, 3 G. Gr. (Iowa),

122; Schnebly v. Schnebly, 26 111. 116, 533; Parker t'. Parker, 17 Pick. 236, 240

119; Cliapman v. Schroeder, 10 Ga. 321, (even though the crop had been sown by

325 ; (not questioned in New York : the heir) ; Clark v. Bottorf, 1 Thomp. &

Walker y. Schuyler, 10 Wend. 480;) Has- C. 58 (although she did not claim them

tings V. Crunckleton, 3 Yeates, 261 ; until after tlie administrators had inven-

Brown v. Richards, 17 N. J. Eq. 32, 38. toried and sold them).

2 Price V. Price, 6 Dana, 107; Cope- ^ Budd v. Hiler, 27 N. J. L. 43, 46.
land V. Copeland, 7 Bush, 349, 362. The ^ Street v. Saunders, 27 Ark. 554, 556.
decision in this last case was rendered in '^ McClure v. Owens, 32 Ark. 443, 445,
October, 1870; in March, 1871, the legis- citing and approving Arnett v. Arnett, 14

^^ 111

ESTATE NECESSAUV TO SUPl'OUT DOWEH,

231

Leasehold estates and estates fur years are treated at common
law as personal i)roi)(,'rty, and the widow of a lessee dying is not
entitled to dower therein, allliDUgh it be for a period of

" ISO (lower at

a thousand years,^ or renewable forever, or although cuimnon law iu

. leaseholds.

the lease contain a covenant to convey the estate in
fee on the demand of the lessee.- In some of the aiuci- in some
States, however, dower is given by statute in lease- ^'''"^^"
hold estates of a given duration.^

It is held in Michigan that a dower right cannot be established
in land, the deed of which to the husband of the claimant was
never recorded, and where the premises have passed to an in-
nocent purchaser.*

§ 111. The Estate or Interest in the Property necessary to sup-
port Dower in the Widow. — The estate of the husband must
have been one of inheritance ; for, it is said, as hers Husband's
is a mere continuance of the estate of the husband, if sary*toTupport
his was less than one of inheritance it cannot extend slower.

Ark. 57. But in Arkansas she takes
dower as against creditors, unless the
property has actually been levied on :
James v. Marcus, 18 Ark. 421, 422. In
Iowa the term " dower " is held not appli-
cable to personalty : Estate of Davis, 36
Iowa, 24, 30. In Missouri, the widow is
allowed $400 in property, to be selected
by her at the appraised value, as against
creditors absolutely, and this includes
choses in action as well as in possession ;
Cummings r. Cunnnings, 51 Mo. 261, 2tj4.
The term " dower" is held to apply to
personalty only in a qualified sense : Bry-
ant V. McCune, 49 Mo. 546, citing and ex-
plaining Hastings v. Meyer, 21 Mo. 519 ;
see also Hoyt ik Davis, 21 Mo. App. 2-35 ;
the widow takes dower in such personal
property only as the husband was owner
of at the time of his death : McLaugh-
lin V. McLaughlin, 16 Mo. 242; Crecelius
V. Horst, 89 Mo. 356. In Florida the
widow's right to dower in the personalty
may be recovered by her personal repre-
sentative, if she die before it is allotted
to her : Woodberry v. Matherson, 19 Fla.
778, 784.

1 Goodwin v. Goodwin, 33 Conn. 314,
316. In this case the lease was for 999
years, and the widow was lield not en-

titled to dower, although in the same
State a similar leasehold was held, under
a question of ta,\ation, to be equal to a
fee : Brainard u. Colchester, 31 Conn. 407,
411; Whitmire v. Wright, 22 S. C. 446,
449 (for 999 years).

^ Ware v. Washington, 6 Sm. & M.
737, 741; Spangler v. Stanler, 1 Md. Ch.
36. This case involved a lease for 99
years, renewable forever, and containing
a covenant to make deed in fee on re-
quest.

3 So in Kansas, previous to the aboli-
tion of dower; in Massachusetts, in terms
of one hundred years and more, so long
as fifty years thereof remain unexpired :
Pub. St. 1882, p. 735, § 1 ; Missouri, in
leasehold estates of twenty years or more :
Rev. St. 1879, § 21S6; and it seems that
in Ohio permanent leases are treated as
real estate in connection with the law of
descents : Northern Bank of Kentucky i\
Roosa, 13 Oh. 3.34, 340. In Arkansas,
where the widow is entitled to dower in
the personalty, she takes dower absolutely
in a lease of whatever duration, as in
personal proporty, and not for life, as in
realty : Lenow v. Fones, 48 Ark. 557.

* Wheeler v. Smith, 55 Mich. 355.

232 ESTATES OF DOWER AND CURTESY. §111

beyond his own life.' And this whether the estate be held for
his own life, or for the life of another, and althou<>h he die before
the cestui que vie.^ For this reason, also, there can be no dower in
an estate for years,^ no matter how long the term is to continue.*
And the estate must be one of w^hich the husband had

Right of seism; . , , ,..,..

but not actual or might liave had corporeal seisin ;° it is not neces-
sary that there should have been an actual seisin, be-
cause then it might often be in the husband's power, by neglecting
to take such seisin, to deprive his wife of dower ; it is enough if
he had an actual seisin in law, with a right to immediate corporeal
No dower in scisiu.^ It follows, that the wife takes no dower in a
reversion after peversioii or remainder after a freehold estate in an-

a treenolu in

another. other,'^ uulcss the husband, possessing a life estate,

acquire the immediate reversion or remainder in fee expectant
upon its termination.^ But whether she takes dower in an estate
given to the husband, by executory devise, in fee simple, but if he
should die without issue, then over to another in fee, has given
rise to great diversity of opinion. In the leading English case
on this point it was held that the determination of an estate by
operation of an executory devise does not defeat curtesy or
dower.^ This view was followed in Pollard v. Slaughter,!*^ and
Nickell V. Tomlinson,'' in which the court review the authorities
and come to the conclusion that it has been generally approved
and adopted in the United States.^^ On the other hand, it is con-

1 1 Washb. R. Prop. *152, § 2; Burris v. Eastman, -5 N. H. 240, 242 ; Arnold

V. Page, 12 Mo. 358. v. Arnold, 8 B. Mon. 202, 204; Vanleer v.

^ Fisher v. Grimes, 1 Sm. & M. Ch. Vanleer, 3 Tenn. Cli. 23; Gardner v.

107, 108; Gillis v. Brown, 5 Cow. 388. Greene, 5 R. I. 104, 108 ; Cocke v. Pliil-

3 ^H?e, § 110, leasehold estates. ips, 12 Leigh, 248, 257; Warren r. Wil-

* Park mentions a term for two tliou- liams, 25 Mo. App. 22.
sand years : 1 Washb. R. Prop. *153, § 3. ^ Beardslee v. Beardslee, 5 Barb. 324,

So held under a lease for 999 years in 332.
Whitmire v. Wright, 22 S. C. 446, 449. » Buckworth v. Thirkell, 3 Bos. &

5 Apple 0. Apple, 1 Head, 348, 350. Pull. 652 (opin. of Lord Mansfield, note,

6 At wood V. At wood, 22 Pick. 28-3, p. 655).

286; Mann v. Edson, 39 Me. 25; Dun- i" 92 N. C. 72, 75.

ham V. Osborn, 1 Pai. 634 ; Small v. " 27 W. Va. 697, 706.

Proctor, 15 Mass. 495, 498; Thompson i^ Miiiedge v. Lamar, 4 Desaus. 617,

V. Thompson, 1 Jones L. 4.30 ; but a mere 637 ; Northcut v. Whipp, 12 B. Mon 65,

right of entry in the husband for con di- 73; Evans v. Evans, 9 Pa. St. 190;

tion broken, without more, does not en- Taliaferro v. Burwell, 4 Call, 321, 323 ;

title the widow to dower : Ellis v. Kygar, Jones v. Hughes, 27 Gratt. 560 ; Hatfield

90 Mo. 600, 607. v. Sneden, .54 N. Y. 280, 284 , 1 Scrib.

7 Brooks V. Everett, 13 Allen, 4.57 ; Dower, p. 314, § 31 . 1 Washb. R. Prop.
Durando o. Durando, 23 N. Y. 331 ; Fisk *212, pi. 32 et spq. .- 1 Jarm on Wills, *878.

§ 111 ESTATE NECESSARY TO SUPPORT DOWER. 233

tended that this doctrine unreasonably prolongs, by the incidents
of dower and curtesy, an estate determined by the terms of its
creation ; ^ hence dower in a defeasible estate is lost when the
estate is defeated.'^

It is obvious that there can be no right of dower in estates
held in joint tenancy with others, until it reaches tlic j^^ j„„,gr in
last survivor.3 jj^^ this estate is not favored in J"'"' "^'"^ncy.
America ; it was never recognized in Connecticut,* and Ohio,'^
and in most other States has been abolished, or confined to trus-
tees, executors, and persons holding en auter droit, or to cases
where the grant or devise expressly creates joint tenancies.^

Since there is no survivorship between coparceners, lands held
in coparcenary, as well as those held in common, are ^^^ j^ coparce-
subiect to dowerJ The rule is to set off the dower in "'^'y ^"^^ ^^>y^-

J nioii tenancies.

common, unless the husband's share has been set
apart to him by partition, in which case she takes dower in the
portion set apart ; ^ but in New Jersey she seems dowable of her
husband's proportion of the whole land, notwithstanding a parol
partition, or possession taken thereunder in severalty.^

"Where a husband has during coverture made an exchange of
lands, the widow is entitled to dower in both parcels, — in that
which was conveved bv, as well as in that which was _ • , j

• ' Dower in lands

conveved to, her husband, because he was seised of exchan-ced by
both during coverture,^" — unless the exchange was during'
technical, a mutual grant of equal interests, the one

1 Weller v. Weller, 28 Barb. 588, 502 ; aney " : Rev. St. 1879, § 3949. So in
Edwards v. Bibb, 54 Ala. 475, 483 ; 4 Kent Arkansas : Cockrill v. Armstrona:, 31 Ark.
Comm. *4y, 50 ; Park on Dower, *lt)l) e< 580, 586; and Alabama : Parsons f. Boyd,
seq. (but see*189, where the writer seems 20 Ala. 112, 118.

to show that the authorities are against ^ Harviil v. Holloway, 24 Ark. 19 ;

him). Davis v. Logan, 9 Dana, 185, giving, un-

2 Moriarta v. McRea, 45 Hun, 504. der the Kentucky statute, tlie effect of

3 Babbitt v. Day, 41 N. J. Eq. 392; tenancy in common to a joint tenancy.
Mayburry v. Brien, 15 Pet. 21, 37 ; Cock- « Potter v. Wheeler, 13 Mass. 504, .506 ;
i ill 1-. Armstrong, 31 Ark. 580, 584. Wilkinson v. Parish, 3 Pai. 653, 658;

' Phelps V. Jepson, 1 Root, 48, 49. Mosher r. Mosher, 32 Me. 412, 414; dower

^ Sergeant v. Steinbergor, 2 Oh. 305, may first be set out, according to valu-

affirmed in Miles I'. Fisher, 10 Oh. 1,4, and ation, and partition made afterwards:

Tabler v. Wiseman, 2 Oh. St. 207, 210. Harris v. Coats, 75 Ga. 415.

fi As, for instance, in Missouri, where ^ WoodhuU v. Longstreet, 18 N. J. L.

by statute "every interest in real estate 405, 408, Nevin<, J. dissenting, 416; Lloyd

granted or devised to two or more per- v. Connover, 25 N. J. L. 47, 51.
sons, other than e.xecutors and trustees '" Both parties being regarded as ordl-

and husband and wife, shall be a tenancy nary purchasers : Cass v. Thompson. 1

in common, unless expressly declared, in N. H. 65, 67 ; Cruize v. Billmire, 69 luwa,

such grant or devise, to be in joint ten- 397.

234 ESTATES OF DOWER AND CURTESY. § 111

•

in consideration of the other and in writing, in which case she
takes in either of the parcels, at her election, but not in both.i
This subject is regulated by statute in Arkansas,^ Illinois,^ Michi-
gan,^ New York,^ Oregon,^ and Wisconsin.' Where the statute
is silent, the common law rule is, of course, to be applied.^

Real estate acquired by a firm for partnership purposes, although

held in law by the several partners as tenants in common, is

nevertheless liable for the partnership debts, and is in

No dower ia . , ^ , a r ^

partnership equity treated as personal property tor such purpose,
lands. Hence, as a general rule, partnership property is not

subject to the dower of tlie wives of any of the partners, except
such as may remain after paying all partnership debts, whether
to creditors or the partners themselves.^ It is immaterial whether
the title be taken in the firm name, or in the name of one of the
partners.i'^ In America it seems to be generally held
re^kiue Mie/ that real estate remaining after the payment of debts,
faS'iiJ and adjustment of the equitable claims of the partners
'^^^^'" between themselves, is to be treated as real estate ; ^^

and since there is no power to sell the firm real estate by any
one of the partners, except for the payment of debts, the excess
realized by a surviving partner in such a sale over the necessary
amount, although distributable like personal property, devolves
to the same parties who would be entitled to the real estate, and
the widow of a deceased partner takes as dowress.^^ Distinctions

1 Shep. Touch. *294 ; Co. Litt. 31 b; and Howard y. Priest, 5 Met. 582; Paige
Stevens v. Smith, 4 J. J. Marsh. 64; Ma- v. Paige, 71 Iowa, 318, 320.

honey v. Young, 3 Dana, 588. i" Willet v. Brown, 65 Mo. 138, 144.

2 Dig. 1884, § 2573. • The seeming exception, noticed by some

3 St. & C. St. 1885, p. 904, § 17. text-writers, of a case wiiere the partner
* How. St. 1882, § 5734. so holding tlie title had by agreement
6 B. & Br. St. 1882, p. 2197, § 3. The been charged by the firm as debtor lor

term " exchange " receives the same in- the purcliase money, is really no excep-

terpretation here as at common law ; tion : the transaction constituted a sale

hence a widow is not put to her election of tlie real estate to such partner, who

where an equitable interest in seventy- thus held it in his individual right : Smith

five acres of land was transferred for a v. Smith, 5 Ves 189.
fee in eleven acres of land and $700: " See Lenow v. Fones, 48 Ark. 557,

Wilcox V. Randall, 7 Barb. 633, 639. and also Buchan i}. Sumner, 2 Barb. Ch.

6 Code, 1887, § 2955. 165, 200, for an exhaustive review of the

I Rev. St. 1878, § 2161. English and American authorities on

8 Mosher v. Mosher, 32 Me. 412, 415. this point, reaching the conclusion staled

9 Campbell v. Campbell, 30 N. J. Eq. in the text ; Mowry v. Bradley, 11 R. I.
415, 417 ; Uhler v. Semple, 20 N. J. Eq. 370, 372 ; Hiscock v. Jaycox, 12 N. Bankr.
288, 294 ; Buchan v. Sumner, 2 Barb. Reg. 507, 517.

Ch. 165, 200 ; Simpson v. Leech, 86 111. ^^ Foster's Appeal, 74 Pa. St. 391, 397.
286, citing Dyer v. Clark, 5 Met. 562,

§ 111 ' ESTATE NECESSARY TO SUPl'ORT DOWER. 235

have been drawn with reference to the nature of the business in
which the lirni engaged, allowing dower where the partners were
buying and selling lands on speculation,^ or determining the
question according to the agreement or stipulation between the
partners,^ and holding that in the absence of an ex'preas agree-
ment stipulating that lands acquired by the partners shall be
applied in the payment of partnership debts ; '^ but these cases
are in conflict with the current of authorities, and of no weight.
So it has been held in Virginia, contrary to the tenor of American
decisions generally, that real estate of a partnership used for
})ai-tnership purposes is, ill equity, personal property for all pur-
poses, and on the death of any of the partners goes to his personal
representative.'*

There can be no dower in the estate of a trustee, although he
holds the legal seisin and estate, because the trustee ^^ ^

° ' No dower m

has no beneficial interest in the trust ;^ nor was dower estate oi a

tmstGG.

allowed in England before the Dower Act^ in the
estate of a cestui que, trust, or in an equity of redemption." In
the United States the law as to dower in equitable estates is not
uniform. Seisin of the legal estate is required in Florida,^ Geor-
ffia,^ Maine,i° Massachusetts,^^ Michigan, ^^ New Hamp- Different rules

1 1 Ti- 1- T -.T7 • • i<- 1 -1 as to equitable

shire,^^ Oregon,^'' \ ermont,^" and Wisconsin ;^^ while estates.

1 Markham v. Merrett, 7 How. (Miss.) mortgage debt: McMahon i;. Eussell, 17
437, 445. See authorities to the con- Fla. 6'.'8, 703.

trary, post, § 126. ' Code, 1882, § 1763; Bowen v. Col-

2 Greene v. Greene, 1 Oh. 535, 542 ; lins, 15 Ga. 100 ; Latham v. MoLain, 64
Hawley v. James, 5 Pai. 31K, 454 et Sfq. ; Ga. 320.

Wheatley v. Calhoun, 12 Leigh, 264, =» Rev. St. 1888, p. 812; 1 Scrib. on

272. Dower, 414, § 4.

■i Smith V. Jackson, 2 Edw. Ch. 28, " Pub. St. 1882, p. 740, § 3. But prop-

35 ; Bell r. Phyn, 7 Ves. 453. erty held under a defective description

* Pierce v. Trigg, 10 Leigh, 406, 422. is subject to the wife's dower: Hale i'.

6 Hopkinson v. Dumas, 42 N. H. 296, Munn, 4 Gray, 132, 136 ; so also land

306 ; Chesnut v. Chesnut, 15 111. App. recovered in an action for specific per-

442, 449; King ;;. Bushnell, 121 111. 656. formance of a contract of sale: Reed v.

«' 3 & 4 Wm. IV. c. 105. Whitney, 7 Gray, 533, 537.

■^ See 1 Waslib. R. Prop. *160 et seq., l- How. St. 1882, § 5733 ; May v. Rum-
showing the distinction in this respect ney, 1 Mich. 1.

between the right of curtesy and dower 1=^ Gen. L. 1878, p. 474 ; Hopkinson v.

in equitable estates, and a brief account Dumas, 42 N. H. 296, 305.

of the history of dower in equitable i* Whiteaker v. Vanschoiack, 5 Greg.

estates. 113, 118.

« Laws, 1881, p. 475, § 1. But niort- i^ Rev. L. 1880, § 2215; Dummerston

gages are held not to be present convey- i'. Newfane, 37 Vt. 9, 13.

ances, and the widow has her dower in ^'^ Laws, 1878, § 2159; 1 Scrib. on

the mortgaged premises, except as to the Dower, 414, § 4.

236

ESTATES OF DOWER AND CUKTESY.

§111

an estate of inheritance, legal or equitable, is held sufficient in
Alabama,! Arkansas,^ Connecticut,-^ Delaware,^ Illinois,^ Ken-
tucky ,6 Maryland,' Missouri,^ New Jersey ,9 New York,io North
Carolina," Ohio,i2 Pennsylvania,!^ Rhode Island,'* South Carolina,!^
Tennessee,!*^ Virginia,!^ and West Virginia.!^ But if there be a
conveyance by the husband of a merely equitable estate during
the coverture, dower is generally defeated thereby, whether the
conveyance was absolute,!^ or by way of mortgage.^o

There is, at common law, no dower in mortgaged estates, be-
No dower in causc there is no seisin in the husband,^! except where
equity of re- ^j^g mortgrage is for years, and not in fee, because

demption at , . i i • . i • i -j.

couimon law; in such casc there IS a legal reversion to which it
attaches upon redemption.22 In the United States, however, the
hut otherwise wife is held dowable of equities of redemption ex-
stales.""''"' isting at the husband's death,23 whether the estate
was mortgaged by the husband before, or by the husband and wife

1 Laws, 1886, § 1892.

2 Kirby v. Vantrece, 26 Ark. 368, 370.

3 Fisli V. Fish, 1 Conn. 559, construing
a statute substantially the same as the
provision in Gen. St. 1875, p. 376, § 1.

* But only in intestate estates : Cor-
nog V. Cornog, 3 Del. Ch. 407, 415 ; Gem-
mill V. Kichardson, 4 Del. Ch. 599 ; Bush
V. Bush, 5 Houst. 245, 264.

5 Starr & C. St. 188-5, p. 896, IF 1 ;
Sisk V. Smith, 6 111. 503, 513; NicoU v.
Todd, 70 111. 295.

6 Gen. St. 1887, p. 733, § 2; 1 Scrib.
Dower, 420, § 11.

7 Laws, 1878, p. 397, § 1.

8 Duke V. Brandt, 51 Mo. 221, 224;
Hart V. Logan, 49 Mo. 47.

9 Yeo V. Mercereau, 18 N. J. L. 387,
390 ; Gushing v. Blake, 30 N. J. Eq. 689,
695 ; Skellenger v. Skellenger, 32 N. J.
Eq. 659.

1' 3 Banks & Bro. 2197, % I et serj. :
Re Ransom, 17 Fed. Rep. 331, and cases
cited.

11 Code, 1883, § 2102 ; it seems the
equitable estate must be such as a court
of equity can enforce : Efland v. Efland,
96 N. C. 488, 493.

1-2 Rands v- Kendall, 15 Oil. 671 ; fol-
lowed in Abbott V. Bosworth, 36 Oh. St.
605. 608; Laws, 0!i. 1880, § 4188.

13 Shoeiuakfr u. Walker, 2 S. & R. 554.

1* Pub. St. 1882, p. 637, § 1 ; 1 Scrib.
Dower, 421, § 11.

15 Bowman v. Baiiey, 20 S. C. 550,
554; Rev. St. 1873, p. 432, §13. But
the husband must have been in a position
to demand the legal title, it seems: Mor-
gan V. Smith, 25 S. C. 337, 339.

16 Code, 1884, § 3244 ; Martin v. Lin-
coln, 4 Lea, 289.

1' Code, 1887, § 2267. The equita-
ble estate must be such that the legal
estate might have been decreed : Row ton
V. Rowton, 1 Hen. & M. 91 ; Wheatley v.
Calhoun, 12 Leigh, 264.

18 1 Kelley's Rev. St. ch. 70, § 1.

19 Hawley v. James, 5 Pai. 318, 453 ;
Heed v. Ford, 16 B. Mon. 114. 117 ; Junk
V. Canon, 34 Pa. St. 286; Wheatley v.
Calhoun, 12 Leigh, 264, 274.

21' Miller v. Stump, 3 Gill, 304, 310;
Purdy V. Purdy, 3 Md. Ch 547, 55U ;
Glenn v. Clark, 53 xMd. 580, 604 ; Morse
v. Thorsell, 78 111. 600.

21 Worsham v. Callison, 49 Mo. 206,
207 ; 1 Scrib. Dower, 463, pi. 1.

22 1 Scrib. 476, pi. 21.

23 4 Kent, *45 ; Scribner mentions
twenty-eight States as so holding, omit-
ting only California, Colorado, Delaware,
Florida, Louisiana, Nebraska, Nevada,
New Jersey, Te.xas, and West Virginia.

§ 111 ESTATE NECESSARY TO SDPPOUT DOWER. 237

during coverture ; ^ and she may redeem the land from existing
incumbrance in protection of her right to dower therein.^ The
release of dower, where the wife joins in the mortgage, is a re-
lease in favor of the mortgagee only, and only to the extent of the
deht secured by the mortgage ;» and while a sale of the moi-t-
gaged premises during the husband's lifetime is in some States
allowed to defeat the wife's inchoate dower by treating the sur-
plus as personal property to which dower does not attach,* it is
unquestioned, even in the States so holding, that she takes dower
in the surplus where the sale takes place after the husband's
death.^ A sale by the husband of the equity of redemption, in
which sale the wife had not joined, does not affect her right to
redeem.''

The lien of a vendor for the purchase money of the land is
obviously superior to the dower right of the purchaser's widow."
The lien is good against her whether a mortgage has ^^^^.^^^^
been executed to secure the purchase money or not, against the

'- "^ vendor s lien

and a fortiori, whether she joined therein or executed for unpaid pur-

, . , 1 1 • ]• chase money.'

the same under circumstances makmg lier act bindmg
or not.s The statute of Iowa provides that the vendor's lien shall
not be recognized after a conveyance by the vendee, unless re-
served by conveyance or other histrument duly recorded. Under
this statute it was held that a contract for the sale by the vendee is

1 1 Washb. R. Prop. bk. 1, ch. vii. § 2, and authorities; Matthews v. Duryee, 4
pi. 17 ; 1 Scrib. 467, pi. 8 et seq. ; Turbe- Keyes, 525, 5.%, relying on Mills r. Van
ville V. Gibson, 5 Heisk. 565, 586, 602. Voorhies, 20 N. Y. 412 ; De Wolf v.

2 Kissel V. Eaton, 64 Ind. 248, 241); Murphy, 11 R. I. 6-30, 634; Vreeland v.
McMahon v. Russell, 17 Fla. 698, 705, Jacobus, 19 N. J. Eq. 231.

citing numerous authorities ; 4 Kent, ^ i Washb. R. Prop. bk. 1, ch. vii. § 2,

*162; 1 Scrib. 481 ef .•^e^., with numerous pi. 18; Kauffman v. Peacock, 115 III.

authorities; Kauffman r. Peacock, 115 111. 212; State Bank v. Hinton, 21 Oh. St.

212, 216; Newhall v. Lynn, 101 Mass. 509, 515; Chaffee v. Franklin, 11 R. I.

428*, 431. 578.

3 Blain v. Harrison, 11 111. 384, 387; « McArthur v. Franklin, 15 Oli. St.
Smith V. Eustis, 7 Me. 41, 43; Ridgway 485, 491.

V. Masting, 23 Oh. St. 204, 296 ; unless "^ It is uniformly so held : 1 Scrib.

otlierwise expressed in the instrument: 441, § 44, and numerous authorities ; lb.,

Genobles c. West, 23 S. C. 154, 168; tlie p. 555, § 1 et sa/., with additional authori-

wife having joined in a deed or mortgage ties ; Boyd r. iMartin, 0 Heisk. 382, .384 ;

wiiich is subsequently avoided, or ceases Birnie v. Main, 29 Ark. 591, 596; Cocke

to operate, she is restored to her original ?•. Bailey, 42 Miss. 81, 86.

position: Hinchliffe v. Shea, 103 N. Y. s AVheeler y. Morris, 2 Bosw. 524, 535 ;

153. Glenn v. Clark, 53 Md. 580, 604; George

* But in some cases the courts have v. Cooper, 15 W. Va. 666, 674 ; Tliomas

gone so far as to protect inchoate dower v. Hanson, 44 Iowa, 651.
in the surplus : 2 Jones on Mortg., § 1694,

238 ESTATES OF DOWER AND CURTESY. § 111

not such a conveyance as will defeat the vendor's licn.^ The right
,, , , ,. of the vendor, however, is personal to him, and does

Vendor's lien .

a personal lif^ht not pass to his assigncc by the simple indorsement of
by indorsement thc notc to, or payment of the debt by, a third person,
° """^" unless the lien was reserved on the face of tiie deed ;2

and, if lost by the acceptance of independent security, can only
,„. , . be revived by act of the vendee.^ The widow is en-

\\ idow ]s en- •'

titled to dower titled to her dower in the land after discharge of the

m ei|uit3' of re- .

deniption from lien, Of in the surplus after a sale to enforce it, to the
same extent as in any other equity of redemj)tion ; *
the vendor's title is a mere equity to charge the lands, and, until
enforced, the widow is entitled to possession, and rents and profits.^
Where a widow, possessed of a dower interest consummate, pur-
chases the reversionary fee, but fails to pay the purchase money,
it is obvious that the vendor's lien extends only to the interest so
purchased.^

It is to be remembered, in connection with the subject of ven-
dor's lien, that while instantaneous seisin, accompanied by a bene-
instantaneous ficial interest in the husband, is generally held to be
!,^''"'"". sufficient to confer dower upon the wife,^ yet seisin

Transitory ^ "^

seisin. ' for a transitory instant only, as where the same act

which gives him the estate also conveys it out of him, or where he
is the mere conduit employed to pass the title to a third person,
does not confer the right.^ It is to this principle that the para-
mount nature of the vendor's title is sometimes ascribed, and
which may be decisive of the dower right between the widow and
a person claiming title under the vendor's lien.^

1 Noyes v. Kramer, 54 Iowa, 22, 25. of purchase, where the purchase money,

2 Bowlin V. Pearson, 4 Baxt. 341, 343, thougli tendered, has not been paid in the
citing Green v. Demoss, 10 Humph. 371, lifetime of the liusband, constitutes no
374; Unger J). Leiter, 32 Oh. St. 210, 211 ; seisin, and tiie widow is not dowable :
Calmes v. McCracken, 8 S. C. 87, 98. Latham v. McLain, 04 Ga. 320, 322 ; Lane

'^ Ilollis V. Holiis, 4 Baxt. 524, 527 ; v. Courtnay, 1 Heisk. 331. Where, how-

Pettus V. McKinney, 74 Ala. 108, 113. ever, the husband, under an oral contract,

* Unger v. Leiter, 32 Oh. St. 210, 212 ; takes possession and pays the purchase

Holiis V. HoUis, 4 Baxt. 525 ; Greenbaum money, he is the equitable owner, and

V. Austrian, 70 111. 591. cannot, by causing the vendor to execute

5 Flinn v. Barber, 64 Ala. 193, 196. a deed to another, deprive his wife of

6 McCurdy v. Middleton, 82 Ala. 131, dower: Everitt v. Everitt, 71 Iowa, 221.
138. See also Pope v. Mead, 99 N. Y. » Fontaine v. Boatmen's Savings In-
201, holding the converse. stitution, 57 Mo. 552, 558.

^ Douglass V. Dickson, 11 Rich. 417, ^ Smith v. McCarty, 119 Mass. 519,

422 ; Griggs v. Smith, 12 N. J. L. 22, 23 ; citing Webster v. Campbell, 1 Allen, 313,

Stow V. Tifft, 15 Johns. 458, 462 ; hut the and other Massachusetts cases,
possession of land under a parol contract

§ 111 ESTATE NECESSARY TO SUPPORT DOWER. 239

An outstanding judgment at the time of the marriage, wliieh
by the law constitutes a lien upon the land, gives the widow a
similar right as if the judgment were a mortgage ; outstanding
lior claim is subject to such lien,^ unless the judgment 3"''fe''i'en'-
happen to be entered upon the day of the marriage, in which case
her di)wer takes precedence.^

It has been held that dower cannot be affected by a mechanic's
lien, 3 at least if it accrue after the marriage and be- Mechanic's
fore the death of the employer;* but in Kentucky ''en.
the widow was required to remove such liens before lier dower
right attached.^

An estate for years created by the husband before or after mar-
riage, whether, if after marriage, the wife join therein j^^^^^ j,^
or not, is no impediment to her dower ; she takes, in '■<^"'*-
such case, dower in the reversion in fee, and also of a proportion-
ate part of the rents.^

There is a conflict of decisions on the question whether a widow
is dowable of lands taken for public use in the exercise of the
riu'ht of eminent domain. Her right has been denied, ^ . , ^

» - Dower in lands

on the ground that to allow a division of the property takon for pub-
so taken would destroy it for the use to which it has
been appropriated, and that private interests must give way to
public convenience and necessity.' But neither of these reasons
seems satisfactory, because private property should not be taken,
even in the exercise of the power of eminent domain, without
compensation to those who are injured by such taking ; and if the
assignment of dower by metes and bounds would be destructive of
the use to which the property is appropriated, it may be given in
money, as is done in other cases in which there can be no assign-
ment of specific lands. These considerations are strongly in-
sisted on by Reed, J., in a case of this kind arising in New Jersey,
where it was held that the wife was a proper party to a proceeding

1 Robbins y. Robbins, 8 Blackf. 174. 6 Herbert v. Wren, 7 Cranch, 370;

2 Ingram v. Morris, 4 Flarr. 111. Williams v. Cox, .3 Edw. Cb. 178; Weir
8 Scliaeffer v. Weed, 8 111. 511, 51.3; v. Humpbries, 4 Ired.Eq. 264,273; Boyd

Gove V. Gather, 23 111. 634. 639; Van r. Hunter, 44 Ala. 705, 719.
Vronker v. Eastman, 7 Met. (Mass.) 157, '^ French v. Lord, 69 Me. 537, 541 ;

161 ; laege v. Bossieux, 15 Gratt. 83, 105 ; Gwynne v. Cincinnati, 3 Oh. 24, 25 ; Moore

Bishop V. Boyle, 0 Ind 169. v. New York, 4 Sandf . 456, 460 ; s. c. 8

* Pifer r. Ward, 8 Blackf. 252. N. Y. 110; Dmican v. Terre Haute, 85

5 Nazareth Institution v. Lowe, 1 B. Ind. 104, 106.
Mon. 257.

240 estatpjS of dower and curtesy. § 111

for tlic condemnation of the husband's land to jmblic use, because
she was interested in the land by reason of her inchoate dower.^
And in Massachusetts it is held that if land be acquired by pur-
chase without resort to the power of eminent domain, although
the corporation purchasing might have had recourse to such
power, the dower right of the widow follows the land, with all
the incidents to such form of contract between parties.^ It was
held in Pennsylvania, that a borough, having in the exercise of
eminent domain condemned land in which a widow's dower had
been assigned, was liable to the widow for its value, although full
compensation for the whole value of the land had been made in a
proceeding to which she was no party. ^

The rule at common law giving dower in all lands of which the

husband was seised during coverture, implies that the widow is

entitled to her dower in all such lands, although they

Effect of judi- . , ^ , . , . . ,

ciai sale during had bccn, durmg coverture, sold by judicial process,
coverture. ^^^^ common law has been modified, in this respect,
by the English statute,* and in several of the American States, by
statutes giving dower in the lands of which the husband died
seised or possessed ; ^ in such cases, neither a voluntary assign-
ment in, favor of creditors,^ nor the title passing to the assignee
in bankruptcy,' affects the wife's dower.^ So the sale of a hus-

1 Wheeler v. Kirtland, 27 N. J. Kq. 534, « Eberle v. Fisher, 13 Pa. St. 526. In
536. Jurlge Reed criticises and condemns Pennsylvania the rights of creditors are
the doctrine of Moore v. New York, and paramount to the dower of the widow,
Gwynne v. Cincinnati, and refers to two and the latter is barred by a judicial sale :
New York cases in which tlie same was Trunkey, J., in Lazear v. Porter, 87 Pa.
repudiated or modified. One of these, St. 513, 517 ; but this principle does not
In the Matter of the Central Park Exten- imply that a sale of real estate by the
sion, 16 Abb. Pr. 56, 68, held that the assignee of an insolvent debtor or of a
widow's right was transferred from the bankrupt shall bar tlie wife's dower :
land to the money received therefor ; the Lazear v. Porter, supra, overruhng a dic-
other, deciding that, as between a wife tum in Worcester v. Clark, 2 Grant, 84;
and any other than the State, or its dele- Kelso's Appeal, 102 Pa St. 7, 9. In
gates or agents exercising the right of Bryar's Appeal, 111 Pa, St. 81, it is held
eminent domain, an inchoate right of that a purchaser from an assignee m
dower in lands is such an interest therein bankruptcy, .subject to a mortgage, and
as will be protected, and for which the who afterwards purchases such mortgage
widow has an action, modifying Moore and sells under a judgment recovered
V. New York to that extent: Simar v. thereon, becoming himself the purchaser,
Canaday, 53 N. Y. 298, 304. takes free from the dower claim of the

2 Nye V. Taunton R. R. Co., 113 Mass. bankrupt's wife.

277 279. '' Porter v. Lazear, 109 U. S 84, 86;

3 York V. Welsh, 117 Pa. St. 174. Mattill v. Baas, 89 Ind. 220.

4 3 & 4 Wm. IV. c. 105. ^ In Iowa, however, where the widow
6 jinte, § 106. takes one third of all the real estate pos-

§ 112 INCHOATE DOWER. 241

baud's interest under a will, the wife not having been made a
party to the proceeding, does not debar her of her claim to dower
in the lands sold.^ In Georgia there must be a conveyance by
the husband, or by the oflFiccr of the law undei- a judicial sale, to
bar the wife of dower in any land owned by the husband during
coverture.^ But it is held in Arkansas that the for- saic for unpaid
feiture of land to the State fur the non-payment of ^'^^'=^'
taxes, and sale by the State after the expiration of the time for
redemption, extinguish the widow's dower.-^

§ 112. Inchoate Dower. — The right of dower before its consum-
mation by the death of the husband, or by divorce, is not, perhaps,
capable of exact and comprehensive definition as a inchoate
right of property. It is difficult even to state with ^^''^^■^'■•
precision its nature and qualities.* " Dower," says Kent,^ " is a
title inchoate and not consummate till the death of the husband ;
but it is an interest which attaches on the land as soon as there is
a concurrence of marriage and seisin." " But still," says a Fed-
eral judge,^ "it is not only an inchoate right, but contingent. It
depends upon the death of the husband. If he survive his wife,
she has no right transmissible to her heirs, nor during the life of
her husband can she give it any form of property, to her advan-
tage. ... So long as the husband shall live, it is only a right in
legal contemplation, depending upon the good conduct of the
wife and the death of the husband. Until the death of the hus-
band, the right — if it may be called a right — is shadowy and
fictitious, and, like all rights which are contingent, may never
become vested." Without undertaking to follow this question
into its intricate niceties, some of the prominent principles upon
which the adjudications with reference thereto have been placed
will here be mentioned.

Although dicta, and even decisions, are by no means wanting,
questioning and denying the quality of an estate or inoperty in

sessed by the husband at any time during i Dingman v. Dingman, 39 Oh. St. 172,

the marriage, which has not been sold on 178.

execution or other judicial sale, not re- ^ jjart v. McCollum, 28 Ga. 478, 481.

linquished by the wife, it is held that a ^ McWhirter v. Roberts, 40 Ark. 283,

sale by an assignee in bankruptcy of the 289.

bankrupt's land is a judicial sale, and * 2 Scrib. on Dower, 1 et seq.

bars tlio widow's claim : Taylor v. High- ^ 4 Kent Comm. *50.

berger, G5 Iowa, 134 ; Stidger v. Evans, 64 ^ McLean, J., in Johnston v. Vandyke,

Iowa, 01. 6 McLean, 422, 440.
VOL. I. — 16

242 ESTATES OF DOWER AND CURTESY. § 112

As a right of dowcr inchoate,^ yet it is palpably evident that as a
property. ^igj^^ j^ n\\\?,t be an interest in land, and that interest

is proiJerty^ — the recognition in law of the relation of the thing to
the person?' This is recognized in the provisions contained in the
statutes of some of the States securing the interest of the wife in
case of sales under legal proceedings instituted in the lifetime of
the husband •,^ and so, also, means are pointed out to compute the
value of inchoate dower.* The value of such dower right is also
recognized as a sufficient consideration for a promissory note,° or
a promise to pay money ,^ to support the conveyance to the wife of
other lands in exchange therefor ; ^ the general doctrine is stated
to be, that a contract between husband and wife, by which she
receives money or property in consideration of releasing her con-
tingent right of dower, will be sustained in equity .^ Courts of
equity will also set aside and declare void conveyances by the
husband for the purpose of defeating dower.^

The authorities are not harmonious on the question whether
inchoate dower is subject to be divested or modified by legislative
As affected by enactment. In many cases it is held that the widow's
if?er luishancrs ^ight to dowcr is governed by the law as in force at
title vested. ^j^q ^jj^e of the husbaud's death,io which involves the
power of modifying the right as it existed under a previous law.^i

1 Moore v. New York, 4 Sandf. 456; Bullardr. Briggs, 7 Pick. 533, 538; Bissell
s. c. 8 N. Y. 110; Johnston v. Vandyke, v. Taylor, 41 Mich. 702; Singree v. Welch,
6 McLean, 422 ; Witthaus v. Schack, 105 32 Oh. St. 320.

N. Y. 3.32. ^ 2 Scrib. on Dower, 6, § 6, and author-
That dower, before it is assigned, can- ities ; Jones i'. Fleming, 104 N. Y. 418.
not be conveyed by the widow to a 9 Petty i;. Petty, 4 B. Mon. 215.
stranger, will appear, /jos^, § 114. ^^ Walker v. Deaver, 5 Mo. App. 139,

2 Ante, §§ 1, 4, 6. 151 ; Ware v. Owens, 42 Ala. 212, 215 ;

3 Warford i\ Noble, 9 Biss. 820 ; Dwyer Noel v. Ewing, 9 Ind. 37 ; Lucas r. Sawyer,
V. Garlongli, 31 Oh. St. 158, 161 ; Wester- 17 Iowa, 517, 520; Parker v. Small, 55
field V. Kimmor, 82 Ind. 365, 368; but the Iowa, 732. Where the husband alienates
act converting tlie wife's inchoate dower tlie property without a relinquishment by
into a vested estate upon sale to satisfy the wife, the law in force at the time of
a mortgage was held unconstitutional, in alienation governs : Peirce v. O'Brien, 29
so far as it affects mortgages executed Fed. Rep. 402.

before its passage : Ilelphcnstine y. Mere- ^i Judge Napton, in the case of Ken-

dith, 84 Ind. 1. nerly v. Missouri Ins. Co., 11 Mo. 204, 206,

* Jackson i'. Edwards, 7 Pai. 386, 408; draws the distinction, logical enough as

Bartlett r. Janeway, 4 Sandf. Ch. 306, far as it goes, between the rights of the

398 ; DeWolf y. Murpliy, 11 R. I. 6-30, 634. widow against those whose interests have

•^ Nichols V. Nichols, 136 Mass. 256, accrued simultaneously with hers, in

258. which case the doctrine is held applicable,

^ Sykes v. Chadwick, 18 Wall. 141. and her rights against purchasers and

7 Quarles v. Lacey, 4 Munf. 251, 258; others having a specific lien, whose rights

§ 112 INCHOATE DOWER. 243

The constitutionality of acts destroying inchoate dower in lands
appropriated for public use under the power of eminent domain is
deduced by text-writers^ and courts,^ from the nature of dower,
as a positive legislative institution, not resulting from contract ;3
and under this view it has been decided, in numerous cases, that
there is no constitutional provision protecting the dower right of
the wife, before its consummation by the death of the husband,
from legislative control.* In a New York case the trial court
held that the widow's dower, assigned to her by metes and bounds
under a law subsequently, but during the lifetime of the husband,
modified by an act subjecting the property to which it attached to
sale for the payment of the deceased husband's debts, was sub-
ject to sale under this act;^ but the appellate court held that the
order of sale was unjustified where the dower had already been
assigned,^ the judge rendering the opinion expressing his view
that an act modifying the rights of dower has no application
where marriage and seisin had concurred before its passage ; but
the majority of the court refused to pass upon the constitution-
ality of the retrospective provisions of such act.'^

It seems to be the general impression, that inchoate dower
should be recognized as a right entitled to the same protection as
other property, and that legislation abolishing dower, or materi-
ally modifying it, should not be permitted to operate retrospect-
ively in any sense.^ Dicta and dissenting opinions to this effect

must be determined by the law under Iowa, 20, 22, citing earlier Iowa cases;

which tliey originated. This case is Barbour v. Barbour, 46 Me. 0, 14 ; Merrill

recognized in Thomas r. Hesse, 34 Mo. 13, v. Sherburne, dictum by Woodbury, J.,

24, and the doctrine established is, that 1 N. H. 199, 214; Weaver r. Gregg, 6 Oil.

the right of dower, before its consumma- St. 547, 549; Mclizet's Appeal, 17 Pa. St.

tion by the husband's death, is liable to 449, 455 ; Randall i-. Kreiger, 23 Wall,

legislative interference, while the rights 137, 148 ; Gnerin v. Moore, 25 Minn,

of purchasers, mortgagees, and others in 462, 464 ; Morrison ?'. Rice, 35 Minn. 43(i.

the same lands are protected against any ^ Lawrence v. stiller, 1 Sandf. 516, 548.

modification. The same distinction is ® Lawrence r. Miller, 2 N. Y. 245, 253.

recognized in other cases, for instance, See as to dower consummate, post, § 115.

Boyd V. Harrison, 36 Ala. 533, 538. ' lb., p. 253.

1 2 Dillon's Mun. Cor. § 594 (3d ed.). » 2 Scrib. on Dower, 20, § 18. The

2 See cases cited, § 111, p. 239, note 7 author refers to Cord on Rights of Married
et seq., and infra, note 4. Women, 265, note ; and calls attention

8 The pith of this argument is stated to to ilie significant fact, that the English

be, that " what the law creates, that it may Dower Act (3 & 4 Wm. IV. c. 105) rr.akes

destroy " : 2 Scrib. on Dower, 18, § 14. no attempt, even under the exercise of

* Boyd V. Harrison, 36 Ala. 533, 537; Parliamentary powers not restricted by

Noel V. Ewing, 9 Ind. 37, 43; Strong?-, constitutional limitations, to interfere

Clem, 12 Ind. 37, 40 ; Moore v. Kent, 37 with existing dower rights.

244 ESTATES OF DOWER AND CURTESY. § 112

are often met with, and in Missouri it is unhesitatingly announced
that the legislature has no power to divest inchoate dower. An
act under consideration by the Supreme Court was held not to
affect such right; "and if it did," adds Sherwood, J., rendering
the opinion, " it would violate that constitutional j^rovision which
forbids that any one be deprived of property ' without due process
of law,' and would be a legislative attempt to take the property
of one person and bestow it upon another." ^ A case in Georgia,
also, holds that the wife cannot be deprived of her inchoate dower
by an act of the legislature.^ So in Rhode Island.-^

§ 113. Dower as affected by Acts of the Husband. — It is obvious
that the conveyance of any property before the marriage places it
Alienation be- bcyoud tlic dowcr right of a subsequent wife, because
fore marriage. \j^ jg ^q^ owucd by the husbaud during coverture,*
even if the deed to property so conveyed has not been registered;^
and so of lands exchanged before the marriage, or conveyed in
fee in trust to uses to be appointed by the grantor, although the
appointment be made after the marriage.^ Nor is the wife en-
titled to dower in any estate which was subject to an existing
claim or incumbrance against the husband, either at law or in
equity, at the time of the marriage, although the conveyance or
foreclosure occurred subsequent thereto," under eitlier a mortgage,
lease, statute, or recognizance by which he was bound in good
faith before the marriage.^ A conveyance made on the day of
the marriage, although in point of time before the same took
place, is deemed to have been made during coverture, and will

1 'Williams v. Courtney, 77 Mo. 587, veyed to a third person, who paid tlie
588. levying creditor, and took a release to

2 Royston v. Royston, 21 Ga. 161, 172. himself of his interest in the premises, it

3 Talbot V. Talbot, 14 R. I. 57. was held that the levy was extingiiislied,
* 1 Scrib. on Dower, 583, § 1. the debtor became seised, and dower
6 Pratt V. Skolfield, 45 Me. 386, 389 ; attached to his widow : Mayo v. Hamlin,

Blood V. Blood, 23 Pick. 80, 85. 73 Me. 182.

6 Link V. Edmondson, 19 Mo. 487; » Jackson v. Dewitt, 6 Cow. .316;
Whithed V. Mallory, 4 Cush. 1-38, 140; Rands ?•. Kendall, 15 Oh. 671, 678 ; Sand-
Baker V. Chase, 6 Hill, 482 ; Tate v. Tate, ford v. McLean, 3 Pai. 117, 123 ; Shiell v.
1 Dev. & B. Eq. 22, 28 ; Gaines v. Gaines, Sloan, 22 S. C. 151. The general rule is
9 B. Mon. 295 ; Firestone v. Firestone, 2 stated to be, that " the wife's dower is
Oh. St. 415, 417. liable to be defeated by every subsisting

■J Gully V. Ray, 18 B. Mon. 107, 113; claim or incumbrance in law or equity

Brown i'. Williams, 31 Me. 403, 406; existing before the inception of the-title,

Fontaine v. Dunlap, 82 Ky. 321. But and which would have defeated the hus-

where a levy was made on his lands prior band's seisin " : 4 Kent, *50.
to his marriage, and he subsequently con-

§ 113 DOWER AS AFFECTED BY ACTS OF HUSBAND. 245

not deprive the wife of her dower.^ So, if a conveyance before
marriage is void, or, if voidable, it is avoided during coverture,
the wife is of course endowed.^

A conveyance made by the husband on the eve of marriage, for
the purpose of defrauding his intended wife of her dower estate, is
void as to her right against the grantee or purchaser ^,

" " ° '■ Conveyance

from him with notice; and she may recover dower in infraiidof
such case, as if no conveyance had been made.^ And
deeds of gift, executed before but not delivered until after the
marriage, are no impediment to the right of dower in tlie lands
therein conveyed.* The wife may protect her inchoate dower by
action to set aside conveyances in fraud of her dower ;^ but
the heirs cannot have it set aside, because it is no fraud against
thcm.*^

At common law, and in those of the States in which the widow
is entitled to dower in all lands of which the husband was seised
during coverture, the husband, self-evidently, cannot Alienation dur-
defeat it by any act in the nature of an alienation '"s coverture.
or charge.^ As, however, a recovery by judgment against a hus-
band in a real action defeats the wife's dower, the coiiusn-e
husband might defraud her by collusively suffering: '■eco^'ene?

° -' ./ c again ?t the

judgment to go against himself. To give the wife an husband.
efficient remedy in such case, the Statute of Westminster II., c. 4,
enacted that where the husband had made default in a suit
against him for land, the wife should be heard to demand dower ;
which is said to be but a recital of the common law : " For the
common law ought to be intended where the husband had right,
and he who recovered had no right ; and so is the law to this day
if the husband lose by default. And so was the common law
before the making of that statute ; so that the statute is but the
affirmance of the common law on this point." ^

The substance of this statute has been re-enacted in several

1 Stewart v. Stewart, 3 J. J. Marsh. Brown v. Bronson, 35 Mich. 415, 417;
48 ; so of a judgment entered on tlie day Bahcock r. Babeock, 53 How. Pr. 97, 101 :
of the marriage: Ingram v. Morris, 4 Kelly r. McGrath. 70 Ala. 75, 82; Jones i'.
Harr. 111. Jones, 04 Wis. 301.

2 1 Scrib. on Dower, 585, § 7. 4 i\iiiier v. Stepper, 32 Mich. 194, 199.

3 Cransony Cranson,4Mich.230,235; 5 Babcock v. Babcock, 53 How. Pr.
Swaine v. Ferine, 5 John. Ch. 482, 489 ; 97, 104.

Petty V. Petty, 4 B. Mou. 215, 217 ; Little- 6 Rowland v. Rowland, 2 Sneed, 543.

ton V. Littleton, 1 Dev. & B. L. 327, 329 ; ^ Grady v. MeCorkle, 57 Mo.l72, 176.

Kowland v. Rowland, 2 Sneed, 543, 545 ; 8 pgrt prof. Book, § 376.

246 ESTATES OF DOWEll AND CURTESY. § 110

States, and the wife is protected from the effects of collusive re-
covery against the husband, and from his laches in defending
against improper actions on general principles of equity .^ And
it has been held that a husband cannot deprive his wife of dower
by taking a conveyance of land, purchased with his own money
during coverture, to himself for life, with remainder to his child.^
UQ^.Qr in Although the wife have joined in a mortgage of the

equitv of re- Jmsband's lands, her dower still attaches to the equity

clemption sold ' l J

on execution, of redemption afterward sold under an execution
against the husband.^

The weight of authority seems strongly to support the claim
of widows to dower in lands conveyed by husband and wife in
Conveyances fraud of Creditors, subsequently avoided by them.^
I'if";?,"!'^"*^ " A fraudulent deed set aside at the instance of credi-
cieditors. ^Qj.g cannot bar the surviving wife of dower as against

the creditors or purchasers under a mere decretal sale." ^ It is
held, also, that where the husband conveyed the property to his
■wife in fee in fraud of creditors, such conveyance does not, on
being set aside for the fraud, affect her dower right, because tiiere
can be no merger of a less estate in a greater where the latter is
void.*^ But where the widow takes dower, not as at common law,
in the property of which the husband was seised during covert-
ure, but in that of which he was seised at the time of liis death,'''
the widow is not entitled to dower in land fraudulently conveyed
to her by the husband, and after his death set aside at the in-
stance of his creditors ; because at the time of his death he was
not seised, and the subsequent avoidance related only to creditors,
leaving the conveyance to the wife in full force.^ Nor is the wife
affected by the fraud of the husband in consummating his con-
tract of sale, although she unite with him in conveying the lands.^
So where the wife joins her husband in a deed or mortgage, which

1 Gilson V. Hutchinson, 120 Mass. 27; Malloney v. Horan, 49 N. Y. Rep. Ill,
Farrow v. Farrow, 1 Del. Ch. 457 ; 1 Scrib. 119 ; Richardson v. Wynian, 62 Me. 280,
on Dower, 686, § 15; 4 Kent, 48; 1 Hil- 283; Lockett v. James, 8 Bush, 28, 30;
Hard's R. Prop,, 2(1 ed, 147, §40; see, as to Robinson v. Bates, 3 Met. (Mass.) 40, 43;
conveyances of the husband in fraud of Stowe v. Steele, 114 111. 382, 885.
dower, infm, p. 247, note 7. *" Humes v. Scruggs, 64 Ala. 40, 49 ;

2 Crecelius v. Horst, 11 Mo. App. 304. Malloney v. Horan, 12 Abb. Pr.(N. s.) 289,

3 Harrison ?■. Eldridge, 7 N. J. L. 392; 294; s.c. 49N. Y. Ill, 119; Wyman ?;. Fox,
Barker v. Parker, 17 Mass. 564. Ante, 59 Me. 100, citing earlier Maine cases.

p. 237, n. 5. ^ See ante, § 106.

4 Munger v. Perkins, 62 Wis. 499, 501. ^ Bond v. Bond, 16 Lea, 306, 308.
6 Dugan V. Massey, 6 Bush, 82, 83 ; ^ Wiswall v. Hall, 3 Pai. 313.

§ 113 DOWER AS AFFECTED BY ACTS OF HUSBAND. 247

is, however, defeated by a sale on execution for a prior judgment,
she may cUiim her dower.^ I>ut if a deed is not entirely void,
but contains some element or clause upon which it becomes oper-
ative, although fraudulent and void in other respects, the relin-
quishment of dower will be enforced ;2 and in New Jersey it was
decided that the widow's dower is barred by her relinquishment
in a deed, although it be set aside for fraud.^

Under the English Dower Act,* and in those of the States in
■which the widow is endowed of the lands of which her husband
died seised or possessed,^ the doctrine that the bus- conveyance in
band cannot defeat his wife's dower bv any act in the fraii.d of dower

" •' during covert-

nature of an alienation or charge is, of course, inap- "•t^-

plicablc. But her dower rights are nevertheless protected against
the husband's fraudulent attempts to deprive her thereof by vol-
untary conveyance or collusive charges upon his lands during
coverture. " The notion," say the court in Tiiayer v. Thayer,^
" that the riglit of the wife to dower in the husband's lifetime is
a nonentity^ and not susceptible of fraud being perpetrated of it,
is unsatisfactory, and, we think, unsound, and at war with the
principles of justice. Though the right may be inchoate, it
should be protected against the mala fide acts of the husband."
A conveyance without valuable consideration, with the intent to de
feat the wife of her dower, is void, and will be set aside ; ' and so a
deed to a stranger, although he paid full consideration, if he knew

1 HinchliflFe v. Sliea, 103 N. Y. 153. 6 14 vt. 107, 120.

2 Cantrill i-. Risk, 7 Bush, 158, 160, in "^ Thayer v. Thayer, supra : Ladd v.
wliich a deed was held void as to tlie Ladd, 14 Vt. 185. 192, in which case,
grantee, but operative under tlie law of however, the invalidity of the deed is
Kentucky as a conveyance in favor of predicated upon want of lawful delivery ;
creditors generally ; Manhattan Co. v. McGee v. MoGee, 4 Ired. L. 105, 109,
Evertson, 6 Pai. 457, 4G5, in which the citing Littleton v. Littleton, 1 Dev. & B.
deed contained a declaration of trust 327, and Norwood r. Marrow, 4 Dev. &, B.
which constituteda lien upon the premises. 442; Killinger '•. Reidenhauer, 6 Serg. &

8 Den V. Johnson, 18 N. J. L. 87, 90; R. 531,5.33; McCIurgr. Schwartz. 87 Pa.

the New York case of Meyer v. Mohr, to St. 521, 524 ; Vanleer i-. Vanleer, 3 Tenn.

the same effect, in 19 Abb. Pr. 299, 304, Ch. 23, holding that the facts constituting

was, as appears from the case of Mallone}' the fraud must be set out in the bill ;

V. Horan, supra, disapproved. See also Crecelius v. Horst, 11 Mo. App. 304;

Hincliliffe r. Shea, 103 N. Y. 153, 155. Jiggitts v. Jiggitts, 40 xMiss. 718, 721 ;

4 3 & 4 Wm. IV. c. 105. Rabbitt v. Gaither, 67 Md. 94 (in this case

5 See ante, § 106, as to the States in the property was in reality bought by the
which the common law rule is modified, husband, but taken in the name of a third
The term " possessed," used in these party in order to defraud the wife of her
States, is synonymous with " seised " : dower).

Stewart v. Stewart, 5 Conn. 317, 320.

248 ESTATES OF DOWER AND CURTESY. § 114

that the intention was to defeat the wife's dower.^ In Missouri,
where the statute gives the widow the right of election between
dower as at common law, and to take a child's part of the prop-
erty remaining after payment of debts, it was held that such elec-
tion ratified a conveyance to a daughter of land purchased with
his own money, but in which he took only a life interest, causing
the remainder to be deeded to his daughter by a former wife, for
the purpose of defrauding his wife of dower; and that the wife
was not entitled to a child's part in such land.^ The disposition
of personal property (in which dower is given by statute in this
State) in fraud of the widow's dower therein has repeatedly been
held void as to the widow.^

§ 114. The Wife's Relinquishment of Dower. — The usual method
employed at common law to bar the wife's inchoate dower by her
own act, was by levying a fine or suffering a recovery,
ment of dower Thcsc are abolishcd by statute in England,* and have
by t le wi e. rarely been resorted to in the United States ; ^ the
custom of London, effectually barring the wife's dower by means
of a deed of bargain and sale by husband and wife, properly ac-
knowledged by the wife after a separate examination and duly
proclaimed and enrolled, was adopted in this country at an early
day.^ A conveyance by the husband, in which the wife joined, is
held sufficient, in most States, to carry her dower without a relin-
quishment eo nomine?

1 Brewer v. Connell, 11 Humph. 500. others, and are now wholly disused. Re-
This decision is based upo the provisions coveries were in use in Massachusetts,
of the statute on the subject. but not fines. They were both in use in

2 Crecelius v. Horst, 4 Mo. App. 419. Maryland, but never in Virginia. Note

3 Davis V. Davis, 5 Mo. 18.3; Stone v. to 1 Washb. R. Prop. *199, § 10, referring
Stone, 18 Mo. 389; Tucker v. Tucker, 29 to Stearns, Keal Act. 11 ; Chase's Case, 1
Mo. .350. But in such case the widow Bland, Ch. 206, 229.

cannot assert her claim as a charge ^ 2 Scrib. Dower, 286, § 8 ; Chase's

against her husband's general estate ; she case, 1 Bland Ch. 206, 229 ; Powell v.

must pursue the property in the hands of Monson Company, 3 Mas. 347, 351, per

the donees : Straat v. O'Neil, 84 Mo. 68. Story, J. ; Davey v. Turner, 1 Dall. 11,

" Before a disposition of personal property 13 ; Jackson v. Gilchrist, 15 John. 89, 109;

by the husband is avoided, as in fraud of Moore v. Rake, 26 N. J. L. 574, 578; Man-

the dower rights of the wife, the disposi- Chester v. Hough, 5 Mas. 67, 68.
tion should be shown to be testamentary ^ Learned i:. Cutler, 18 Pick. 9, 11 ;

in its character, and should be clearly Gray v. McCune, 23 Pa. St. 447, 450;

shown to have been made for the purpose Gillilan v. Swift 14 Hun, 574; Meyer v.

of defrauding her of her dower " : Cre- Gossett, infra ; Dutton v. Stuart, 41 Ark.

celius V. Horst, 89 Mo. 356, 359. 101 ; Smith o. Handy, 16 Oh. 191, 229;

* 3 & 4 Wm. IV. c. 74. Bute v. Kneale, 109 111. 652 (since the

* Fines and recoveries were once in statute of 1869) ; Witthaus v. Schack,
force in some of the States, but not in 105 N. Y. 332.

§ 114 THE wife's relinquishment of dower. 249

An essential requisite of the release or relinquishment by the
wife is, in some of the States, that the husband and wife must
join in the deed. An indorsement by the wife upon
the husband's deed, written several months afterward, wife m"ust1"in
" I agree in the above conveyance," was held not to "' 'e'l'iqu'sh-
relinquish her dower in the premises conveyed, for
two reasons : that the wife's act was not joined in by the hus-
band, and that the words constituted no relincjuishment of dower. ^
In Iowa, where the widow takes one third of the husband's real
estate in lieu of dower, a wife who, in consideration of the pay-
ment to her of the purchase money stipulated in a deed of war-
ranty executed by her husband in which she had not joined, orally
agreed that she would never make any claim of dower in the land,
was held estopped, as well as her heirs, from claiming dower in
the land against the vendee and his grantees.^ But this decision
was based upon the purely equitable doctrine of estoppel, and
dissented from by one of the judges on the ground that inchoate
dower cannot be relinquished by parol.^ In the States of Arkan-
sas,* Delaware,^ Illinois,^ Indiana,'^ Kentucky,^ Maine,^ Massa-
chusetts,^*^ Michigan, New Jersey ,^^ Ohio,^^ Pennsylvania,^^ South
Carolina, and Virginia,^'* it has been held that the husband is
required to join in the wife's relinquishment of dower. But it is
not necessary that the conveyance should be simultaneously exe-
cuted by both, or even on the same day ; it is sufficient if it be
executed by her before it is delivered, although it had before been
executed and acknowledged by the husband. ^^ In Ala- wife may
bama, Florida, Maine,!*^ Maryland, Minnesota, New by'separL
Hampshire,^^ Oregon, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin, '^^^'^•
the relinquishment may be by separate deed.^^

1 Hall V. Savage, 4 Mas. 273, 274; « Applegate ?•. Gracy, 9 Dana, 215,217.
Sliaw V. Russ, 14 Me. 432, 434; French ^ French v. Peters, supra.

V. Peter?, 33 Me. 396, 408. »' Hall v. Savage, snpm.

2 Dunlap V. Thomas, 69 Iowa, 358, " Doilge v. Aycrigg, 12 N. J. Eq. 82.
distinguishing this case from the principle i- Williams v. Robson, 6 Oh. St. 510,
applicable to cases where inclioate dower 515.

is attempted to be sold independent of the is uip v. Campbell, 19 Pa. St. 361, 362.

property to which it attaches, as announced !■! Sexton v. Pickering, 3 Rand. 468,

in McKee v. Reynolds, 213 Iowa, 578. 472.

3 Dunlap V. Thomas, supra, p. 362. i5 Langhorne v. Hobson, 4 Leigh, 224;
* Witter 1-. Biscoe, 13 Ark. 422, 430; Newell v. Anderson, 7 Oh. St. 12; Dun-
Meyer V. Gossett, 38 Ark. 377, 380. das v. Hitchcock, 12 How. 256 ; Ford v.

^ Harris v. Burton, 4 Harr. 66, 67. Gregory, 10 B. Mon. 175.

6 Osborn v. Horine, 19 111. 124, 125. lo Rev. St. 1883, cli. 103, § 6.

T Scott V. Purcell, 7 Blackf. 66, 69 ; " Shepherd v. Howard. 2 N. H. 507.

Davis V. Bartholomew, 3 Ind. 485, 490. is 2 Scrib. Dower, 293, § 19.

250 ESTATES OF DOWER AND CURTESY. § 114

It has been held in Delaware^ and Vermont,- that a married
woman cannot execute a valid power of attorney to convey lands,
Reiinnuishini'- G^'^n in Connection with her husband ; and in Virginia,
by attorney. i\^r^^ g^ (j^g^j Qf husband and wife, executed under a
power of attorney, is valid as to the husband, though void as to
the wife.^ In Kentucky a non-resident married woman may
convey by agent under her power of attorney, though not a resi-
dent.^ In Missouri, where the statute provides that the wife may
relinquish her dower by joint deed with the husband, and that
" a married woman may convey her real estate, or relinquish her
dower by a power of attorney authorizing its conveyance, exe-
cuted and acknowledged by her jointly with her husband," it is
held that a power of attorney executed jointly with the husband,
appointing an attorney to join with her husband in any convey-
ance the husband may make of his real estate, and, for her, to
execute and deliver any such conveyance, and to relinquish her
dower in any real estate so conveyed, is sufficiently in compliance
with the statute, and a deed made by such attorney in pursuance
of his power is effectual to bar the wife's dower in the land con-
veyed.^ In some States the statute authorizes the wife to exercise
the power to convey by attorney.^

Where a seal is required for the effective conveyance of real
estate, the relinquishment of dower must be under
ment uniier scal. An instrument, though otherwise conforming
^^^ ■ to the law, if unsealed, will not bar dower.' In Ala-

bama,^ lowa,^ and Kentucky ,1° it is provided by statute that real
estate may be conveyed by an instrument not under seal.

The mere signing and sealing of the deed by the wife without
words constituting a grant or release contained therein, is ineffect-
iiitention to ual to bar her right ; ^^ nor can the omission be aided
bfrdicated"'^ ^y ^^^ certificate of acknowledgment.^^ The wife is

1 Lewis V. Coxe, 5 Harr. 401. Moore, 4 Gray, 600; Walsh v. Kelly. o4

2 Sumner v. Conant, 10 Vt. 9, 19. Pa. St. 84 ; Brown v. Starke, 3 Dana, 316.

3 Shanks v. Lancaster, 5 Gratt. 110, » Shelton v. Armor, 13 Ala. 647.

118. ^ Pierson v. Armstrong, 1 Iowa, 282,

* Gen. St. 1887, ch. 24, § 36. 293.

5 De Bar v. Priest, 6 Mo. App. 531. 3" Gen. St. 1887, ch. 22, § 2.

6 So in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode " Lothrop v. Foster, 51 Me. 367, 369 ;
Island, and probably other States ; in Lufkin v. Curtis, 13 Mass. 223 ; Powell
Indiana, Iowa, and Minnesota such was v. Monson Company, 3 Mas. 347, 349;
the law before dower was abolished there. McFarland v. Febigers, 7 Oh. 194; Agri-

^ Manning v. Laboree, 33 Me. 343 ; cultural Bank v. Rice, 4 How. 225, 241.
Sargent v. Roberts, 34 Me. 135; Giles v. i'-' Davis v. Bartholomew, 3 Ind. 485.

§ 114 THE wife's relinquishment of dower. 251

not concluded by the contents of a deed signed by her in
blank, if iilled up differently from what was intended when she
signed it, but may show the fraud, even against an innocent
grantee, in protection of her inchoate dower.i g^t ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^.^^j.
the release is not required to be in technical form ; cai form is

nccGssurv-

any apt words indicating her intention to grant, or
relinquisli, or release her interest in the land, will bar her
dower.2

The preponderance of authority seems to hold the relinquish-
ment of dower by an infant feme covert wholly ineffectual to
divest her right.^ No act of disaffirmance is neccs- j.^,i„^„j,,,.
sary on the part of the wife before bringing her suit;^ '^^if^'''
nor is she required to refund to the purchaser any
part of the purchase money paid by him for the premises in which
dower is claimed.^

In the absence of statutory regulations no power exists whereby
the dower of an insane wife can be divested, or in any manner
impaired. In some of the States provision is made for p^g,;^^,,,,^.
the disincumbering of the husband's estate of the con- mem by an

^ . . insane \s'ite.

tingcnt dower of his wife where the latter is msaue,
and therefore incompetent to act in her own behalf.^ In Ala-
bama," m a case in which it was held by the Supreme Court that
the appointment of a guardian to an insane wife was void for the
want of notice to her, the judge delivering the opinion remarked,
" And were it otherwise, I apprehend the guardian of a lunatic
wife can have no authority to relinquish her dower in the real
estate of her husband." In Illinois it is held that a court of
equity cannot interfere to deprive an insane married ^^ ^ .^^ ^^
woman of dower.^ In Missouri there can be no re- an in.<ane

. husband.

linquishment of dower by the wife of an insane person,

1 Conover v. Porter, 14 Oh. St. 450, p. 187); see authorities cited in 2 Scrib.
453. on Dower, 301, §§ 31, 32.

2 Stearns v. Swift, 8 Pick. 532, 535 ; * Priest v. Cummings, 20 Wend. 338 ;
Frost f. Deering, 21 Me. 156, 159 ; Usher Hughes v. Watson, 10 Oh. 127, 134;
V. Ricliardson, 29 Me. 415, 416 ; Gillilan Sandford v. McLean, 3 Pai. 117 ; Thomas
V. Swift, 14 Hun, 574; Edwards v. Sul- i'. Gammel, 6 Leigli, 9.

livan, 20 Iowa, 502. ^ Sliaw v. Bo3d, 5 S. & R. 309 ; Mark-

3 Adams v. Palmer, 51 Me. 480, 486; ham r. Merritt, 7 How. (Miss.) 437.
Applegate v. Conner, 03 Ind. 185 (hut ^ So in the States of Iowa, Kentucky,
under tlie statute of this State an infant Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio,
wife may now join her husband in the Virginia, and Wisconsin,
conveyance of his real estate with the ' Eslava v. Lepretre, 21 Ala. .504, 529.
same effect as if she were of full age : § Ex parte McElwain, 29 111. 442.

252 ESTATES OF DOWER AND CURTESY. § Hi

because under the statute dower can be relinquished only by
joint deed, etc., and the deed of an insane person can have no
validity.^

Under the statute de modo levandi fines,^ it was required, if a
married woman was made party to a fine, that she should first be
Separate ex- examined by four justices of the bench or in eyre to
aiiiiiiation and ascertain her consent ; and when conveyance by deed

acknowleclg- ' *' ''

meiit. Yi^as substituted instead, ^ an acknowledgment on a

separate examination of the married woman was required. This
rule is adopted in most of the States of the Union, and unless the
execution of the deed, as her voluntary act, be acknowledged by
her upon an examination separate and apart from her husband,
it will, as to her, be absolutely void. The States of Connecticut,
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michi-
gan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon, and Wisconsin are
mentioned by Scribner as not requiring such separate examina-
tion and acknowledgment ; * but in some of these States dower
has been abolished, (for instance, Indiana, Iowa, and Kansas,)
and in many of the other States mentioned as retaining the com-
mon law rule, acknowledgment by the wife is not required to be
separate from the husband.

The magistrate or officer taking the wife's renunciation of
dower must be disinterested;^ but the fact that he is related to
Statutory re- the parties does not render him incompetent.^ The
imiit be"'^ relinquishment must be taken by and acknowledged
observed. before an officer authorized thereto by the statute,

and within the territory of his jurisdiction ; "' the wife must be ac-
quainted with the contents of the deed,^ and the officer's certif-
icate must affirmatively show that all the requirements of the
statute have been complied with.^ Tlie decisions on this point

1 Hence, where a married woman ^ Withers v. Baird, 7 Watts, 227, 228 ;
joined the guardian of her insane bus- Scanlan v. Turner, 1 Bai. L. 421, 424.
band in a deed, she relinquishing her ^ Lynch v. Livingston, 6 N. Y. 422,
dower, and her husband and the guardian 433.

conveying the husband's real estate, is "^ Share v. Andersen, 7 Serg. & R. 43,

not estopped from claiming her dower, 63.

either at law or in equity : Rannells v. ^ Raverty v. Fridge, 3 McLean, 230.

Gerner, 80 Mo. 474, 478, reversing s. c. ^ Corporation t". Hammond, 1 Harr.

9 Mo. App. 506. & J. 580, 588 ; Jourdan v. Jourdan, 9 S. &

2 St. 18 Edw. I. c. 4. R. 268 ; Howell v. Ashmore, 22 N. J. L.

3 By St. 3 & 4 Wm. IV. c. 74. 261, 264 ; Churchill v. Monroe, 1 R. 1.

4 2 Scrib. on Dower, 322, § 2, and au- 209 ; Hairston v. Randolphs, 12 Leigh,
thorities. 445.

§115

DOWER CONSUMMATE BEFORE ASSIGNMENT.

253

arc very numerous, and depend upon the local statutes. In all
of tlicm, however, a compliance with the statute, at least substan-
tially, is required to be set forth in the certificate of the officer.
The sufficiency of the acknowledgment is to be determined solely
by what appears upon the face of the certificate, and cannot be
aided by aliunde evidence.^ But the certificate is not conclusive
upon the wife ; she may contest its validity, and the force and
effect of the formal proof.^

The wife cannot release her inchoate dower to any person but
the one who is entitled to the lands to which it attaches ;^ nor,
at common law, to her husband,^ although it is now cannot release
recognized in equity that a valid agreement may be I"or*to hTr^^'"'
made between husband and wife for separation and iius^^an'^-
the wife's support,^ according to which she may relinquish her
inchoate dower.*'

§ 115. Dower Consummate before Assignment. — The dissolution
of the marriage by the death of the husband, and in some instances
his conviction of bigamy,'^ sentence to imprisonment for consummation
life,^ divorce a vinculo,^ or judicial sale,^*^ operates to of^i^w'^'".

^ 2 Scrib. on Dower, 3G4, § 45, and
authorities

2 Per Walker, J., in Eyster v. Hathe-
way, 50 111. b'Zl, 524 ; Marsli v. Mitchell,
2G 'n. J. Eq. 497, 499 ; Johnson v. Van
Velsor, 43 Mich. 208, 219.

3 Reifl V. Horst, 55 Md. 42, 47 ; Ches-
nut V. Chesnut, 15 111. App. 442, 446 ; Chi-
cago Dock Co. V. Kinzie, 49 111. 289, 293 ;
Pixley I'. Bennett, 11 Mass. '298; Har-
riman v. Gray, 49 Me. 5o7 ; Witthans v.
Schack, 105 N. Y. 332, 337 ; Dunlap v.
Thomas, 69 Iowa, 358, 301.

* On the ground of her disability and
the presumption that she is sub protestati
viri : McGill, Ch., in Ireland v. Ireland,
12 Atl. R. (N. J.) 184, 185; In re Rausch,
35 xMinn. 291.

& Carson v. Murray, 3 Pai. 483, 501.

6 Ireland v. Ireland, supra ; Jones v.
Fleming, 101 N. Y. 418, 427. See as to
effect of agreement, ante, § 112.

7 Hinck. Test. L., § 1952.

8 Scribner deduces this from the lan-
guage of the statute of Michigan (Comp.
L. 1857, p. 954, § 5) : " When either party
shall be sentenced to imprisonment for
life, . . . the marriage shall be thereby

absolutely dissolved without any decree
of dix'orce or other legal process." In
Howell's Aim. St., § 0240, (1882,) the fol-
lowing language is used : " When the
husband shall be sentenced to imprison-
ment for life, . . . the wife shall be en-
titled to the immediate possession of all
lier real estate, in like manner as if he
were dead," — which would justify the
conclusion a fortiori.

^ See ante, § 109. In the following
States the widow is entitled to dower on
divorce for the adultery, sentence to im-
prisonment, or other misconduct of the
husband, as if such husbaml were dead:
Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, and Ver-
mont. In some of the States the right of
dower is referred to the court trying the
action ; in others the wife is entitled on
decree of divorce to all her lands, tene-
ments, and hereditaments. See note to
1 Washb. R. Prop. *258.

10 Lawson v. DeRolt, 78 Ind. 563, 565.
By the statutes of Indiana (Rev. St. 1881,
§ 2')08) the wife's inchoate right to the
real estate of her husband becomes abso-
lute upon a judicial sale thereof, vesting

254 ESTATES OF DOWER AND CURTESY. § 115

consummate and perfect the incipient or inchoate right of dower,
converting it into a vested estate whicli the widow may enter u])on
Governed by ^^^ enjov. This right is obviously governed by the
lex loci ret jg^y of the State in which the property is situated,^

and cannot be affected by any legislation subsequent
subsequen^t ^ to such cousummation, whether there has been an
legislation. assignment or not.^ But she has no seisin in law, nor
right of entry or ownership over the lands to which her right
attaches, until the ministerial act of assigning to her in severalty
the proportion to which she may be entitled ; hence she is said to

have no freehold interest in the lands of her husband

No freehold o -, • i i ^p

before assign- before assignment of dower,*^ and can neillier herseli
maintain or defend ejectment against the heirs, nor
join the heirs in an action of ejectment against others,'* unless
such action be authorized by statute.^ It follows that until assign-
ment the dower right of a widow cannot be levied on,

Not subject to . , , t i' t j • • i i

garnishment or garnished, or sold under execution against her or a
beSassign- subsequent husband;^ and that she has no interest
'"''"^' therein which is capable of assignment to another,'

unless the statute confers upon it the character of a freehold
estate.^ But she may relinquish, as in case of inchoate dower,
But equity will bcforc the husbaud's death, to the terre-tenant hold-
subject it to • ^j g jgo;al title.^ And equity will subject the unas-

satii^faction of » ^ ^ b i . •<

her debts. signed dowcr right to the satisfaction of the claims of

the biisband's title in the purchaser. A Michigan that her statutory right of

voluntary assignment for the benefit of action before assignment cannot be

orerlitors has not such effect : Hall v. extended to her grantee : Galbraith v.

Harrcll, 92 Ind. 408 ; the title vests in Fleming, 60 Mich. 408.
the wife on the execution of the sheriff's <> Payne v. Hecker, 22 Hun, 28, 31 ;

deed to the purchaser : Shelton r. Shelton, Rausch v. Moore, 48 Iowa, 611, 614; 2

94 Ind. 113. Scrib. on Dower, 39, § 26, and authorities ;

1 Apperson?-.Roltnn. 20 Ark. 418,426; Aikman r. Harsell, 98 N. Y. 186, 191;
Mitchell V. Word, 60 Gii. 525, 531. Moore v. Harris, 91 Mo. 616, 622.

2 Avfp, ^1\2. '' Jacks v. Dyer, 31 Ark 334, 337;

3 Croade v. Ingraham, 13 Pick. 33; La Framboise ;-'. Grow, 56 111. 197 ; Jack-
Hilleary v. Hilleary, 26 Md. 274, 289; son r. Vanderheyden, 17 John. 167,169;
Reynolds ?'. Mc("urry, 100 111. 356,360; Blain i'. Harrison, 11 III. 384 : Turnipseed
Rayner v. Lee, 20 Mich. .384. Not even v. Fitzpatrick, 75 Ala. 297, 303.

her quarantine : Bleecker v. Hennion, 23 ^ As in Connecticut : ■ Greathead's

N. J. Eq. 123. But see post, § 116, as to Appeal, 42 Conn. 374, 375 ; Wooster v.

her quarantine. Hunts Company, 38 Conn. 256, 257 ; Ver-

* Pringle i:. Gaw, 5 S. & R. 536 ; Coles mont : Gorham v. Daniels, 23 Vt. 600,

I'. Coles, 15 John. 819, 322. 611; Dummerston v. Newfane, 37 Vt.

5 Yates V. Paddock, 10 Wend. 528, 531 ; 9, 13.

Den V. Dodd, 6 N. J. L. .367; Ackerman ^ Reed v. Ash, 30 Ark. 775. 779; Car-

V. Shelp, 8 N. J. L. 125, 120. It is held in nail v. Wilson, 21 Ark. 62, 65; Pope v.

§ 116 QUARANTINE OF DOWER. 255

her creditors ; ^ and they may enforce the assignment of her dower
in order to subject it to their chiims.^ So the assignment of
the widow's dower right, before allotment, though inoperative
at law, is effectual in a court of equity, and will in a proper case
be enforced and the transferee protected.^

§ 116. Quarantine of Dower, — Under the provisions of Magna
Charta, a widow " shall tarry in the chief house of her husband
bv forty days after the death of her husband, within ^

•' •' ^ (Quarantine

which days her dower shall be assigned her. . . . under Magna

' Charta.

And slie shall have in the mean time her reasona-
ble estovers of the common." * Lord Coke interprets this lan-
guage to mean that dower shall I)e speedily assigned, "to the end
the widow might not be without livelihood" ;^ and that estovers
signifies "sustenance, or aliment, or nourishment; . . . that is,
tilings that concern the nourishment or maintenance of man in
victu et vestitu, wherein is contained meat, drink, garments, and
habitation." ^ Lord Coke says that it was certainly the law of
England before the conquest, that the woman should continue a
whole year in her husband's house.'''

In the United States the provisions for the widow in this respect
are, as a general thing, more liberal in her favor than those of the
common law. No change from the common law is Quarantine in

tllC SGVtircll

made in Delaware,^ Maryland,^ Massachusetts,^^ Min- states.

Mead, 99 N. Y. 201 ; Morse, J., in Gal- dower is sought is all of which the hus-

braith v. Fleming, 60 Mich. 408, 413. band was seised, or where all the persons

1 Davison v. Whittelsey, 1 McArth, interested are not before the court :
163; Tompkhis v. Fonda, 4 Pal. 448; Getchell c. McGuire, 70 Iowa, 71.
Potter V. P^verett, 7 Ired. Eq. 152, 155; ^ Heeves v. Brooks, 80 Ala. 26; Robie
Wilson V. McLenaghau, 1 McMullen, Eq. r. Flanders, 33 N. H. 524 ; Lamar i'. Scott,
35, 39 : Maccubbin v. Cromwell, 2 Harr. 4 Rich. L. 516 ; Bostwick v. Beach, 103
& G. 443, 455 ; Strong v. Clem, 12 Ind. N. Y. 414, 422.

37 ; McKenzie* v. Donald, 61 Miss. 452; 4 Great Ch., 9 Hen. III. c. 7.

Boltz i: Stolz. 41 Oh. St. 540; Payne v. s Co. 2 Inst. ch. 7, Magna Charta, (2).

Becker, 87 N Y. 153. " The reason why sucli speed is made,

Rut see, to tlie contrary, Saltniarsh v. is for that lier quarentine is but for forty

Smith, 32 .Ma. 404, 408; Blain v. Ilarri- days. ... If she marry she loseth her

son. 11 111. 384; Maxon v. Gray, 14 R I. quarentine" : lb. (1).
641. 6 lb., ch. 7, (6).

2 So under a Statute in Missouri: Rev. "^ Co. Litt. 32 b, citing Lamb. § 120,
St. 1879, § 2218; Waller v. Mardus, 29 71, and " diverse ancient manuscripts."
Mo. 25 ; and in Connecticut : Grcathead's ^ Laws, 1874, p. 515, § 1, par. 6 ; p. 533,
Appeal, 42 Conn. 374 ; in Iowa this is § 1.

left an open question, but equity will in ^ No provision is found in the statutes

no case do so, wliore the petition fails to as to quarantine.

show that the real estate out of which the ^'^ Pub. St. 1882, p. 740, § 3.

256

ESTATES OF DOWER AND CURTESY.

§116

nesota,- Now Hampsliire,^ New York,^ North Carolina,* and
Tennf^ssee.^ In Maine the period during which the widow may
remain in the mansion of the deceased luisband is extended to
ninety days ; '^ in Ai'kansas, to two months, and until dower is
assigned;' in Ohio,^ Oregon,^ and Rhode Island,^*^ to one year;
and in Alabama,^^ Florida,^^ Georgia,^^ Kentucky,^* Missouri,i^
Nebraskaji*^ New Jersey,^'' Vermont,^^ Virginia,^^ West Virginiaj^*^
and Wisconsin,2i no limit to her right of possession exists until
dower be assigned. These provisions are generally additi(-nal to
those made for the immediate support of the family ; and in those
States in which dower is abolished by statute, the homestead laws,
the year's support allotted to widow and family, and the laws reg-
ulating the descent of real estate, afford an ample equivalent for
the quarantine at common law.

Until dower be assigned the right of the widow is held to extend
not only to the possession, or occupation free of rent, of the
Quarantine mausiou or dwclling-liouse, together with all the ap-
s/o'^n"appurtr-' purtcuaut buildings, and the messuage or plantation
nant buildings, connected therewith,22 but that it constitutes a freehold

plantation, '

"^c. for life, unless sooner defeated by the act of the heir,^^

1 Dower is not defined by the statutes,
but it is provided in the Statute of De-
scents that estates of dower and cur-
tesy are not thereby abrogated : St. 1878,
p. 565, § 3.

2 Gen. L. 1878, p. 475, § 12.

3 3 Banks & Bro., 1882, p 2199, § 17,
giving also reasorable sustenance.

* Code, 1883, § 2102 et seq.

5 Th. & St. St. § 2398 ; Code, 1884,
§ 3244.

6 Rev. St. 1871, p. 758, § 14. This pro-
vision seems to be omitted in Rev. St. 1883.

■^ And shall have sustenance out of
the estate : Dig. 1884, §§ 2587, 2588.

8 Rev. St. 1880, § 4188.

9 Code, 1887, § ^976, also giving sus-
tenance for one year.

10 Pub. St. 1882. p. 637, § 1.

11 Code, 1886, § 1900.

12 McClell. Dig. p. 477, § 9, also giving
one year's provisions, to be set apart by
commissioners appointed by the court.

13 Code, 1882, § 1768, together with
the furniture.

1* Gen. St. 1887, p. 740, § 8.

15 Rev. St. 1879, § 2205. See Holmes
V. Kring, 93 Mo. 452, 4.58, discussing this
question and citing Missouri cases.

i« Conip. St. 1887, ch 23, § 11.

" Rev. 1877, p. 320.

18 Rev. L. 1880, § 2224.

19 Code, 1887, § 2274.

20 Kelley's Hev. St. ch. 70, § 8.

21 Rev. St. 1878, § 3872.

2-^ White L-. Clarke, 7 T. B. Mon. 640,
642 ; Inge v. Murphy, 14 Ala. 289, 291 ;
Rambo v. Bell, 3 Ga. 207, 209; Driskell v.
Hanks, 18 B. Mon. 855, 864.

23 Ackerman v. Slielp, 8 N. J. L. 125,
129 ; Inge v. Murphy, 14 Ala. 289, 292 ;
Burks V. Osborn, 9 B. Mon. 579, 580
(only as a means of coercing the heirs to
a speedy assignment) ; Bleecker v. Hen-
nion, to similar effect, 23 N. J. Eq. 123,
124. Ejectment will lie for her quaran-
tine before assignment of dower : Miller
V. Talley, 48 Mo. 503, 504. The estate of
the widow, in this element of her dower,
is rather analogous to a tenancy at will •
Simmons v. Lyle, 32 Gratt. 752, 757; Spin-
ning V. Spinning, 43 N. J Eq. 215, 246.

§ 116 QUARANTINE OF DOWER. 257

which she ma}' occupy by a tenant as well as by her- „, ,

. ~ Widow may

self; the occupation of the tenant is hers,i and she is n-m it to a
entitled to the rent paid by the tenants.^ Whether
she can assign her right to remain in the mansion-house to
another has been differently held, the right being affirmed in Mis-
souri,-^ and denied in Alabama.* The right of quarantine, how-
ever, is confmed exclusively to property of which she confined to
is dowable, differing in this respect from the right of ^hi^"^-),e'is
homestead ; she may have the right of homestead,^ dowable,
but cannot have quarantine of dower, in leaseholds;^ nor does
quarantine attach to property on which the husband on which hus-
did not reside at the time of his death," although it ^'''"'' 'es^ided.
be the only real estate owned by hiin.^ Nor can the widow of a
deceased tenant in common exclude the cotenant in common un
der the right of quarantine.^ So it is held in Missouri, that, if a
widow elects to take a child's share in lieu of dower. Election to
she renounces dower with all its incidents, including Ihare'^defL^ts
quarantine.^** And it is obvious that the widow can- quarantine,
not, under the law giving her quarantine, defend her Quarantine de-

' o o n 7 feated by para-

posscssion against an adverse or a paramount title ; mount title.
in this respect she is in no better condition than her husband
would have been.^^

It has been held, in several instances, that the widow is entitled

1 Craige v. Morris, 25 N. J. Eq. 467, (but in this case homestead is also denied

4G8; Doe v. Bernard, 7 Sm. & M. .319, in a leasehold estate, see judcrment on

324 ; Hyzer v. Stoker, 3 B. Mon. 117 ; rehearing, p. 40) ; Voeickner v. Hudson,

Trask v. Baxter, 48 111. 406; Stokes v. 1 Sandf. 215, 218.
McAllister, 2 Mo. 163,166. 1 Smith v. Smith, 13 Ala. 329, ,3.33;

•^ Chaplin v. Simmons, 7 T. B. Mon. Waters r. Williams, S8 Ala. 680, 684 ; Mc-

3.37, 388; McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 22 Clurg v. Turner, 74 Mo 45; in Indiana

N. J. Eq. 505, 510 ; s. c. 20 N. J. Eq. 190 ; the term "messuage " is held to include a

Iteeves v. Brooks, 80 Ala. 26, 30. The few acres of land, but not the whole farm

widow's right is not limited to the rent Grimes y. Wilson, 4 Blackf 331, 3.33.
paid for the mansion-house or messuages, » Clary v. Sanders, 43 Ala. 287, 295.

but extends to the income from all prop- 9 Collins i'. W.irren, 29 Mo. 2.36, 238.

erty assigned to her as dower, from tlie w Wigley v. Beaiiclmmp, 51 Mo. 544,

death of the husband, which she may 546, commenting on and affirming Matney

recover after assignment : Austell v. v. Graham. 50 Mo. 559. and overruling

Swann, 74 Ga. 278. Orrick r. Robbins, 34 Mo. 226. It has

3 Jones V. Manly, 58 Mo 559, 564; already been noticed, that in Missouri an

Stokes V. McAllister, 2 Mo 163, 166. election to take a child's part operates as

* Barber v. Williams, 74 Ala. 331, 3-33; a confirmation of a conveyance in fraud

Wallace v. Hall, 19 Ala. 367, 372. of dower : ante, § 11-3.

6 Ante, § 9.5. n Taylor v. McCrackin, 2 Blackf. 200,

6 Pizzala V. Campbell, 46 Ala. 35, 38 262.

VOL. I. — 17

258 ESTATES OF DOWER AND CURTESY. § 117

to her quarantine free of taxes, which must be charged to the
o-cncral estate -J but not the estate assigned for dower,

Quarantine not ^

subject to the taxes upon which constitute a charge upon the

' » property enjoyed by her.^

§ 117. Assignment of Dower. — The method of assigning dower

to the widow is prescribed by statute in a number of States ; at

T^ , common law, and in the absence of a statutory pro-

Dower may be ' "^ ^

assifcned by vision to the Contrary, it is not necessary to resort to

parties with- „ , .

out legal pro- legal proceedings for this purpose ; the parties may
"'" bind themselves as effectually in the matter of assign-

ing dower, as in any other transaction.^ It may be done by parol ;
nothing is required but to ascertain and assign her share to the
widow, and then, if she has entered, the freehold vests in her.*
But if any particular course of proceedings is indicated, this must
of course be observed. Thus, in Arkansas,^ Connecticut,^ Ohio,"
and Rhode Island,^ the assignment must be in writing. In
Nebraska, it is held that the widow cannot institute a partition
suit for her dower.^

Assignment of dower is distinguished as being either according
to or agamst common right; the former being the setting apart
Dower accord- of the sharc of lands to which the widow is entitled
a-ain"st°com- ffom the lauds Constituting the late husband's real
inou right. estate by metes and bounds, when practicablej^*^ to be

1 Branson v. Yancy, 1 Dev. Eq. 77, 81 Gragg, 23 Pick. 88, 92 ; Boyers v. New-
( Henderson, J., dissenting, but not on tlie banks, 2 Ind. 388, 390; Meserve v. Me-
ground tliat the quarantine was charge- ser-ve, 19 N. H. 240, 243. Parol proof of
able with taxes : p. 84); Graves v. Coch- loss of papers and of their contents, and
rane, 68 Mo. 74, 77 ; Simmons v. Lyle, 32 of possession V)y the widow for a long
Gratt. 752 ; Felch v. Finch, 52 Iowa, 563, time of the land, prove title of dowress :
567 ; Spinning v. Spinning, 43 N. J. Eq. Youndt v. Miller, 91 N. C. 331, 334.

215, 245. 6 Dig. 1884, § 2604.

2 Austell V. Swann, 74 Ga. 278, 281. « 2 Scrib. on Dower, 74, § 5.

3 Austin V. Austin, 50 Me. 74, 77 ; ^ Rev. St. 1880, § 5707.
Gibbs V. Esty, 22 Hun, 266, 269; Lenfers « Pub. St. 1882, p. 637, § 4.

V. Henke, 73 111. 405, 41 1 ; Clark v. Muzzy, ^ Hurste v. Hotaling, 20 Neb. 178, 182,

43 N. H. 59 ; Mitchell n. Miller, 6 Dana, citing Coles v. Coles, 15 Jolin. 319.

79, 83 (allotment of slaves) ; Moore v. lo ^ court of chancery has no power

Waller, 2 Rand. 418, 421 ; McLaughlin v. to order the sale of real estate in which

McLaughlin, 20 N. J. Eq. 190; Campbell the widow has dower, and decree that she

V. Moore, 15 111. App. 129, 1.33; Peters v. receive money in lieu of dower, unless it

West, 70 Ga. 343, 348; Conant v. Little, be first ascertained that it is impracticable

1 Pick. 189. But a consent decree will to set out dower by metes and bounds :

not bind mortgagees who are not parties : Wilson v. Branch, 77 Va. 05, 69 ; see Her-

Lehman v. Rogers, 81 Ala. 363. bert v. Wren, 7 Cr. 370, 380, holding tiiat

■* Joims V. Fenton, 88 Mo. 64, 68; part of purchase money cannot be allotted

Austin V. Austin, supra; Shattuck v. in lieu of dower, unless all parties consent.

ASSIGNMENT OF DOWER.

259

held by her during her life ; the latter implies a special assent or
agreement on the part of the widow to accept it, instead of the
more precise and formal manner.

Without discussing the various remedies given at law and in
equity, and the procedure pointed out, both at common law and
under the statutes of the several States, it is deemed . .

Assignment

suOicient here to indicate some of the salient prin- i>y smumary

• 1 • Ai • J. r 1 I proceeding.

ciples governmg the assignment of dower by sum-
mary proceeding in the courts controlling the administration of
the estates of deceased persons, as " this convenient method of
proceeding has, in a great degree, superseded the common law
remedy by action." ^

Jurisdiction to assign dower is vested in courts having jurisdic-
tion of probate matters in Alabama,^ Arkansas,^ Connecticut,* Del-
aware,^ Florida,^ Illinois," lowa,^ Kentucky ,9 Maine,^'' ^

. TO -sr- io -ir States in which

Massachusetts," JMichigan,^'^ Minnesota,^^ Mississippi,^* probate conns
Nebraska,i5New Hampshire,i6New Jersey ,i' Newyork,i8 '''''"" ''"'""'•

1 2 Scrih. on Dower, 175, § 1, referring
to 4 Kent, 72 ; 1 Waslib. R. Prop.,
p. *L'26 ; 1 Hilliard, R. Prop., 2d ed.,
p. 172, § 52.

^ Humes v. Scruggs, 64 Ala. 40, 44;
Martin v. Martin, 22 Ala. 86, holding that
its jurisdiction is in derogation of com-
mon law, and proceedings must therefore
strictly conform to the statute ; Turnip-
seed r. Fitzpatrick, 75 Ala. 297, 302, hold-
ing assignment void if none of the lands
are situate in the county where order is
made ; Hause v. Hause, 57 Ala. 262,
showing concurrent jurisdiction with
courts of equity. See as to the effect of
a decree by consent, Lehman v. Rogers,
81 Ala. m:].

3 Hill ('. Mitchell, 5 Ark. 608, 619;
but chancery is not ousted : Jones v.
Jones, 28 Ark. 19, 20 ; probate and chan-
cery courts have concurrent jurisdiction :
E.\ parte Hilliard, 6 S. W. R. 326.

^ Way )'. Way, 42 Conn 52, 53 ; upon
the application of a creditor having lev-
ied : Greathead's Appeal, 42 Conn. 374.

s Lay ton v. Butler. 4 Harr. 507, 508;
Farrow v. Farrow, 1 Del. Ch. 457 ; Elia-
son r. Eliason, 3 Del. Ch. 260, 2G5.

« McClell. Dig. 1881, p. 476, § 7. See
Milton V. Milton, 14 Fla. 369.

^ Starr & Curt. An. St. p. 911, § 44

(in proceedings to sell real estate by
order of the probate court.)

^ Shawhan v. Loffer, 24 Iowa, 217,
224 ; Olmsted v. Blair, 45 Iowa, 42.

9 Shields v. Batts, 5 J. J. iVlarsh. 12,
15; Rintcli v. Cunningham, 4 Bibb, 462;
but not of lands alienated by the hus-
band, p. 4tJ3.

IS Williams v. Williams, 78 Me. 82. 84.
But not of lands alienated by the hus-
band : French v. Crosby, 23 Me. 276,
278; Austin v. Austin, 50 Me. 74.

11 Not of premises mortgaged : Sheafe
V. Spring, 9 Mass. 9, 12; the assignment
dates from the approval by the probate
court of the commissioner's report :
Kearns v. Cunniff, 138 Mass. 434.

1- The record must show the existence
of all jurisdictional facts : King v. Mer-
ritt, 34 N. W. R. 689. 690.

13 2 Scrib. on Dower, 188, § 36.

1* Not against strangers to the estate :
Jiggitts V. Jiirgitts, 40 Miss. 718, 726.

15 Comp. St. 1887, ch. 23, § 8.

IS Pinkham v. Gear, 3 N. H. 163, 167 ;
Biirnliam r. Porter, 24 N. H. 570, 577.

1' Rev. 1877, p. .323, § 17.

18 Concurrent with Superior Court and
County Court : C. C. Pr. §§ 263, 340 ; but
not where title is contested : Parks v.
Hardey, 4 Bradf 15, 10.

260

ESTATES OF DOWER AND CURTESY.

States in which
probate courts
have no jiiris-
fi let ion to as-
sign dower.

North Carolina,^ Oregon,^ Rhode Island,^ South Carolina,*
Tennessee,^ Vermont,^ Virginia/ and Wisconsin.^ In West
Virginia the word " circuit " appears in connec-
tion with the court referred to, wliich is not in the
Code of Virginia ; county and circuit courts have con-
current jurisdiction of probate matters in West Vir-
ginia, and it seems that jurisdiction to assign dower is not vested
in the county court.^ In the other States this power is not vested
in testamentary courts ; in Pennsylvania it has been so decided. ^*^
The proof in the proceeding to obtain the assignment of dower
must show marriage with the person in whose estate dower is
claimed,^^ seisin by the husband,^^ and his death, or

Proof neces- •' i • i i i • ^ j. •

sary in assign- other circumstancc by which the dower riglit is

ment of dower. -, ,„

consummated/"^

As a general rule, dower is assignable according to
the law in force at the time of the husband's death ; i*
but as to her right in property aliened, without her
joining in the conveyance, during coverture, she is
entitled according to the law as it stood at the date of

Assignment
under law at
time of death.

Anjainst alien-
ees at time of
alienation.

1 Concurrent with the Superior Court :
Campbell v. Murphy, 2 Jones Eq. 357,
359 ; proceedings should be in the county
of the husband's last residence, but lands
in adjoining county may be assigned :
Askew V. Bynum, 81 N. C. 350. See
Efland v. Efland, 96 N. C. 488.

2 Code, 1887, § 2961, when title is not
disputed.

3 But can entertain no equitable de-
fences : Gardner v. Gardner, 10 R. I. 211,
213 ; but see Eddy v. Moulton, 13 R. I.
105, and Smith i-. Smith, 12 R. I. 456.

4 Stewart v. Blease, 4 S. C. 37, 40 ; it
may set aside the report and direct as-
signment de novo : Irwin v. Brooks, 19
S. C. 96.

5 Rhea V. Meredith, 6 Lea, 605, 607 ;
but chancery has concurrent jurisdiction,
when proceeding in county court is fraud-
ulent, or the widow claiming dower is
also administratrix : Spain v. Adams, 3
Tenn. Ch. 319, 322.

6 Danforth r. Smith, 23 Vt. 247, 257.

" Code, 1887, § 2275; Devaughn v.
Devauffhn, 19 Gratt 556, 562.

8 2 Scrib. on Dower, 188, § .36.

9 1 Kelley's Rev. St. p. 501, § 9; Code,
1868, p. 444.

10 ShafEer v. Shaffer, 50 Pa. St. 394,
396.

11 But direct proof of marriage is not
indispensable ; it may be proved by rep-
utation, declarations, and circumstances
supporting a presumption, Jones v. Jones,
28 Ark. 19, 22 ; Jackson v. State, 8 Tex.
App. 60, 62 ; Blackburn v. Crawfords, 3
Wall. 175, 187 ; Van Tuyl v. Van Tuyl,
57 Barb. 235. See ante, § 107 ; 2 Scrib.
on Dower, 205, §§ 2-14.

1- Strict proof is not required : posses-
sion of the widow under direct or mesne
conveyance from the husband ; or posses-
sion by the husband with claim of title,
or receipt of rents by him from the per-
son in possession, is sufficient fmnui facie
proof: Carnall v. Wilson, 21 Ark. 62, 67 ;
Smith V. Lorillard, 10 John. 338, 355;
McCuUers v. Haines, 39 Ga. 195 ; Gentry
V. Woodson, 10 Mo. 224 ; Morgan v.
Smith, 25 S. C. 337. See avfp, § 111.

13 Proof of husband's seisin at some
time when the applicant for dower was
his wife, and his subsequent death, makes
a prima facie case in her favor : Reich v.
Berdel, i20 111. 499, 501.

14 Ante, § 112.

§ 117 ASSIGNMENT OF DOWER. 261

the alienation.^ She is entitled to dower in the value of the
lands at the time of the assignment, excluding the According to
increase in value by reason of improvements made value at time

•' p 1 !• of alienation.

thereon by the vendee or his grantees after the alien-
ation by the husband, but not excluding the increased value by
natural appreciation, or in consequence of the improvements made
by the owners of adjoining lands.^ But where im- But if deterio-
provements upon the land at the time of the aliena- [ngto^vXe'at
tion are subsequently torn down or deteriorate, the time of death,
converse of the rule does not seem to hold good; she is not
allowed dower in the value of the property at the time of the
alienation, but in its value at the time of the husband's death .^
But the widow is entitled to dower in the value of the premises at
the time of the assignment, where improvements have been erected
after a sale by the administratrix under order of the court, for
the payment of her deceased husband's debts, and before the
assignment of dower.*

Where the nature of the property in which dower is to be as-
signed precludes its setting apart by metes and bounds, as where
the husband was seised in common, or in coparcenary, ^^^;g„,j^g„t j^
the widow takes her dower in the husband's share of common with

. T ,^ cotenants.

such property in common with the heir and other
tenants;^ in a mill she may be endowed either of the in a mill.

1 Mayburry v. Brien, 15 Pet 21, .38 ; case the widow was not entitled to dower

Thomas v. Hesse, 34 Mo. 13, 24; John- unaffected by the law of 1852?
ston V. Vandyke, 6 McLean, 422, 427 ; " Boyd v. Carlton, 69 Me. 200, 203 ;

Curtis V. Hobart, 41 Me. 230, 232. In Carter v. Parker, 28 Me. 509; VVestcott

Indiana, the statute of 1852, abolishing v. Campbell, 11 R. I. 378, 380 ; Price v.

dower and giving the widow one third of Hobbs, 47 Md. 3-59, 370 ; Scammon r.

the husband's realty, was held not ap- Campbell, 75 111. 223, 227 ; Wood v. Mor-

plicable to land conveyed by the husband gan, 56 Ala. 397, 399 ; I'eirce v. O'Brien,

previously : Bowen v. Preston, 48 Ind. 29 Fed. Rep. 402 ; Felch v. Finch, 52

367, 372, citing the previous Indiana Iowa, 563.

cases. The same condition exists in ^ " Though this would seem to be
Iowa: Moore y. Kent, 37 Iowa, 20 ; Cra- pushing the doctrine to a questionable
ven (-'. Winter, .38 Iowa, 471, 481 ; Peirce extreme " : per Durfee, C. J., in Westcott
V. O'Brien, 29 Fed. Rep. 402, citing Iowa i\ Campbell, supm : JMcClanahan v. Por-
cases. The consequence of this doctrine ter, 10 Mo. 746, 752; Thompson v. Mor-
was iield, in Indiana, to operate to the row, 5 S. & R. 289, 291 ; per Wood, J.,
widow's deprivation of dower in lands in Dunseth v. Bank of U. S., 6 Oh. 76.
sold by the husband prior to the enlarge- * Phinney v. Johnson, 15 S. C. 158.
ment of dower, because to give her dower ^ j^te, § 111. Scribner, vol. 2, p. 639,
as fixed by tlie act of 1852 would be to § 1. mentions such hereditaments as a pis-
change the incumbrance subject to which cary , offices, a fair, a mnrket. a dove-house,
the purchaser bought into a fee, thus conrts, fines, heriots, &c., as requiring an
in)p;iiring a vested right : Taylor r. Sam- assignment in the rents and profits,
pie, 51 Ind. 423. Qiuvre whether in such

262

ESTATES OF DOWER AND CURTESY.

§117

third toll-dish, or of a third of the profits, or of the entire
mill for every third month ;i in a ferry, one tliird
of the profits, or tlie use of the ferry for a third
part of the time, should be set apart to the widow ;2 and so, when-
ever there can be no assignment by metes and bounds, there may
In rents and be either a division of the rents and ])rofits. after de-
proceeds'of" ductiug expenses for reasonable repairs and taxes, but
®'''®- not insurance,^ or a sale and division of the proceeds ;*

or a sum may be adjudged to her in gross for her dower in-
terest.^ If there be a sale of the whole estate, including the
dower of the widow, she is entitled either to a gross sum, equal
to an amount necessary to yield an annual payment to her of the
interest on one third of the net proceeds of sale for the remainder
of her life, which may be determined according to the

KiiIg to ascGr-

tain value of annuity tables,*" generally indicated either by statute
or by the supreme courts of the several States ; " or to
the payment of a sum equal to the interest on her share annually
until her death.^ In the latter case the payments should not be
made for a whole year at a time, but in monthly or quarterly
instalments.^

A sale of the lands of a deceased person by the administrator

1 Per Marsliall, J., in Sniitli v. Smith,
5 Dana, 179, 180; but see, as to the Illi-
nois statute on this suhjt^ct, Walker v.
Walker, 2 III. App. 418, 420.

2 Stevens v. Stevens, 3 Dana, .371, 373.

3 Hiljgartner v. Gebhart, 25 Oh. St.
5.57 ; Waisii v. Reis, 50 111. 477, 480. In
New York, where the court has, as re-
quired hy statute, fixed a sum equal to
one third of tlie rental value of the prop-
erty, and specified the same in the decree,
the court has no power to alter such final
judgment, the rents having depreciated :
Mclntyre v. Clark, 43 Hun, .352.

4 Lenfers v. Henke, 73 111. 405, 410.

5 Rich (.'. Ricli, 7 Bush, 53, 5-5. Where
a sum is assessed in lieu of dower, but
not in fact paid, the widow still has her
claim against the land itself, but no
specific lien thereon, under which she
can sell it, in the hands of an alienee :
Williamson v. Gasque, 24 S. C. 100.

c A number of such are given by
Scribner in an appendix to vol. 2 of his
v/ork on Dower. In Alabama it is held
that the " American Table of Mortality "

should be resorted to, as the orthodox
standard throughout the United States
and Canada, and that chancellors and
registers ought to take judicial knowl-
edge of both the existence and contents
of this table : Gordon v. Tweedy, 74 Ala.
2.32, 237.

" Graves v. Cochran, 68 Mo. 74, 76;
Unger v. Leiter, 32 Oh. St. 210, 214;
Wood V. Morgan, 56 Ala. 397, 399 ; Banks
V. Ranks, 2 Th. & C. 483, 484. And the
health of the widow should be taken
into account : McLaughlin v. McLaugh-
lin, 20 N. J. Eq. 190, 195; Swain v. Har-
din, 64 Ind. 85; Gordon v. Tweedy, 74
Ala. 232, 237. In South Carolina, one
sixth of the proceeds is paid to the widow
in lieu of her dower, without reference
to the age of the widow : Stewart v.
Pearson, 4 S C. 4, 46, citing Wright v.
Jennings, 1 Bai. 277, 280; Woodward
V. Woodward, 2 Rich. Eq. 23, 28; and
Douglass V. McDill, 1 Spears, 139, 140.

8 Ware v. Owens, 42 Ala. 212, 217.

9 Scammon v. Campbell, 75 111. 223,
228.

ANTE-NUPTIAI. CONTRACTS.

263

for the payment of debts of the deceased, under order of the pro-
bate court, does not include the dower right of the Dower not con-
widow ; hence she will not be precluded bv such sale, "^'9'?'^ '^>' ^!^-

' . * ministrator s

although she herself made it as administratrix, from sale of lands,
clainiiug her dower in the lands sold against the vendee.^ But a
sale or mortgage by her as dowress, in connection with the heirs,
conveys her dower right, which she cannot afterward set up
against any person •,^ and she may become a party to a sale by the
administrator, conveying her dower interest to the purchaser at
the administrator's sale,^ and is then entitled to an allowance out
of the proceeds of sale."* The same result follows where the pro-
bate court is empowered by statute to order the sale of real estate
free from the widow's dower.^

§ 118. Ante-Nuptial Contracts as affecting Dower. — Jointures,
SO named from the joint tenancy thereby created in the husband
and wife,*^ were introduced by the English Statute of
Uses" in lieu of dower, which, as has already been
stated,^ was recognized by the common law as attaching to strictly
legal seisin only, and wholly repudiated in chancery. Originall}^,

1 Pliinney v. Johnson, 13 S. C. 25, 28 ;
although slie herself advised the sale : To-
ledo, P. & VV. R. Co. V. Curtenius, 65 111.
120 ; Tiner v. Christian, 27 Ark. 300, 312 ;
Duke V. Brandt, 51 Mo. 221 ; although
the probate court ordered the sale free of
dower: Webb v. Smith, 40 Ark. 17, 25;
Coinpton V. Pruitt, 88 Ind. 171, 177 ;
Pepper r. Zahnsinger, 94 Ind. 88 ; Hutch-
inson V. Lemcke, 107 Ind. 121 ; Diefen-
derfer v. P^shleman, 113 Pa. St. .305.

'^ Hoppin V. Ho])pin, 96 III. 205, 270,
272. One of the grounds upon which this
decision was based is that the warrantor
is not permitted to attack a title, the
validity of which he has covenanted to
maintain: Clark v. P>aker, 14 Cal. 612, 630;
Van Rensselaer u. Kearney, 11 How. 297,
325. So where she represents her hus-
band as being dead, and conveys with the
children, she will be equitably estopjied
from asserting her dower upon the hus-
band's actual death : Rosenthal v. May-
liugh, 33 Oh. St. 155, 159; 2 Scrib. on
Dower, 251 et scq.

* In Alabama, by filing her written
consent in the office of the probate judge,
to the end that a complete title may be

vested in the purchaser at the adminis-
trator's sale : Code, 1886, § 2127. If she
fail to file such consent, the sale does not
convey her dower, and she has no interest
in the proceeds, but may pursue her
dower in the land unaffected by such
sale: Bradford v. Bradford, 66 Ala. 252,
256.

* Where the probate court has no
jurisdiction in the subject of dower, it is
doubtful whether it can order the pay-
ment to the widow of her share in the
proceeds ; but if there has been a conver-
sion, the jurisdiction is undoubted : Hart
V. Dunbar, 4 Sm. & M. 273, 287. Nor can
the administrator recover from the estate
the sum he has paid the widow for her
release of dower in lands sold by him
under probate license : Needham v. Be-
lote, 39 Mich. 487.

5 Schmitt V. Willis, 40 N. J. Eq. 515.

s Tomlins, Law Diet.

7 27 Hen. VIII. c 10. One of the mis-
chiefs sought to be remedied b}' this stat-
ute is recited to be " that by uses men
lost their tenancies by the curtesy, and
women their dowers."

8 Ante, § 111.

264 ESTATES OF DOWER AND CURTESY. § 1^8

the word meant a joint estate limited to both husband and wife,
but by the later rules may be an estate limited to the wife only,
expectant upon a life estate in the husband.^ The
UsL"irthe provisions of the Statute of Uses relating to joint-
United states. ^^.^ j^^^g ^gg^ substantially adopted in most of the

United States.

Equitable jointures differ from legal jointures chiefly in this,
that the former are good, although the estate settled upon the

Jointures in ^^^^^^ ^^ ^®^^ ^^^^'^ ^"® ^^ freehold to coutinuo during
equity. jjgj. ijfe^ if she be of age and join in the deed;^ and in

most States any pecuniary provision made for the benefit of the
intended wife in lieu of dower will, if assented to by her, operate
as a bar.3 n appears that courts incline to a liberal construction
of contracts in support of settlements made as a substitute for
dower;* whether a legal bar to dower exist or not, courts of
equity will enforce specific performance of ante-nuptial agree-
ments in lieu of dower, according to the same principles which
govern them in other cases of specific performance of contracts.^
Hence the provisions made for the wife must be fair and reason-
able, or she may elect to take her dower instead ;6 the covenants
must be fully performed on the part of the husband ; a failure
to comply with them through his fault or neglect destroys the
validity of her covenant not to claim dower.^ It is held m some
cases that marriage alone is not a sufficient consideration, the
ante-nuptial agreement to relinquish dower without some provision
in lieu thereof being deemed contrary to public policy ; « but in

1 Abb. Law Diet., tit. "Jointure." Babcock v. Babcock, 53 How. Pr. 97,

2 2 Scrib. on Dower, 409, § 35. 100.

3 A statutory provision that a jointure « Elvers v. Rivers, 3 Desaus. 190, 195 ;
in favor of an intended wife shall bar Farrow v. Farrow, 1 Del. Ch. 457 ; Shaw
any claim for dower, does not deprive v. Boyd, 5 S. & R. 309. It is self-evident
her of the power to bar ber dower by that a contract induced by fraudulent
any other form of ante-nuptial contract : representations is void : Peaslee v. Peas-
Barth v. Lines, 118 111. 374. lee, 17 N. East. R. (Mass,) 506, 514 ; and

* " Disregarding forms, the aim should such a contract cannot be ratified during

be to protect the rights of dower, and if coverture : lb., p. 515.

that object is attained by the agreement, '' SuUings v. SuUings, 9 Allen, 2.34,

the law is satisfied without any nice dis- 2-37 ; Butman v. Porter, 100 Mass. 337,

criminations between legal and equitable 339 ; Camden Mut. Association r. Jones,

jointures " : Logan v. Phillips, 18 Mo. 22, 23 N. J. Eq. 171, 173 ; Garrard v. Garrard,

28; Vincent y.Spooner, 2 Gush. 467, 474; 7 Bush, 486, 441; Johnson v. Johnson,

Findley v. Findley, 11 Graft. 484. 437 ; 23 Mo. 561, 568.

Andrews v. Andrews, 8 Conn. 79, 85. » Curry v. Curry, 10 Hun, 366. .370 et

5 Gould V. Womack, 2 Ala. 83, 91 ; seq. ; Stilley v. Folgpr, 14 Oliin, 610. 647;

Jenkins v. Holt, 109 Mass. 261, 262; Grogan v. Garrison, 27 Oh. St. 50,64 e< se-?.

§ 118 ANTE-NUPTIAL CONTRACTS. 266

others marriage is held a sufficient consideration to support a con-
tract for the relinquisliment of dower, if fairly entered into by a
woman sui juris} But the breach of a covenant collateral to
the controlling purpose of the contract, without fraud on the hus-
band's part, will not be construed as entitling her to claim dower.'-^
Post-nuptial settlements are not absolutely binding upon the
widow, as a bar to her dower, either at law or in equity ;3 if not
a legal jointure within the Statute of Uses, she will at Post-nuptiai
law be entitled to both the provision and her dower ;* settlements,
but in equity, and at law in cases where the settlement would,
if made before marriage, constitute a legal jointure, y^ .^ ,
she is put to her election whether she will take 'ween dower

... c A • 1 • ^""^ jointure.

dower or the jomture." And where, as is the case ni
many States, the statute authorizes married women to convey
their property as if single, the wife's release of her right to dower
to her husband is binding, if made for a good consideration, and
without fraud or improper dealing.^ But if she release her dower
on the husband's oral promise to convey to her other lands, and
he becomes insolvent before he has done so, equity will not aid
her to obtain a decree for dower against his assignee.'^ To re-
quire the widow to elect, the intention to exclude dower by the
marriage settlement must be shown, either by express words, or
manifest implication ; otherwise, she will be entitled to both.^

The wife may effectually relinquish dower by an agreement to
separate ; deeds of separation are upheld by courts in this coun-
try, as well as in England, if made through the me- Deeds of
dium of a trustee,^ or even without a trustee, if con- reparation.
summated.^o But " courts will not enforce any contract which is

1 Forwoofl V. Forwood, 5 S. W. R. wbctlier before or after the hnsl)and's
(Ky.) 3G1, and see authorities there cited, deatli : McLeery r. IVFcLeery, 6-5 Me. 172.

2 Freeland v. Freeland, 128 Mass. 509, * Hastinsrs v. Dickinson, 7 Mass. 153,
^^2- 155, affirmed in Gibson i\ Gibson, 15

3 Townscnd v. Townsend, 2 Sandf. Mass. 106. 110 ; Vance i-. Vance, 21 Me.
711; Crane v. Cavana, 36 Barb. 410; 364, .SRO.

Martin v. Martin, 22 Ala. 86; Walsh v. 5 Parham v. Parham, 6 Humph. 287,

Kelly, 34 Pa. St. 84; Carson v. Murray, 297; Butts i-. Trice, 69 Ga. 74, 76.
3 Pai. 483; Rowe v. Hamilton, 3 Me. 63. 6 Rimades v. Davis. 51 Mich. 306.

Accepting a gift of personalty from the 7 Winchester t;. Holmes, 138 Mass. 540.

husband in contemplation of death, and 8 Ljipg i-. Fleming, 1 Dev. Eq. 185,

declared in writing to be for her indi- 188; Swaine v. Perine, 5 John. Ch. 482^

vidual use and benefit, is no waiver of 488 ; Dudley v. Davenport, 85 Mo. 4fi-2.
dower: Mitchell v. Word, 60 Ga. 525, 9 Garbut r. Bowling, 81 Mo. 214, 217,

531 ; nor accepting a deed of real estate: citing authorities.
Dockray v. Milliken, 76 Me. 617, 519; 1° Hutton y. Hutton, 3 Pa. St. 100, 104.

266 ESTATES OF DOWER AND CURTESY. § 119

the price of consent by one party to tlic procurement of a divorce
by the other" ;i hence an agreement whereby the wife, jjcnding
her action for divorce, agreed with her husband, for a considera-
tion paid partly at the time, the remainder to be paid when the
divorce was granted, to make no claim for alimony, is void, as
being against public policy, and constitutes no bar against her
right to dower.2

§ 119. Election between Dower and Devise. — It has already
been observed,^ that it is the policy of the law to place the
widow's dower beyond the reach of the husband, who
superior to Can, at common law as well as under the statutes of
^''^''^^' most States, neither sell, convey, nor otherwise dis-

pose of his real estate so as to deprive his widow of dower therein
without her free consent. A devise to such effect is a fortiori
Hence widow void, unlcss shc chooscs to abide by it. If, therefore,
ifrdcmion to tl^e husband devise lands to his wife, she will, under
duwer, unless ^]^g Eufflish doctriuo as held before the change made

indicated to be "

in lieu of it. by statute in this respect,"^ take them as a voluntary
gift in addition to what the law secures to her as dower, unless it
appear plainly, either by express words or by manifest implica-
tion, that the devise was intended to exclude dower.^ The statute
referred to, enacted long after the establishment of the American
govei-nment,^ is of no force proprio vigore in any of the States of
the Union ; and the doctrine holding devises to be given in addi-
tion to dower, if not otherwise directed by the testator, is recog-
nized in all of them where not abrogated or modified by their own
statutes. This is the rule in California,^ Connecticut,^ Dela-

1 Per Pardee, J., in Appeal of Seeley, ^ 20 August, 1833.

14 Atl. R. (Conn.) 291. "^ Instead of dower or curtesy, spouses

2 Altliougli tlie divorced wife, upon take respectively one lialf of the commu-
payment of the consideration after the nity property (as to which see fwsf, § 122)
decree, executed a receipt to tlie hus- upon the dcatli of the other; and it is
band " in full of all demands to date, held that any devise by a husband to his
and particularly in full for all claims of wife goes to her in addition to the moiety
alimony " : Appeal of Seeley, supra. See secured to her by law : Beard v. Knox, 5
also to same effect Orth v. Orth, 37 N. Cal 252, 2.56, approved in Payne?;. Payne,
W. R. 67. 18 Cal. 291, 301, and in Estate of Silvey,

3 Ante, § 105. 42 Cal. 210, 213. See also Pratt v. Doug-

4 3 & 4 Wm. IV. c. 105, § 9. lass, 38 N. J. Eq. 516, 535, in which the

5 Birmingham v. Kirwan, 2 Sch & Lef. law of California in this respect is clearly
444, 452; Roper, Hush & Wife, 508; 2 stated.

Scrib. on Dower, 440 ; Lawrence v. Law- ® Lord v. Lord, 23 Conn. 327, 331 ;

rence, 2 Vern. 365 ; Lemon v. Lemon, 8 Hickey v. Hickey, 26 Conn. 261. See

Vin. Abr. 3G6, pi. 45; Hitchin i'. Hitchin, Anthony t'. Anthony, 55 Conn. 2.:6, hold-

Pr. Ch. 133 ; Brown v. Parry, 2 Dick. 685. ing that a testator giving his widow two

ELECTION liETWEEN DO WE II AND DEVISE.

267

ware,^ Georgia,^ lowa,^ New Jersey,* New York/' South Carolina,'^
Virginia,'^ and West Virginia.^

Tliis rule, however, was changed in England by the statute
ah'eady mentioned,'' which has been incorporated, with some mod-
ifications, into the codes of many States. According Devise in Ueu
to the English statute, the devise to the wife of any o^^"^*''"-
land, or any estate or interest therein, barred her of dower, unless
a contrary intention appeared from the will, thus reversing the
prcsumj)tion arising from an unexplained devise for the benefit
of the widow. In some of the States the language of the stat-
ute is more sweeping than that of the English act, and seems to
bar dower in every case where the widow takes anything under
the will. So, for instance, in the States of Florida ^^ and North
Carolina.^i Generally, however, the condition allowing her to en-
joy both the devise and dower is, that such shall clearly appear
to be the testator's intention, either expressed or necessarily im-
plied ; so held in the States of Alabama,^ Arkansas,^^ Illinois,^*

thirds of tlie entire income of tlie personal
property, and the use of nearly one iialf
of all the real estate, meant to exclude
dower.

^ Kinsey v. Woodward, 3 Ilarr. 450,
464, followed in Warren v. Morris, 4 Del.
Ch. 289, 299.

2 Tooke V. Hardeman, 7 Ga. 20, 27 ;
Speer v. Speer, 67 Ga. 748, 749.

^ Iowa lias abolished dowerat common
law (see unte, § 106), but courts still use
the term " dower " to dosifjnate tlie wid-
ow's rigiit in the property of her deceased
husband. It is lield that devise to the
wife of a life estate in all the testator's
real property is consistent with her dower
right to one third of it in fee : Dauglierty
V. Dauglierty, 69 Iowa, 677 ; Bhiir v.
Wilson, 57 Iowa, 177, following Metteer
V. Wiley, 34 Iowa, 214, and other earlier
eases. Specific devise of one third of all
testator's estate held to be in addition to
her dower or distributive share under
the statute : Estate of Blaney, 34 N. W.
R. 768.

* Colgate V. Colgate. 23 N. J. Eq. 372.

5 Konvalinka i-. Sciilegel, 104 N. Y.
125 ; Matter of Frazer, 92 N. Y. 239, 250 ;
Earl, J., in the Matter of Zahrt, 94 N. Y.
605. 600; Lewis r. Smith, ON. Y. 502,
511 ; Adsit ;;. Adsit, 2 Johns. Ch. 448, 450.

^ Braxton v. Freeman, 6 Rich. L. 35,
citing earlier South Carolina decisions.

^ Herbert v. Wren, 7 Cr. 370, 377;
Dixon V. McCue, 14 Graft. 540, 548, an-
nouncing tlie rule on this subject to be
the same as announced in England by
Chancellor Kindersley, in Gibson v. Gib-
son, 17 Eng. L. & Eq. R. 349, 352.

» Tracey v. Shumate, 22 W. Va. 474,
499 ; Atkinson v. Sutton, 23 W. Va. 197,
200. In both of these cnscs it is held tliat
evidence showing the situation of the tes-
tator and the circumstances surrounding
him at the time of writing the will is
competent to show his intention.
9 3 & 4 Wm. IV. c. 105, § 9.

1'' McClell. Dig. 475, § 1. The widow
loses her dower right unless she dissent
from tlie will within one year: Wilson c.
Fridenberg. 21 Fla. 386, 389.

" Code, 1883, § 2103.

1- Dean v. Hart, 62 Ala. 308, 310, citing
earlier Alabama cases.

13 Apperson v. Bolton, 29 Ark. 418, 427.

» Blatciiford r. Newberry, 99 111. 11, 55,
in which Mr. Justice Sheldon remarks
that the legal effect of a devise in lieu
of dower is a mere offer by the testator
to piircJiase the dower interest for tlie
benefit of the estate ; United States ?•.
Duncan, 4 McLean, 99, in which it was

268

ESTATES OF DOWER AND CURTESY.

§119

Indiana,! Kansas,^ Kentucky ,3 Maine,* Maryland,^ Massachusetts,^
Michigan,' Minnesota,^ Mississippi,^ Missouri,io Nebraska," New
Hampshire,!^ Ohio,!^ Oregon,^* Pennsylvania,!^ Rhode Island,!^
Tennessee,!^ Vermont,!^ and Wisconsin. ^^

If the devise or provision in the will be inconsistent with tlie
enjoyment of the right of dower,^^ or expressly stated to be in
Where the licu of dower,^! or not expressed to be in addition to
rakrbothT-* dower in those States which do not allow dower and

held that the testamentary provision, to
bar dower, must afford a reasonable pre-
sumption that it was given in lieu of
dower.

1 There is no dower in Indiana ; but
the principle appHes to the widow's rights
under the Statute of Descents, and it is
held that slie cannot take both under a
will and under the statute in the absence
of a clearly expressed intention to that
effect : Ragsdale v. Parrish, 74 Ind. 191,
195. Gift of the residue to a class, " after
my beloved wife has taken her portion
according as the law provides," clearly
indicates the testator's intention tliat a
specific devise of real estate to his wife,
preceding the residuar}' clause, shall be
in addition to her share under tlie statute :
Burkhaiter v. Burkhalter, 88 Ind. 368.

2 Sill V. Sill, 31 Kans. 248, 252, quoting
the statute, Comp. L. 1879, ch. 117, § 41
et spq. But the husband may execute a
valid will giving the whole of his prop-
erty to Ills wife : Martindale v. Smith, 31
Kans. 270.

3 Smith V. Bone, 7 Bush, 867 ; Ex-
change Bank v. Stone. 80 Ky. 100, 115.

4 Hnstings v. Clifford, 32 Me. 132;
Allen V. Pray, 12 Me. 138.

5 Durham v. Rhodes, 23 Md. 233, 242 ;
Gough V. Manning, 26 Md. 347, 366.

6 Pub. St. 1882, p. 750, § 20; Upham
V. Emerson, 119 Mass. 509, 510.

'• How. St. 1882, § 5750; Tracy v.
Murray, 44 Mich. 109.

^ Dower being abolished, this principle
holds good under the law of descent :
Washburn v. Van Steenwyk. 32 Minn. 836,
349 ; In re Gotzian, 34 Minn. 159.

9 Wilson V. Cox, 49 Miss. 538, 544;
Booth V. Stebbins, 47 Miss. 161, 164.
But in this State also dower is abolished
by statute : ante, § 106.

if> Dougherty v. Barnes, 64 Mo. 159,
161, citing other Missouri cases ; Kaes v.
Gross, 92 Mo. 647, 660 ; Martien v. Norris,
91 Mo. 465, 471.

11 Comp. St. 1887, ch. 2.3, § 17.

12 Gen. L. 1878, p. 455, § 13 ; Copp v.
Hersey, 31 N. H. 317, 330.

13 Hibbs V. Insurance Co., 40 Oh. St.
543, 553 ; Corry v. Lamb, 12 N. East. 660.

w Code, 1887, §2971.

15 Watterson's Appeal, 95 Pa. St. 312,
316.

16 Pub. St. 1882, p. 472, § 11; Chapin
V. Hill, 1 R. I 446 ; see Durfee, Petitioners,
14 R. I. 47, 53.

" Code, 1884, § 3251; Jarman v. Jar-
man, 4 Lea, 671, 673.

18 Hathaway v. Hathaway, 44 Vt. 658 ;
s. c. 46 Vt. 234.

19 Application of Wilber, 52 Wis. 295 ,
Wilber V. Wilber, 52 Wis. 298 , Van
Steenwyck v. Washburn, 59 Wis. 483,
497.

20 Where, for instance, the directions
of the testator in the disposition of the
estate cannot be carried into effect if the
widow also take her dower : Dodge v.
Dodge, 31 Barb. 413, 417 ; Tobias v.
Ketchum, 32 N. Y. 319, 327 ; Matter of
Zahrt, 94 N. Y. 605, 609 ; Speer v. Speer,
67 Ga. 748 ; Norris v. Clark, 10 N. J. Eq.
51, 55; Bailey v. Boyce, 4 Strobh. Eq 84,
91 ; Ailing v. Cliatfield, 42 Conn. 276;
Van Guilder v. Justice, 56 Iowa, 669; In
re Gotzian, 34 Minn. 159.

21 It is immaterial in such case whether
tlie presumption be in favor of cumulative
right to devise and dower, or that the
devise is in lieu of dower ; for in every
case the testator's will is to be followed,
if not in derogation of the widow's statu-
tory right.

§ 119 ELECTION BETWEEN DOWER AND DEVISE. 269

devise cumulatively witliout express direction or man- vise and dowpr,
iicst mtention oi the testator,^ the widow, thou,i:li she to take'eitiier,
cannot enjoy both her dower right and the provision made for her
by will, may elect to take either the one or the other.

The right of election is guaranteed to the widow in the fullest
manner, and for the purpose of enabling her to secure her own
best interests and greatest advantage. To this end
she is entitled, not only to have sufficient time to tutes.aT^''
make her choice, but also to full information of the ^'*'''*'°"-
condition of tlie estate, either by a bill in equity to ascertain the
extent of the respective interests,^ or by a full disclosure on the
part of the executor or administrator, or by the judge of the pro-
bate court, as may be provided by statute.^ No act of election
will be binding on the widow, unless done under a full knowledge
of all the circumstances, and of her rights, and with the intention
of electing.* Thus she is not bound by an election made under
the mistaken supposition that the estate accepted by her is free
from all claims and demands, or before a knowledge of the cir-
cumstances necessary to a judicious and discriminating choice
has been obtained,^ or if it was induced by fraud or imposition.^
But if she make her election under a full knowledge of the facts,
she will be bound thereby ,7 in the absence of fraud or unfair
advantage, even though she did not understand her legal rights.^
Thus, by her deliberate election to take under the will she bars

1 BMrnard v. Fall River Bank, 135 v. Hardeman, 7 Ga. 20. .30; Reaves v.

Mass. ;^20; Cowdrey v. Hitchcock, 103111. Garrett, .34 Ala. 558, 562; Sill >• Sill, 31

2^^. ^"3- Kans. 248; James v. Dunstan, 38 Kans.

^ United States v. Duncan, 4 McLean, 289; Yorkly v. Stinson. 97 N. 0. 236.
99, 102 ; Melizet's Appeal, 17 Pa. St. 449, 5 In such case equitv will relieve her:

455; Hall j;. Hall, 2 McCord Ch. 269,280; Pinckney v. Pinckney," 2 Hich. Eq. 218,

Smither v. Smither, 9 Bush, 230, 236; 237; Upshaw r. Upshaw, 2 Hen. & Munf.'

Grider v. Eubanks, 12 Bush, 510, 514; 381, 390, 393; Osmun r. Porter, 39 N.J.

Johnston v. Duncan, G7 Ga. 61, 71. Eq. 141.

3 It is held in Tennessee, that if the « McDaniel i<. Douglas, 6 Humph. 220,

widow is prevented by the fraud of the 229, approving Smart v. Waterhose, 10

e.xecutor or other person from dissentiug Yerg. 94 ; Morrison v. Morrison, 2 Dana,

to the will, the executor will be deemed 13, 18; Elbert v. O'Neil, 102 Pa. St. 302. '
a trustee, the same as if she had dissented 1 She must take subject to all the

In time: Smart r. Waterhose, 10 Yerg. charges and limitations of the will :

94,103. Kline's Appeal, 117 Pa. St. 139, 148;

* Payton v. Bowen, 14 R. I. 375 ; Mil- Snook v. Snook, 43 N. J. Eq. 1.32.
likin V. Wclliver, 37 Oh. St. 460; Ander- 8 jjght v. Light, 21 Pa. St. 407; Me-
son's Appeal, SO Pa. St. 476, 496; O'Dris- Daniel v. Douglas, supra; Bradfords v.
coll r. Koger, 2 Desaus. 295, 299 ; English Kents, 43 Pa. St. 474, 484; Cannon v.
V. English, 3 N. J. Eq. 504, 510; Tooke Appersen, 14 Lea, 553, 5^2.

270 ESTATES or DOWER AND CURTESY. § 119

herself of her dower, although the estate prove insolvent.^ Nor
can she treat her election as a nullity, and yet retain what she has
received in virtue thereof.^ The statutes of the several States
contain minute provisions as to the time and manner in which
the election is to be made ;3 and as the right is a statutory one,
the widow is held to a strict compliance therewith.'* If she permit
the time to expire without making her election, she will, in most
States, be held to a waiver of her dower.^

The right to elect is a strictly personal one, which in the
absence of statutory authority can be exercised by no one for her,
although she die before the time given to make the
widow a Sr- election have expired,^ or be insane ;'' but provision is
sonai right. ^^^^ ^^ statute, in some instances, authorizing the
widow to elect by attorney, or guardian.^ In Maine the election
bv an insane widow was held valid, on the ground that the acts of
an insane person are not void, but voidable.^ In the case of infant
widows the courts sometimes make elections for them,^*^ or it must
be made by her guardian.^^ In England courts of equity would
o-rant relief to persons under disability required to elect between
two inconsistent rights;^ and this doctrine is applied in some
American States to impose upon courts of equity or probate courts

1 Grider v. Eubanks, 12 Bush, 510, 514. Boone r. Boone, 3 Har. & McH. 95 ; Hin-
See Evans v. Pierson, 9 Rich. L. 9. ton v. Hinton, 6 Ired. L. 274; Welch v.

2 Steele v Steele, 64 Aln. 438, 461 ; Anderson, 28 Mo. 293, 298 ; Crozier's
Tomlin V. Javne, 14 B. Mon. 160, 162; Appeal, 90 Pa. St. 384; Eltzroth r. Bin-
see Evans V. Pierson, 9 Puch. L. 9. ford, 71 Ind. 455.

3 In 2 Scrib. on Dower, 505, § Uetseq., '' Collins v. Carman, 5 Md. 503, 524;
will be found a collection of these statutes. Lewis v. Lewis, 7 Ired. L. 72 ; Van Steen-

■* It was held in Missouri, in the cases wyck v. Washburn, 59 Wis. 483, 501 ;

of Price v. Woodford, 43 Mo. 247, 25.3, Heavenridge v. Nelson, 56 Ind. 90, 93 ;

and Ewing v. Ewing, 44 Mo. 23, that the Pinkerton v. Sargent, 102 Mass. 568; but

failure of the probate court to notify the see iiifra, p. 271, note 1.

widow of her right of election, as required 8 in Delaware: Rev. St. 1874, p. 534,

by statute, does not operate to extend § 7 ; North Carolina : Code, 1883, § 2108.

the time given her by the statute. See In Ohio the probate court appoints some

further, on this point, infra, text preced- person to ascertain what would be most

ing note 12, p. 271. valuable for the widow, and the court

5 Stephens v. Gibbes, 14 Fla. 331, 352 ; enters of record an election to that effect :

Waterbury v. Netherland, 6 Heisk. 512; Rev. St. 1880, § 59G6.

Dougherty v. Barnes, 64 Mo. 159; Gant 9 Brown v. Hodgdon, 31 Me. 6-5, 67.

I). Henly, 64 Mo. 162 ; Cowdrey v. Hitch- ^ Addison v. Bowie, 2 Bl. Ch. 606, 623.

cock, 103 111. 262, 270; Zaegel v. Kuster, " Cheshire v. McCoy, 7 Jones L. 376,

51 Wis. 31, 39 ; Kennedy v. Johnston, 65 377.

Pa. St. 451, 454; Quarles v. Garrett, 4 12 gge cases cited by Cooper, J., in

Desaus. 145. Wrigtit r. West, 2 Lea, 78, 82, and also

0 Sherman v. Newton, 6 Gray, 307 ; by Freeman, J., dissenting, p. 95.

§ 119 ELECTION BETWF.EN DOWER AND DEVISE. 271

the duty to make election for an insane widow ; ' in othoi-s, the
question is left open and the power doubted ."•^

Acts in pais may determine an election, as well as matter of
record : thus assignment of dower by a court of competent juris-
diction," the filin"; of a petition for dower within the , ^ .

' " ' Ac\.9, in pnts

time allowed to make the election,* renouncing by amounting to

1 . ,1 .11 1 1 • • election.

deed the provision made in the will and claiming
dower,^ taking possession of property under a will and exercising
unequivocal acts of ownership over it for a long time,^ and giv-
ing written notice to the executors of her intention,'^ have all been
held to constitute an election binding upon the widow. So in a
State where the widow is not entitled to take both her dower and
the homestead under the homestead law, her continued occupa-
tion of the homestead in the absence of an election to take dower
will be deemed an election to take under the homestead right.^
But where not only the time, but also the method in which the elec-
tion is to be made, is pointed out by statute, there must be a sub-
stantial, if not literal, compliance with its provisions.^ Thus, if
the renunciation is not made within the time prescribed,!*^ or not in
the court ^^ or with the formalities indicated,!^ the widow is neither
bound nor entitled as if she had made a valid election. There must
be something more than a mere intention or determination to
elect ; nor is the declaration of such an intention itself sufficient.!^

1 Wriirlit ;'. West, s?//jm, Freeman dis- v. Walthall, 14 Gratt. 518, 525: Clay v.
sentinu on tiie ground that such election Hart, 7 Dana, 1, 6; Haynie '•. Dickens,
must nevertheless be made within the 68 111. 267 ; Cory v. Cory, 37 N. J. Eq.
statutory period allowed therefor; Ken- 198,201; Rutherford r. Mayo, 76 Va. 117,
nedy r Johnston, 65 Pa. St. 451, 455; 123; Exchange Bank v. Stone, 80 Ky.
Van Steenwyck v. Washburn, 59 Wis. 100; Clark v. Middlesworth, 82 Ind. 240,
483, 504 et seq. ; State v. Ueland, 30 Minn. 247 ; Cooper v. Cooper, 77 Va. 198, 205 ;
277 ; renhallow v. Kimball, 61 N. H. 596. Hovey v. Hovey, 61 N. H. 599.

2 Crenshaw r. Carpenter, 69 Ala. 572. " Greiner's Appeal, 10-3 Ta. St. 89.

8 Cheshire v. McCoy, 7 .Jones L. :176. ^ Thomas v. Thomas, 35 N. W. R.

* Raynor v. Capehart, 2 Hawks, 375, (Iowa), 693.

377. 9 Supra, p. 270, note 4.

5 Hawley v. James, 5 Pai. 318, 435; i" Ex parte Moore, 7 How. (^Tiss.) 6fi5
Young V. Young, 1 A. K. Marsh. 662; so (the written renunciation was filed within
accepting a legacy and retaining the con- four days after the expiration of the six
sideration for a written relinquishment of months allowed by the statute).

dower to the husband estoj) her. Stod- " Daudt v. Musick, 9 Mo. App. 169;
dard v. Calcompt, 41 Iowa, 320, 333. Baldozier v. Haynes, 57 Iowa, 683 ; Hous-

6 Reed v. Dickerman, 12 Pick. 146 ; ton v. Lane, 62 Iowa, 291.

Delay r. Vinal, 1 Met. (Mass.) 57, 65; i- Estate of Rhodes, 11 Phila. 10.3.

Thompson v. Hoop. 6 Oh. St. 480, 485 ; i^ English v. English, 3 N. J. Eq. 504 ;

Stark V. Hunton, 1 N. J. Eq. 216, 227; Shaw r. Shaw, 2 Dana, 341, 343 ; Forester

Caston V. Caston, 2 Rich. Eq. 1 ; Craig v. Watford, 67 Ga. 508.

272 ESTATES OF DOWER AND CURTESY. § 119

The acceptance by the widow of the testamentary provision
made for her, in lieu of her right of dower in the testator's estate,
Dower under g^ves her an interest tlierein superior to tliat of a leg-
will has prefer- j^^^g . having relinquished her dower, which is para-

ence over other ° ~ ,. n <> i x

legacies. mount to the rights of creditors as well as ot legatees

or devisees, she thereby became a purchaser of the interest repre-
sented by the devise or legacy to her. She takes, not by tlie
bounty of the testator, but in virtue of a contract with him, the
reciprocal considerations being the relinquishment by the widow
of her legal right of dower, thereby enabling the testator to dis-
pose of his estate without reference thereto, and the price offered
by him for this right, consisting in the devise or legacy to her.i
But while it is agreed, on all sides, that the claim of the widow
having relinquished dower is superior to that of other legatees in
the will, so that she takes to their exclusion, if there is a defi-
ciency, it is held in some of the States that, since
onequaiitr^^ slic takcs as if by contract, she is on an equality with
with creditors, pj.g(jj|.Qj.g^ .^^^ sliarcs with them if the assets are in-
sufficient to pay the debts and her legacy ; 2 but the view seems
to preponderate that she can receive nothing by way
po.tponed'tlf of legacy until all the debts have been paid.^ In
creditors. Missouri it is held that the widow taking under a wMll

specifically disposing of all the real and personal property of the
testator, must contribute to the payment of debts ratably with
other legatees and devisees.*

It may be remarked in this connection, that the renunciation of
dower enures to the estate, and has been held to go to the heir or
Dower re- distributee in default of testamentary disposition,^ so
that the widow herself is not precluded from taking

nounced enures
to estate.

1 Isenliart v. Brown, 1 Edw. Ch. 411, 3 Beekman v. Vanderveer, 3 Dem. 619,
413, citing English and American author- 622 ; Paxson v. Potts, 3 N. J. Eq. ol3, S24 ;
ities ; 2 Scrib. Dower, 527, § 59 ; 1 Jarm. Bray v. Neill, 21 N. J. Eq. 343, 850 (but
on Wills, *467, and Bigelow's note, p. a legacy given in lieu of dower does not
*458, collecting American cases ; as to the abate on deficiency of assets, if the testa-
preference of legacies in lieu of dower tor left real estate of which the widow is
over other legacies, see post, § 452, and dowable : Howard r. Francis, 30 N. J. Eq.
(■ases. 444, 447) ; Chambers v. Davis, 15 B. Mon.

2 Tracy v. Murrav, 44 Mich. 109, 112; 522, 527 ; Arrington v. Dortch, 77 N. C.
Lord V. Lord, 23 Conn. 327, 330; Thomas 367; Steele v. Steele, 64 Ala. 438, 462;
V. Wood, 1 Md. Ch. 296, 300 ; Gibson v. Hanna v. Palmer, 6 Col. 156, 161 ; Miller
McCormick,10Gill&J.65, 113; Shackel- v. Buell, 92 Ind. 482; Warren v. Morris,
ford V. Miller, 91 N. C. 181, 187 (giving 4 Del. Ch. 289, 306.

the widow preference to creditors under * Brant's Will, 40 Mo. 266, 277.

the statute). ^ 1 Jarm. on Wills, *466.

§ 120 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. 273

or sharing therein as heiress or distributee, although slie could
not take as dowress ; ^ but it seems that the declaration by the
testator that the legacy is to be in lieu of dower, prevents her from
taking anything elsc.^

On the other hand, the rejection by the widow of the provisions
made for her by will generally results in the diminution or con-
travention of devises and legacies to other parties. ^^^^^ ^^^ ^j^^_
The rule in such case is, that the devise or legacy tion on devises

... to otliers.

which the widow rejects is to be applied in compensa-
tion of those whom her election disappoints.^ If she has elected
to take dower in another State, it will be presumed that such has
been set off to her there, and she cannot resist the sale of real
estate in the forum without rebutting such presumption.'* Where
the right of dower includes title to property specifically devised,
the widow's election to take dower will defeat such devise, and the
devisee has no recourse upon the estate for its value.'^

§ 120. Dower as affected by the Statute of Limitations, and by-
Estoppel. It was early settled in England, and the doctrine was
adopted in many of the States, that the widow's remedy for the
assignment of dower was not within the operation of the Statute
of Limitations.^ By the English Statute of Limitations,' however,
suits for dower were limited to twenty years after the Right of dow-
death of the husband ; and similar statutes exist in afteHa'pse of
some of the United States. Thus in Alabama the many years,
remedy of the widow is barred, as against the alienees of the hus-
band, after three years ; ^ and although the Statute of Limitations
does not propria vigore limit the time for the assignment of dower
as against heirs, yet a court of equity, or even a court of law, upon
principles of public policy and general convenience, may refuse to
intervene for the relief of a dowress who has slept upon her
rights.'^ In Georgia dower is barred by a failure to apply for it

1 Kempton, Appellant, 23 Pick. 163, spoon v. Watts. 18 S. C. .S96, 423 ; Mc-
164. Keynolds v. Counts, 9 Gratt. 242.

2 Billiard v. Benson, 31 Hnn, 104 ; * Lawrence's Appeal, 49 Conn. 411,
Chamberlain v. Chamberlain, 43 N. Y. 424.

424, 443; Kerr v. Dougherty, 79 N. Y. 6 Gainer v. Gates, 34 N. W. R. (Iowa),

327, 345 ; Matter of Benson, 96 N. Y. 499. 798.

3 2 Sto. Eq. Jar. § 1075 ft seij. ; Dean ^ Per Richardson, C. J., in Barnard i-.
V. Hart, 62 Ala. 308, 810 ; Sandoe's Edwards, 4 N. H. 107, 109 ; Ridgway v.
Appeal, 65 Pa. St. 314, 316; Jennings v. Mc Alpine, 31 Ala. 458, 462.

.Jennings, 21 Oh. St. 56, 80 ; Timberlake ^ 3 & 4 \Vm. IV. c. 27.

V. Parish, 5 Dana, 345, .352 ; McCallister « Code, 1886, § 1913.

V. Brand, 11 B. Mon. 370, 395; Wither- » Barksdale v. Garrett, 64 Ala. 277,
VOL. I. — 18

274

ESTATES OF DOWER AND CURTESY.

§120

within seven years from the death of the husband.^ In Indiana ^
and Mississippi,-'^ where dower is now abolished,* it was formerly
held that dower was included in the general Statute of Limita-
tions ; and it is now so held in Illinois,^ lowa,^ Kentucky,'' Maine,
New Jersey,^ Ohio,i^ Pennsylvania,^^ and South Carolina.^^ In
Michigan^^ and North Carolina,^* the Statute of Limitations is held
not to include dower ; while in Massachusetts,^^ New Hampshire,^^
and New York,^'^ it is expressly included. In Missouri it was for-
merly held that the action for dower was not barred by the Stat-
ute of Limitations,^^ but is now decided to be within the statute
barring recovery of real estate after ten years.^^ But although
there be no statute of limitation applicable to dower, the stale-
ness of a demand will in many States afford an equitable defence
against a widow who has permitted twenty years or more to
elapse before asserting her right.^'^

Although, as a general rule, the right of dower is not barred,
at law, by collateral satisfaction,^^ yet in equity the acceptance of

281 : " When twenty years are suffered
to elapse from tlie consuiuination of the
rii^lit of dower," says Brickell, C. J., in
this case, " in the absence of evidence
wliich shows a recognition of the right by
the parties wiiose estate is affected by it,
witliout the assertion of the right by one
of the appropriate remedies provided by
law, a conclusive presumption of its ex-
tinguishment arises, not only in courts of
equity, but in courts of law " : citing
earlier Alabama cases.

1 Code, 1882, § 1764, pi. 4; Doyal v.
Doyal, 31 Ga. 193 ; but the time does not
run during a suspension of the general
Statute of Limitations : McLaren w. Clark,
62 Ga. 106, 116.

2 Harding v. Presbyterian Church, 20
Ind. 71, 73.

3 Torrey v. Minor, 1 Sm. & M. Ch.
489, 494.

* Ante, § 106.

° But no period short of seven years'
adverse possession under claim and color
of title, and the payment of taxes, will
work a bar to the claim of dower, and
the same strictness of proof as in actions
of ejectment will be required to sustain
the bar : Stowe v. Steele, 114 111. 382, 386.

0 Rice V. Nelson, 27 Iowa, 148, 156;
but only when there is adverse posses-

sion : Berry v. Furhman, 30 Iowa, 462,
464.

^ Kinsolving v. Pierce, 18 B. Mon.
782, 785.

8 Durham v. Angier, 20 Me. 242, 245.

9 Conover v. Wright, 6 N. J. Eq. 613,
615.

i> Tuttle V. Willson, 10 Oh. 24; but
where the widow is beyond seas, equity
will not allow the staleness of her claim
to bar dower: Larrowe v. Beam, 10 Oh.
498, 502.

11 Care v. Keller, 77 Pa. St. 487, 493.

12 Caston V. Caston, 2 Rich. Eq. 1, 3.

13 May V. Rumney, 1 Mich. 1, 7.

1* Campbell v. Murphy, 2 Jones Eq.
357, S60.

15 Pub. St. 1882, p. 742, § 14.

16 Robie I'. Flanders, 33 N. H. 524, 528.
1" Spoor V. Wells, 3 Barb. Ch. 199, 203.

18 Littleton v. Patterson, 32 Mo. 357,
365; Johns v. Fenton, 88 Mo. 64.

19 Robinson v. Ware, 94 Mo. 678 ;
Beard v. Hale, 8 S. W. R. 156.

2^ Barksdale v. Garrett, 64 Ala. 277,
281 ; Gilbert v. Reynolds, 61 111. 513,
516; KiddalU. Trimble, 1 Md. Ch. 143,
150 ; Carmichael v. Carmichael, 5 Humph.
96, 99.

'-1 2 Scrih. on Dower, 253, and authori-
ties tliere cited.

§ 121 ESTATE BV TIIK CURTESY. 275

anything in lieu thereof by the widow estops her from ^ ,j^^
claiming dower in addition thereto.^ TIiiis it has i-ioiHiiy in

" 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 "^^ of (lower

been held that, if the wife join her husband in a deed estops the
conveying his real estate in fraud of creditors, and ^"^
take a deed from the vendee, she thereby divests herself of her
inchoate dower, although the conveyances are subsequently set
aside at the suit of creditors ;2 and if she join in her husband's
deed, she is estopped from asserting dower against parties claim-
ing under it.^ So if the widow sell, as administratrix,* or join in
the conveyance by the heirs,^ with covenant of good and perfect
title, she is estopped from claiming dower in the estate sold.* In
like manner, she will be estopped from asserting dower in prop-
erty which by her conduct, or by means of fraudulent practices,
she has induced others to buy under the belief that she waives
her dower right ;*^ a fortiori if she enjoy and retain the fruits and
benefits of her misguiding acts." But it is no defence to an action
for dower, that the defendant was a purchaser in good faith and
had no notice of the widow's right ; ^ nor is the statement by the
widow, that the purchaser would get a perfect and unquestionable
title, sufhcient to estop her from claiming dower, if it could not
have misled the purchaser.^ So the receipt of payments, under
an agreement that, so long as the widow made no claim to dower,
a certain sum should be paid to her annually, does not create an
estoppel.^*^

§ 121. Estate by the Curtesy. — At common law (both at law
and in equity) an estate of freehold for the term of his life de-
volves upon the husband on the death of his wife, known as the
estate by the curtesy of England, in the lands and tenements of
which she was seised in possession during coverture in fee simple
or tail, provided lawful issue had been born to them capable of
inheriting the estate.^^ This estate, like dower, of which it is the

1 See on the doctrine of election, nnre, ^ Allen v. Allen, 112 111. 32:>, 328;
R 119. Knox V. Ilicsinl^otliam, 75 Ga. 69'.', 701 ;

2 Meyer v. Mohr, 19 Abb. Pr. 299, Dunlap v. Tliomas. 69 Iowa. 358 ; Con-
305 ; but see as to dower in lands fraudu- noUy v. Branstler, 3 Bush, 702 ; Sweaney
lently conveyed, ante, § 113. v. IMallory, 62 Mo. 485, 487.

3 Dundas ;.'. Hitchcock, 12 How. (U.S.) ' Hodges v. Powell, 96 N. 0. 64, 68.
256, 2o7 ; Johnson v. Van Velsor, 43 8 Cruize v. Billmire, 69 Iowa, 397.
Mich. 208, 216; Elmendorf v. Lockwood, ^ Martien c. Norris, 91 Mo. 465, 475;
57 N. Y. 322, 325. Heller's Appeal, 116 Pa. St. 534.

'^ Macree k Mellon, 23 Miss. 585. i" Heller's Appeal, 116 Pa. St. 534, 544.

5 Reeves v. Brooks, 80 Ala. 26, 29. " 1 Washb. R. Prop. *127 et seq.

276

ESTATES OF DOWER AND CURTESY.

§121

counterpart, was introduced into the several States, and is in exist-
ence in most of them, cither by special enactment of the legisla-
ture, or by the judicial recognition of its introduction with the
common law. It has been held to exist in Alabama,^ Arkan-
sas,2 Connecticut,^ Delaware,* Illinois,^ lowa,^ Kentucky/ Mainc,^
Maryland,^ Massachusetts,!^ Michigan,ii Minnesota,!^ Missouri,!^
Nebraska,!* New Hampshire,!^ New Jersey,!*^ New York,i' North
Carolina,i8 Ohio,!^ Oregon,^^ Pennsylvania,2i Rhode Island,22 South
Carolina,23 Tennessee,^* Vermont,^^ Virginia,26 ^Vest Yirginia,^" and
Wisconsin.28 In California, Louisiana, Nevada, and Texas, estates
by the curtesy and dower never existed,^^ and in Colorado, Indiana,
Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, and Nevada, they have been abolished
by statute.^^

The requisites to entitle a husband to curtesy are, — 1. Lavrful
marriage ; 2. Seisin of the wife during coverture of an estate of
inheritance, either legal or equitable ; 3. Birth of a child alive
during the life of the wife ; ^^ and 4. Death of the wife.

The seisin must, in general terms, be one of inheritance, l)nt
may be either legal or equitable ;32 whether there must be actual

1 Wells V. Thompson, 13 Ala. 703. 803.

2 McDaniel v. Grace, 15 Ark. 4tj5, 483.

3 Watson V. Watson, 13 Conn. 83, 86.

4 1 Washb. R. Prop. *r29.

5 Monroe v. Van iMeter, 100 111. 347,
352.

^ Curtesy is abolished in Iowa, but
the husband takes "dower" in tlie wife's
estate : Hurleman v. Ilazlett, 55 Iowa,
256.

^ Mackey v. Proctor, 12 B. Mon. 433,
436 ; Stewart v. Barclay, 2 Bush, 550, 554.

8 1 Washb. R. Prop. *129.

9 Rawlings v. Adams, 7 Md. 26, 54.
1" Shores v. Carley, 8 Allen, 425.

11 Brown v. Clark, 44 Mich. 309.

12 1 Washb. R. Prop. *129.

13 Tremmel v. Kleiboldt, 75 Mo. 2.55.
1* Forbes v. Sweesy, 8 Neb. 520, 525.

15 Foster v. Marshall, 22 N. H. 491.

16 Cushing V. Blake, 30 N. J. Eq. 689.

17 Leach v. Leach, 21 Hun, .381.

18 Childers v. Bumgarner, 8 Jones L.
297 ; Nixon v. Williams, 95 N. C. 103.

19 Koltenbrock v. Cracraft, 36 Oh. St.
584.

20 Gilmore v. Gilmore, 7 Oreg. 374.

21 Ege V. Medlar, 82 Pa. St. 86.

22 Briggs V. Titus, 13 R. I. 136.

23 Withers v. Jenkins, 14 S. C. 507.
2J Crumley v. Deake, 8 Baxt. 361.
2S Haynes v Bourn, 42 Vt. 686.

28 Carpenter v. Garrett, 75 Va. 129.
2' Winkler r. Winkler, 18 W. Va. 455.

28 1 Washb. R. Prop. *129.

29 Ante, § 106.

30 Avte, § 106.

31 In Pennsylvania the birth of a child
is not, by provision of the statute, neces-
sary : 1 Washb. R. Prop. *140, § 46 ; but
the maxim of the common law in this
respect is Morhius exitiis non est erifiis. and
if tlie mother die before exitiis, and tliat
be by the Caesarian operation, though it
be born alive, it would not be sufficient
to give tlie father curtesy : lb., referring
to Co. Litt. 29 b; Marselhs v. Tlialhi-
mer, 2 Pai. 35, 42. But it is immaterial
whether the child is born before or after
the wife acquires her estate : Jackson v.
Johnson, 5 Cow. 74, 102 ; Comer v. Cham-
berlain, 6 Allen, 166, 170.

32 Robison v. Codman, 1 Sumn. 121,
128; Davis v. Mason, 1 Pet. 503, 508;
Tremmel v. Kleiboldt, 6 Mo. App. 549,
affirmed, 75 Mo. 255; Robinson v. Lake-

§ 122 COMMUNITY PllOPEKTY. 277

seisin, as at common law, the authorities diverge in the several
States, most of them liolding to the common law rule;Mjut in
some instances curtesy is allowed in reversions to which the wife
was entitled, seisin in law being deemed sufficient.^ Possession
by some coparceners, or tenants in common, amicable to the
others, is sufficient seisin in fact to vest an estate by the curtesy
in the husbands of such others.'^

Ui)on the birth of a child alive, the husband's right to curtesy
in the lands of his wife is said to be initiate. In this condition it
is both salable and assignable.* It is consummated by the death
of the wife, the freehold thereby devolving upon him ijjso facto, in
like manner as the estate of the ancestor upon the heir;° no pre-
liminary form is necessary to consummate his title.

§ 122. Community Property. — Community is the name by
which, in the French law, a species of partnership is designated,
contracted between a man and a woman when they c„n,,j^„„ity
are lawfully married to each other.^ It may be either property.
conventional, when formed by express agreement in the marriage
contract, or legal, arising out of the contract itself. It is neces-
sary to consider, briefly at least, the nature and incidents of the
property affected by the law of community, because, in the States

nan, 28 Mo. App. 135, 140; Winkler i'. Bush v. Bradley, 4 Day, 298,305. And
Winkler, 18 W. Va. 455, 456 ; Gushing it is generally held that a feme covert is
r. Blake, oO N. J. Eq. G89 ; unless the considered in law, as in fact, possessed of
devise or conveyance bar the right : Mon- the wild lands she maj' own, so as to sup-
roe V. Van Meter, 100 111. .S47. The use port curtesy in her husband: Jackson
of such words as " exclusively of her said v. Sellick, 8 John. 2fi2, 270; Davis v.
husband," " in trust for the sole and Mason, 1 Pet. 506 ; Barr v. Galloway, 1
separate use of my said daughter Ado- McLean, 476, 480 ; Guion v. Anderson, 8
laido without and free from the control Humph. 298, 322 ; Day v. Cochran, 24
of any husband," &c., in the conveyance ISIiss. 261, 277. In Kentucky, however,
to the wife, have been held not suflScient this exception is not allowed: it was first
to deprive the husband of curtesy : Rank qtiestioned in Vanarsdall i'. Fauntleroy,
V. Rank, 13 Atl. (Pa.) 827; Dubs v. Dubs, 7 B. Mon. 401, 402, and denied in Neely
31 Pa. St. 149, citing numerous cases ; v. Butler, 10 B. Mon. 48, 51.
Soltan V. Soltan, 93 Mo. 307. =* Carr v. Givens, 9 Bush, 679; Wass

1 Carpenter v. Garrett, 75 Va. 129, r. Bucknam, .38 Me. 356, 360; Vanars-
134; Stewart v. Barclay, 2 Bush, 550, dall i-. Fauntleroy, 7 B. Mon. 401.

553; Reed r. Reed, 3 Head, 491 ; Tayloe * Briggs v. Titus, 13 R. I. 1.36, citing
V. Gould, 10 Barb. .388, 400; Orford v. and approving In re Voting Laws, 12
Benton, .30 N. H. -395, 402; Malone v. \\. I. 586; Martin r. Pepall, 6 R. I. 92;
McLaurin, 40 Miss. 161, 163 ; Shores Lang r. Hitchcock, 99 111. 550, 552, citing
V. Carley, 8 Allen, 425; Planters' Bank Rose v. Sanderson, 38 111. 247, and Short-
ly. Davis, 31 Ala. 626, 629 ; Mnckey v. all v. Hinckley, 31 111. 219.
Proctor, 12 B. Mon. 4-33, 436; Nixon i-. '" Watson v. Watson, 13 Conn. 83, 8-5.
Williams, 95 N. C. 10.3. " Bouvicr, Law Diet., " Community."

2 McKee v. Cottle, 6 Mo. App. 416 ;

278 ESTATES OF DOWER AND CUKTESY. § 122

of California, Louisiana, Nevada, and Texas, its devolution upon
the death of the husband or wife affects the common law prin-
ciples governing descent, dower, and curtesy.

Under the Code of Louisiana,^ every marriage superinduces of
right partnership or community of acquests or gains, unless the
Under Code of Contrary be stipulated, consisting of the profits of all
Luuisiaiia. ^j^g effccts of wliich the husband has the administra-
tion and enjoyment, of the produce of the reciprocal industry of
both husband and wife, and of the estates which they may acquire
during coverture, either by donations to them jointly, or by pur-
chase, subject to the debts contracted during the marriage, which
must be acquitted out of the common fund, whilst the debts of
husband or wife anterior to the marriage are payable out of their
own individual effects. The husband administers tlie community
property and may dispose of the same without the wife's consent ;
but she has her action against the husband's heirs if she prove
that he has sold or otherwise disposed of it in fraud to her injury.
Upon the dissolution of the marriage all the effects in the recip-
rocal possession of both husband and wife are presumed common
effects or gains, unless it be satisfactorily proved which of them
Avere brought in marriage, or have been given or inherited sepa-
rately, and the community property is divided into two equal
portions between the husband and wife, or between their heirs ;
the gains are equally divided, although one brought in marriage
more than the other, or even where one brought nothing at all,
including the fruits hanging by the roots on the hereditary or
proper lands, and the young of cattle yet in gestation, but not the
fruits of the paraphernal effects reserved to herself by the wiie.
The wife and her heirs and assigns may exonerate themselves
from the debts contracted during the marriage by renouncing
the gains, unless the wife took an active concern in the effects of
the community. But she must make an inventory, and renounce
within a proper time ; and if she, being above the age of major-
ity, permit judgment to pass against her as a partner, she loses
the power of renouncing. If she die before making the inventory,
the heirs shall be allowed another term of equal length, and
thirty days in addition thereto, to deliberate. Creditors of the wife
may attack the renunciation, if made to defraud them, and accept
the community of gains in their own names.

1 Civ. Code, 1870, art. 2309 et seq.

§ 122 COMMUNITY PKOPEIITY. 279

The widow, whether she accept or renounce, has the right, dur-
ing the delay granted her to deliberate, to receive her reasonable
maintenance and that of her servants out of the provisions in
store, and if there be none, to borrow on account of the common
stock ; and she owes no rent during such term for a house inhab-
ited by her, belonging to the community or to the heirs of the
husband, and if such house was rented, the rent is payable out of
the common fund.

In California, upon the death of the wife the entire community
property, without administratioii, belongs to the surviving hus-
band, except such portion thereof as may have been Under Code of
set apart to her by judicial decree, which is subject to ^'^i'^"™'*-
her testamentary disposition, and in the absence thereof goes
to her descendants or heirs exclusive of the husband. Upon
the death of the husband, one half of the community property
goes to the surviving wife, and the other half to his devisees
or heirs, subject to debts, family allowance, and expenses of
administration.^

In Texas the property owned before marriage by either husband
or wife, or acquired during coverture by gift, devise, or descent,
together with all the increase of lands (and formerly
of slaves) so acquired, are his or her separate prop-
erty ; but all property acquired by either husband or wife during
coverture, except in the manner aforesaid, is the common prop-
erty of the husband and wife, and during coverture may be dis-
posed of by the husband, and is liable for the debts of the husband
and for the debts of the wife contracted during the marriage for
necessaries. Upon the dissolution of the marriage by death, the
remainder of the common property goes to the survivor, if the
deceased left no children, but if there be a child or children of
the deceased, one half shall go to the survivor, and the other half
to such child or children. It is not necessary for the surviving
husband to administer upon the community property, but he must
file a full, fair, and complete inventory and appraisement of all the
community ])roperty, and keep a fair and full account of all ex-
clianges, sales, and other disposition of the community property,
and uj)()n final partition account to the legal heirs of his wife for
their interest in the community, and the increase and profits of
the same, in default of such inventory, and. in default of bond,
1 Civ. Code, §§ 1401, 1402.

280 ESTATES OF DOWER AND CURTESY. § 122

when required, administration may be granted as in other cases.
The same right is accorded to a surviving wife, until she marry
again, in which case there must be administration.^

In Nevada the community property is defined like that in
Texas ;2 the wife is, however, required to file a full and complete
inventory of her separate property in the office of the
recorder of the county in which she resides, and if
there be real estate, also in the counties in which the same lies,
in default of which such property is prima facie not her sep-
arate property. The husband controls the community property,
the wife her separate property. There is neither dower nor cur-
tesy ; but on the death of the wife the entire community property
belongs, without administration, to the surviving husband, and
on the death of the husband one half of the community property
goes to the surviving wife, and the other half to his devisees or
heirs, subject to his debts, the family allowance, and expenses of
administration.

1 Pasch. Ann. Dig., art. 4641 a seq. ; 2 Comp. L. Nev. 1873, § 151 et seq.

Kev. St. 1888, § 2851 et seq.

§ 123 DISSOLUTION OF PARTNEliSUlP BY DEATH. 281

CHAPTER XII.

ESTATES OF DECEASED PARTNERS.

§ 123. Dissolution of the Partnership by the Death of one of its
Members. — Tlic death ol" any member of a linn operates its disso-
lution as to allji unless by the articles of copartner- Death of one
ship or other agreement between the" partners it is ^X-"s nfe"'
otherwise stipulated.^ In the absence of an agree- panuersi.ip.
ment of all the partners, the executors of a deceased partner have
no right to become partners with the survivors of the Administrator
firm, nor in any manner to interfere with the partner- ^^^^ "o demand
ship business, save to represent the deceased for all accounting.
purposes of accounting ; ^ but a testator may by his will so direct
the continuance of the partnership after his death, Testator may
that the whole estate shall be liable for the post-mor- ^'^^H X^''''
tuary debts, or only to the amount of his actual inter- partnership,
est in the partnership debts at his decease.^ It has been held in
England,^ and in some instances in the United States,^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^j^^
that a court of equity will authorize the administrator m^^v direct

'■ '' _ _ continuance.

of a deceased partner to continue the partnership m

1 Ames V. Downing, 1 Bradf. 321, 325, Miller v. Jones, 30 111. 54, 60, on the rela-
with numerous authorities; Knapp v. tive rights and duties of the administrator
McBride, 7 Ala. 19,28; Jenness v. Carle- of a deceased partner and the surviving
ton, 40 Mich. 343; 2 Lindl. on Part. 1044 ; partners; al.so McKean y. Vick, 108 111.
1 Coll. on Part. § 164 ; Story on Part. § 5; 373, 377, showing that it is the duty of
Hoard v. Clum, 31 Minn. 186. the administrator of the deceased partner

2 Story on Part. §319«; Scholefield to compel the surviving partner to settle
17. Eichelijerger, 7 Pet. 586, 594 ; Laugh- up the partnersliip business without de-
lin V. Lorenz, 48 Pa. St. 275, 282; Gralz lay. To same effect: Gwynne v. Estes,
V. Bayard, 11 S. & R. 41 ; Edwards v. 14 Lea, 662, 676.

Th()mas,66Mo. 468, 481 ; Espy !-. Comer, * Story on Part. §319rr; Burwell v.

76 Ala. 501, 503 ; Leaf's Appeal, 105 Pa. Cawood, 2 How. 560, 577 ; Davis r. (^hris-

St. 505, 513. tian, 15 Gratt. 11; Exchange Bank v.

8 " And, unless restrained by special Tracy. 77 Mo. 594, 599.

agreement, tiiey have the power, by in- ^ Thompson v. Brown, 4 John. Cli.

stituting a suit in chancer}', to have the 619, citing Montagu on Part. 187 ; Sayer

affairs of the partnership wound up in a v. Bennett, and Barker v. Parker, 1 T. U.

manner which is generally ruinous to the 295.

other partners " : 2 Coll. on Part. § 623, *< Intimation by Cliancellor Kent in

p. 950. See remarks of Lawrence, J., in Thompson v. Brown, suj>ra ; Powell v.

282 ESTATES OF DECEASED PARTNERS.

123

belialf of an infant heir ; but this seems a dangerous power, per-
ilous alike to the administrator, who is personally liable for debts
incurred in the prosecution of the business, and the beneficiaries
of the estate, whose interests may be jeoparded by the vicissi-
tudes of trade, although the administrator may exercise the utmost
Liability for vigilancc and caution. The extent of the liability of
debts cmited dcceascd partner's estate for debts contracted after

after testator s ^

death. ^ig death on behalf of the partnership will in all cases

depend upon the terms of the agreement in virtue of which it is
continued ; ^ and while it is clear that, on general principles, no
limitation of the extent of his assets to be employed in the part-
nership business can affect the rights of creditors existing at the
time of his death,^ it is equally clear that only the most unambig-
uous language, showing the positive intention of the testator to
render his general assets liable for debts contracted after his
death, can justify the extension of the liability of his estate be-
yond the actual fund employed in the partnership at the time of
his death.^

The continuation of the partnership after the testator's death,
in pursuance of the directions in the will, has the effect of cre-
Continuance ating a ucw partnership, of which the survivors and
under will executors of the deceased partner are the members ;

creates new ^

partnership. ^ud Creditors of this new firm have no claim upon the

North, 3 Ind. 392, .395, citing as authority Tomkins, 18 S. C. 1, 24 ; In re Clap, 2

the case of Thompson v. Brown, and Low. 168.

holding that a probate court, by virtue ^ Story, J., in Burwell v. Cawood, 2

of its equity powers, may authorize the How. 560, 577; Jacquin v. Buisson, U

administrator of a deceased partner to How. Pr. 385, 389 ; Brasfield v. French,

carry on the partnership business in be- 59 Miss. 632, 636; In re Clap, 2 Low.

half of an infant heir. 168 ; Smith v. Ayer, 101 U. S. 320, 330.

1 As to the difference in the rights of In Hart v. Anger, 38 La. An. 341, a
creditors of a partnership directed to be clause in the partnership articles that
continued l)y a testator's will, and of one " in the event of the death of either of
continued in virtue of a partnership con- the parties to tiiis act, it is to be optional
tract, see Blodgett v. American National with the survivor whether said copurt-
Bank, 49 Conn. 9, 23 ; dictum of John- nership shall continue or not," was held
son, J., in Scholefield v. Eichelberger, not to be enforceable. In England an
7 Pet. 586, 594 ; Davis v. Christian, 15 executrix, who was directed to carry on
Gratt. 11, 32 et seq. Where the pro- her testator's partnership and exceeded
vision in the partnership article is simply her authority by employing assets therein
that the deceased partner's capital shall to an extent not warranted by the will,
remain in the business, the executor is was allowed, upon her and the surviving
not admitted into the management of the partner's bankruptcy, to prove for the
business : Wild v. Davenport, 48 N. J. L. excess so employed under their commis-
129 137. sion : Ex parte Richardson, Buck's Cas.

2 2 Coll. on Part. § 618 ; Tomkins t;. in Bankr. 202, 209.

§1:24 POWERS OF SURVIVING PARTNERS. 283

general assets of the testator, but only u[)uii sueh assets as are
directed by the will to be therein employed.^ And in this new
firm the executor pledges his own responsibility to the creditors,
although he carries on the business not for his own benelit, but
only for the benefit of children or legatees of the testator.^ Hence
it must be optional with the executor, even where an Executor may

, .. iiji Mij. !• i. refuse to con-

apparent duty is imposed by the will, to refuse to con- 4;,,^^^. partner-
nect himself with the business, and with still greater ^'''P-
reason in the case of an administrator.^ If he carries out the
request of the testator in continuing his business after his death,
it is to be conducted in the manner in which the testator con-
ducted it ; and the general rule, that if an executor sell on credit
he must take security for the effects sold, does not apply to sales
made in the course of such business.*

§ 124. Powers and Liabilities of Surviving Partners. — Upon the
dissolution of a firm by the death of one of its members, the sur-
vivors are, at common law, alone entitled to sue and surviving part-
liable to be sued in respect of debts owing to or by ^^^l H^f^^^
the firm.5 They have the legal right to the possession ^ebts.
and disposition of all partnership effects, for the pur- Le^ai title to
pose of paying the debts of the firm and distributing ^!! Jli^^-iyiJg
the residue to those entitled.^ They become, in equity, pawners.

1 2 Coll. on Part. §§ 019, 621 ; Pitkin zen's M. Ins. Co. v. Ligon, 50 Miss. 305,
V. Pitkin, 7 Conn. 307, 311 ; Stanwood v. 3U; Wild v. Davenport, 48 N. J. L. 129.
Owen, 14 Gray, 195 ; Vincent u. Martin, ^ Edgar v. Cook, 4 Ala. 588, 590;
79 Ala. 540, 544. Jacquin v. Buisson, 11 How. Pr. 385, 388 ;

2 2 Coll. on Part. §§(521,622, citing Gar- Louisiana Bank r. Kenner, 1 La. 384.
land ex parte, in which Lnril Eldon says Berry v. Folkes, 60 Miss. 576, 610 et seq.;
(referring to an executor carrying on the and a reasonable time within wliich to
partnership business under direction of elect is given : Wild v. Davenport, 48
the will) that " the case of the executor N. J. L 129, 136.

is very hard. He becomes liable, as per- * Cline's Appeal, 106 Pa. St. 617.

sonnlly responsible, to the extent of all ^ 2 Coll. on Part. § 623 ; Daby r. Erics-

hisown property; also in his person, and son, 45 N. Y. 786, 790; Murray v. Miim-

as he may be proceeded against as a ford, 6 Cow. 441 ; Voorhies v. Baxter,

bankrupt, though he is but a trustee. 1 Abb. Pr. 43 ; Osgood v. Spencer, 2 H.

But he places himself in that situation & G. 133 ; Walker v. Galbreath, 3 Head,

by his own choice, judging for himself 315; Roys v. Vilas, 18 Wis. 169, 173.

whetlier it is fit and safe to enter into *> Hanna i'. Wray, 77 Pa. St. 27 ; An-

that situation, and contract that sort of drews v. Brown. 21 Ala. 437; Tillotson

responsibility." Wightman v. Townroe, i>. Tillotson, 34 Conn. 335, 358; Territory

1 .Alaule & Sel. 412 (in this case, how- v. Redding, 1 Fla. 242; Case r. Abeel, 1

ever the executor bad no authority under Pai. 393, 398; Marlatt r. Scantland, 19

the will to carry on the partnership); Ark. 443, 445; Gray v. Palmer, 9 Cal.

Alsop V. Mather, 8 Conn. 584, 587 ; Ciii- 616 ; Holland v. Fuller, 13 Ind. 195, 199;

284 ESTATES OF DECEASED PARTNERS. § 124

In trust to pay trustees, and will be held liable as such for any conver-
dLrlbute. sion to their own use of the partnership funds or prop-
erty in their hands ; ^ and if they continue the trade or business
Continuation of the partnership with the partnership stock, it is at
of partnership ^j j ^^j^ j-jg^j ^nd thcv will bc liable, at the option of

business at t j

their own risk, the representatives of the deceased partner, to account
Representa- f^j, ^he profits made thereby, or to be charged with

tivGS niiiv QG-

mand interest, interest upou the deceased partner's share of the sur-
profit^'.^ " plus, besides bearing all the losses ;2 but, except under

particular circumstances, the party having the choice cannot
elect the interest for one period and the profits for another, but
must elect to take one or the other for the whole period.^
And if the profits are claimed, bad debts must also be de-
ducted ; and if the continuance prove beneficial to the parties,
Surviving part- the Surviving partner should receive a reasonable
nergeneraiiy allowaucc for his skill and industry in conducting

entitled to no ''

compensation, the busincss,* although usually a surviving partner is
not allowed compensation for winding up the partnership busi-
ness,^ unless the services rendered are extraordinary and perplex-
ing in their nature, so as to justify an exception to the general
rule,^ or stipulated in the articles of copartnership.^ The whole
transaction should be adopted or repudiated.^ If, however, the
business is carried on by the survivors with the assent
only profits^, if of the cxccutor or administrator of the deceased part-
tiiey consent. ^^^^ ^^^^ survivors are liable for the profits only, and
if a loss transpires, they are not liable for either unless there was

Barry v. Briggs, 22 Mich. 201, 206; Dwi- < Griggs v. Clark, 23 Cal. 427, 430;

nel V. Stone, 30 Me. 384, 386 ; Evans v. see also O'Reilly v. Brady, 28 Ala. 530,

Evans, 9 Paige, 178; Heath v. Waters, 535; Vanduzer y. McMillan, 87 Ga. 299,

40 Mich. 457; Little v. McPherson, 76 311; Schenkl v. Dana, 118 Mass. 236;

Ala. 552, 556; Grim's Appeal, 105 Pa. Freeman y. Freeman, 142 Mass. 98.
St. 375, 381 ; Freeman v. Freeman, 186 & Beatty v. Wray, 19 Pa. St. 516 ;

Mass. 260, 263; Anderson v. Ackerman, Lonmis v. Armstrong, 49 Mich. 521, 525;

88 Ind. 481, 485. Cooper v. Reid, 2 Hill Ch. (S. C) 549;

1 Renfrow v. Pearce, 68 111. 125; Cooper r. Merrihew, Riley Eq. 166; Starr

Costlev r. Towles, 46 Ala. 660 ; Farley y. v. Case, 59 Iowa, 491, 503; O'Neill v.

Moog,"79 Ala. 148. Puff, 11 Phila. 244, 246 ; Brown's Appeal,

^ Story on Part. § 343 ; Fithian u. 89 Pa. St. 139 ; Piper v. Smith, 1 Head,

Jones, 12 Phil. 201 ; Oliver r. Forrester, 93; Gregory v. Menefee, 83 Mo. 418. In

96 111. 315, 321 (see dissenting opinion, Missouri the statute now makes provision

325) ; Brown's Appeal, 89 Pa. St. 139, for compensation : Laws, 1885, p 25.
147 ; Freeman v. Freeman, 142 Mass. 98 ; ^ jjite v. Hite, 1 B. Mon. 177, 179.

Klotz V. Macready, 39 La. An. 638. ^ Sangston v. Hack, 52 Md 173, 199.

3 Goodburn v. Stevens, 1 Md. Ch. 420, » Washburn v. Goodman, 17 Pick. 519,

430. 526.

§ 124 POWERS OF SURVIVING PARTNERS. 285

negligence or carelessness in the management of the business. ^
Nor do the executors, who allow the share of the capi- Rgpresenta-
tal of their testator to remain in and be employed in t'ves not liable

3.S pm tncrs lor

the business of the partnership after his death, accord- penniuing use

• ii -n J.1 J. "^ Stock

ing to the testator's mstruction m the will or the pai-t-
nership agreement, thereby become liable as partners, or incur
any responsibility .^ And since the liability to account for profits
after dissolution rests upon the exposure of the stock of tiie out-
going partner to the risks of the new business, there is no liability
to account when such partner has withdrawn as much or more than
as much of the partnership funds as he is entitled to.^ If the busi-
ness is carried on with the consent of some of those who repre-
sent the interest of the deceased partner, and against the consent
of others, the earnings are to be divided according to the capital
to which each was entitled, after deducting such share of them
as is attributable to the skill and services of the surviving part-
ner,* if there are no circumstances rendering such a rule unjust or
inapplicable.

A distinction has been drawn, with respect to the right of sur-
viving partners, between property or effects in possession, of
which the personal representatives of deceased part- distinction be-
ners become tenants in common with the survivors, ^^een effects

in possession

and choses in action, debts, and other rights of action, and ciioses in

. • K T-> j_ j_i • T action.

which belong to the surviving partner.^ i3ut this dis-
tinction is indicative of very slight, if any, practical difference :
for as to the choses in action, the survivors become trustees thereof,
so soon as they recover thereon or reduce them to possession, for
the benefit of the partnership, and the representatives of the
deceased partner possess in equity the same right of sharing and
participating in them as the deceased partner himself would if
living;^ and as to their right to the effects in possession, it is
sufficient to enable them to wind up the affairs of the firm, pay
its debts, and distribute the residue. If necessary for such pur-

1 Millard v. Ramsdell, Harr. (Mich.) 3 Hyde v. Easter, 4 Md. Cli. 80, 84;
Ch. 373, 394. But in such case, the ex- Taylor v. Hutchison, 25 Gratt. 536,
ecutor or administrator ceases to have a 548.

lien upon the property as against subse- * Robinson v. Simmons, 15 N. East. R.

quent creditors of the concern : Hoyt v. (Mas';.) 558, 563.

Sprague, 13 Otto, 613, 628. ' 5 gtory on Part. § 346; Wilson v. Soper,

2 Richter v. Poppenhusen, 39 How. Pr. 13 B. Monr. 411, 413.

82, 91 ; Laughlin v. Lorenz, 48 Pa. St. 275, « Story on Part. § 346, and authori-

282 ; Avery v. Myers, 60 Miss. 367, 372. ties.

286 ESTATES OF DECEASED PARTNERS. § 125

Smvivinji part- posG, thev may recover the partnership property even

iiers may re- ' ... r- i i i i i

cover from from thc administrator ot the deccasea partner;^

administrator, . ^ ^ e i • 4^".2

and assifjii and they may assign and transfer any chose in action,''
eitylor I'm--" or partnership property in possession.^ Whether in
ment of debts, paying the partnership debts the surviving partner

Whether sur- ^ "^ ^ „ ^ ,.^^ ,, • i 11 i-rr

vivinK partner may prefer one creditor over anotlier, is held dnicr-
creaitoi^!"" ently in different States. The common law right to
do so was asserted to exist in Missouri ,4 until the statute was
enacted requiring payment pro rata if the estate is insolvent,^
and still exists in some other States,^ but is emphatically denied
in Colorado " and Tennessee.^

The executor or administrator of a surviving partner, who died
with partnership effects in his possession while engaged in settling
Executor or the partnership business, is entitled to the possession
administrator q£ g^gj^ effccts, and is charged with the duty of com-

of siirviviiifT 1 1 1 J

partner entitled pleting such Settlement ; and he cannot be precluded

to partnersliip '^ °.. ,. ,rji • ^ •

effects. from receiving compensation out ot the partnership

funds for his services in the performance of this duty.^

§ 125. Remedies of Partnership Creditors in Equity. — In equity,
and under the statutes of most of the States, though not at com-
^^j^j mon law, partnership creditors have the right, if the
creditors may surviving partner is insolvent, to compel payment of
of deMal^ed ^ their debts out of the deceased partner's estate to the
partner, ^^^^^ amount of their demands.io Story, in his work on

1 Calvert v. Marlow, 18 Ala 67, 71 ; » Loeschigk v. Hatfield, 51 N. Y. 660;
Dwinel v. Stone, 30 Me. 384. But the Bartlett v. Parks, 1 Cush. 82 ; Rose v.
surviving partner must prove the debt, Gunn, 79 Ala. 411,415.

like any other creditor of the deceased, * Collier v. Cairns, 6 Mo. App. 188,
and has no preference over other cred- 190 ; Denny v. Turner, 2 Mo. App. 52, 55.
itors : Bird r. Bird, 77 Me. 499. See also ^ Laws, 1883, p. 22.
Wilby V. Phinney, 15 Mass. Ill, 118, and 6 Ely v. Horine, 5 Dana, 398; Loes-
Johnson v. Ames, 6 Pick. 330. Where chigk y. Hatfield, s»;ira ,• Egberts r. Wood,
partnership property was on dissolution 3 Pai. 517. But it was lately lield in
left with one of the members, who died. New York, that an assignment for the
and the e.xecutor converted it and placed benefit of creditors, in which preferences
the proceeds to the credit of the estate, are created, cannot be made without tiie
the other partners may recover from the assent of the representatives of the de-
estate their share of the proceeds only ; ceased partner : Nelson v. Tenney, 36
if the act of conversion was tortious or Hun, 327.

negligent, the executor is personally liable ' Salsbury v. Ellison, 7 Col. 167, 169.

for anv sum which the property was ^ Parcroft v. Snodgrass, 1 Coldw. 430,

worth in excess of the price realized : 440 ; Anderson v. Norton, 15 Lea, 14, 28.
Bradley v. Brigham, 144 Mass. 181. ^ Dayton v. Bartlett, 38 Oh. St. 357,

2 Egberts u. Wood, 3 Pai. 517 ; Peyton 361.

V. Stratton, 7 Gratt. 880, 384 ; French v. 1° 2 Coll. on Part. § 611.
Lovejuy, r2N. H.458, 401.

§ 125 PARTNERSHIP CREDITORS IN EQUITY. 287

Partnorsliip, says that formerly recourse couLl be had against the
estate of the deceased partner only when the survivor
was insolvent or bankrui)t, but that this doctrine has survhmg'part-
been overturned, and partnership creditors may now ner is insolvent
proceed against the estate of the deceased partner and
enforce full payment of their demands, witliout waiting until the
partnership affairs are wound up.^ Such is the law in many
States under their statutes, treating partnership debts as Ijoth
joint and several; for instance, in Alabama,- Arkansas,-^ Connecti-
cut,* Florida,^ Indiana,^ Illinois,^ lowa,^ Kansas,^ Mississippi,^''
Missouri,!! New Jersey ,^2 New Hampshire,!^ Pennsylvania,^* Ten-
nessee,!^ and Texas.^*^ But in many others it is still necessary
to aver and prove the insolvency of the surviving partner before
the estate of the deceased can be held liable, among which may
be reckoned Delaware,^" Georgia,!^ Louisiana,!^ Nebraska,2o New
Jersey,^! New York,^^ Ohio,^^ Virginia,^* Wisconsin,^^ and, accord-
ing to some old cases, North Carolina -^ and South Carolina.-"
This right is self-evidently confined to debts of the partnership
existing at the time of the death ; for it has already been shown,^^
that even where by the terras of the will of the deceased, or by
force of the articles of copartnership, the business is continued by
the survivors together with the executor or other personal repre-
sentative, a new partnership is in reality formed, the liabilities of

1 Dogffett V. Dill, 108 111. 560, 565, i3 Bowker ;;. Smith, 48 N. H. Ill, 118.
quoting Story on Part. § 362, and many i^ Moores' Appeals, 34 Pa. St. 411,412.
English ami American authorities; Nel- ^^ Saunders v. Wilder, 2 Head, 577.
son V. Hill, 5 How. 127, 133, approved in lo Qaut v. Reed, 24 Tex. 46, 54.
Lewis V. United States, 2 Otto, 618, 622. " Currey v. Warrington, 5 Harr. 147.

2 Waldron v. Simmons, 28 Ala. 629 ; is Bennett v. Woolfolk, 15 Ga. 213, 221.
Rose V. Gunn, 79 Ala. 411. " Dyer v. Drew, 14 La. An. 657 ;

3 McLain v. Carson, 4 Ark. 164, 166. Jones v. Caperton, 15 La. An. 475.

* Camp !.'. Grant, 21 Conn. 41. 2» Leach v. Milhurn, 14 Neb. 106;

6 Fillyau v. Laverty, 3 Fla. 72. 101. Bowen v. Crow, 16 Neb. 5-56.

6 Hardy v. Overman, 36 Ind. 549. '■^^ Buckingham v. Ludlum, 37 N. J. Eq.

7 Silverman v. Chase, 90 111. 37, 41, 137; Wisham i: Lippincott, 9 N. J. Eq.
followed and approved in Doggett v. Dill, 353.

supra. ^ " Voorhis v. Childs, 17 N. Y. 354 ; Ha-

8 Ryerson v. Hendrie, 22 Iowa, 480, mersley v. Lambert, 2 John. Ch. 508.
Dillon, J., dissenting, 484. 23 Horsey r. Heath, 5 Oh. .353, 355.

9 Stout V. Baker, 32 Kans. 11-3. 24 gale v. Dishman, 3 Leigh, 548, 551.

10 Miller v. Northern Bank, 34 Miss. 25 Sherman v. Kreul, 42 Wis. 33, 38.
412,416; Irby u. Graham. 46 Miss. 425; 26 Burgwin v. Hostler, 1 Tayl. 75
Freeman v. Stewart, 41 Miss. 138, 141. (2d ed.).

11 Griffin v. Samuel, 6 Mo. 50. 2? phUson v. Bampfield, 1 Brev. 202.

12 Wisham v. Lippincott, 9 N. J. Eq. 28 ^„fe, § 123.
353 ; but see infra.

288 ESTATES OF DECEASED PARTNERS. § 126

which arc entirely distinct from those of the old firm. No notice
of the dissolution of the firm by the death of one of its m(!nibers
is necessary to discharge the estate of the decedent from liability
for any subsequent transaction, except, perhaps, where the surviv-
ing partners, or one of them, are executors of the deceased part-
ner, and the business is continued under the original articles of
copartnership.^ And so the same acts of the creditor which
operate in discharge of the surviving or of a retiring partner will
be equally effective to discharge a deceased partner's estate.^

As the personal representatives of a deceased partner may call
on the survivors for an account of the partnership affairs,^ so
the creditors of the partnership may proceed against
proceed agaiiist the survivors, as well as against the representatives
esLte oVthe "^ of the deccascd, in order to obtain payment of their
deceased part- ^^^^ ^^^^ ^f ^j^^ asscts of the dcccascd partner ; but

ner. '■

the separate creditors, legatees, and next of kin of the
deceased partner have no locus standi against the surviving part-
ner, but only against the executors or administrators of the
deceased, unless there be collusion between these persons, or cir-
cumstances exist which prevent the representatives themselves
from obtaining a decree for an accounting.^ If the administrator
fails to compel a speedy accounting by the surviving partner, he
is himself guilty of laches.^ It is to be remembered, in connection
with this question, that, as a general rule, partnership creditors
have a primary claim upon partnership assets, to the exclusion of
the creditors of individual partners, until the partnership debts
are paid, and vice versa.^

§ 126. Effect of Dissolution on Partnership Real Estate. — It is
now well recognized, that as between copartners there is in reality
Real estate ^0 difference whether the partnership property held
^IrsoLh ^*^^ ^^""^ purposes of trade or business consists of per-

in equity. soual or real estate, or of both, so far as their ultimate

1 Story on Part. § 34.3, and note citing 2 2 Coll. on Part. § 614, and authori-
Vulliamy v. Noble, 3 Mer. 593, 614 ; Coll. ties,
on Part. §§ 24, 613; Marlett v. Jackman, ^ Ame^ § 123.
3 Allen, 287, 290; Price v. Mathews, 14 * Coll. on Part. §§ 288, 348.
La. An. 11. See Dean w. Plunkett, 136 s McKean v. Vick, 108 111. 373 ; Bar-
Mass. 195, where the surviving partner croft v. Snodgrass, 1 Coldw. 441 ; Gwynne
carried on the business as agent of v. Estes, 14 Lea, 662, 676.
the new firm under the old name, and ^ gtory on Part. § 363; Keese v. Cole-
the firm was held liable for the agent's man, 72 Ga. 658 ; Warren v. Farmer, 100
contracts Ind. 593, 595 ; Farley v. Moog, 79 Ala. 148.

§ 126 PARTNERSHIP REAL ESTATE. 289

rights and interests are concerned. ^ However the title may stand
at law, real estate belonging to a partnership will in equity be
treated like its personal funds, disposable and distributable accord-
ingly ; and the parties in whose names it stands, as owners of
the legal title, will be held to be trustees of the part- „

o ' ... No survivor-

nership, accountable accordinirlv. Hence in equity, in ship in real

. ' ■ . . estate on dis-

ease ot the death of one partner, tliere is no survivor- solution by

ship in the real estate of the partnership, but his share
will go, after payment of partnership debts, to his proper repre-
sentatives ; 2 but all real estate purchased with partnership funds
for the use of the firm, and employed in the partnership business,
is in equity regarded as assets of the partnership, and will be
applied to the liquidation of partnership debts in preference to
the debts of individual members of the firm.^ The „, ,

U mow's dower

dower interest of the widow of a deceased partner de- in partnersiiip
pends upon the contingency whether any portion of the
proceeds of sale of partnership real estate remains to the share
of her deceased husband after the payment of all the partnership
debts, and advances made by the other partners ; hence she has
no claim to dower in the lands sold or mortgaged by the firm,
although she did not join in the sale, but may have a dower inter-
est in the balance of the purchase money so remaining, which is
then treated as real estate.* So each partner has an equitable

1 Story on Part. § 92. elaborate opinion, upon a thorongh re-

2 Story on Part. § 92 ; 1 Coll. on Part, view of the American authorities, which
§ 115, note, p. 219; Shanks v. Klein, 14 he found somewhat conflicting, and was
Otto, 18. approved by the New York Court of

3 Ross V. Henderson, 77 N. C. 170, Appeals in Collumb v. Read, 24 N. Y.
172; Buchan i;. Sumner, 2 Barb. Ch. 165, 505, 512. Kice v. McMartin, -39 Conn.
200, in which Chancellor Walworth for- 57-3, 575; Carlisle v. Mulhern, 19 Mo. 56;
mulates the rule as follows : Real estate Matthews v. Hunter, 67 Mo. 293, 295 ;
purchased with partnership funds, or for Martin v. Morris, 62 Wis. 418, 427 ; Espy
the use of the firm, is, in equity, charge- r. Comer, 76 Ala. .501 ; Leaf's Appeal,
able with the debts of the partnership, 105 Pa. St. 505; Messer v. Messer, 59
and with any balance which ma}' be due N. H. 375, 377 ; and see the cases of
from one copartner to another upon the Coles v. Coles, 15 Johns. 159, Dyer v.
winding up of the affairs of the firm ; Clark. 5 Met. (]\Iass.) 562, with collection
secondly, as between the personal repre- of authorities in 1 Am. Lead. Cas. 484
sentatives and the heirs at law of a de- et sp(].

ceased partner, his share of the surplus ■* Howard v. Priest, 5 Met. (Mass.)

of the real estate of the copartnership, 582; Husson v. Neil, 41 Ind 504, 510;

which remains after payment of its debts Loubat v. Nourse. 5 Fla.o50, 358 ; Greene

and adjusting all the equitable claims of r. Greene, 1 Ohio, 535, 542 ; Sumner v.

the different members of the firm as Hampson, 8 Ohio, .328, .364 ; Dnhrin^ v.

between themselves, is treated as real Duhring, 20 Mo. 174, 180 et seq. ; Kich-

estate. This view was announced in an ardsou v. Wyatt, 2 Desaus. 471, 482 ;

VOL. I. — 19

290 ESTATES OF DECEASED PARTNERS. § 127

^ . , interest in that portion of the legal estate held by-

Equity of part- '■ . 1 /?

ner superior to the otlicr, until all the debts obligatory on the firm,

rights of heirs including advanccs by any of the partners to the firm,
and devisees. ^^.^ ^^.^^ ^^^ ^j^^ rights of the deceased partner's

widow, legal representatives, heirs, and creditors are postponed to
such payment.^ But such partnership real estate as may not be
required for the payment of partnership debts or the adjustment
of balances between the partners is, in the settlement of the estate
of a deceased partner, generally, at least in cases where the part-
ners have not by either an express or implied agreement indi-
cated an intention to convert the land into personal estate,^ treated
as realty ; ^ although in some cases, both in England and Amer-
ica, the character of personalty, once attaching to such property
by reason of having been purchased with partnership funds or
used for partnership purposes, is held to continue until final dis-
tribution.* Whether an agreement to buy and sell lands and
share in the profits of the sale converts the land absolutely into
personalty, has been held both ways.^

§ 127. Distribution of Partnership Effects. — Upon payment of
all the partnership debts, and expenses of liquidation, a specific
Specific division of all the remaining assets may be made be-

division. twccu the Surviving partners and the personal repre-

sentatives of the deceased partner, if they so agree.^ But each
party may, in the absence of such an agreement, and where the

Gilbraith v. Gedge, 16 B. Mon. 631 ; Hale v. Plummer, 6 Ind. 121, 123 ; Yeat-

Wooidridge v. Wilkins, 3 How. (Miss.) man v. Woods, 6 Yerg. 20, approved in

360, 371 et seq.; Cobble v. Tomlinson, 50 Piper v. Smith, 1 Head, 93, 97, and Wil-

Ind. 550,5.54; Simpson v. Leech, 80 III. liamson v. Fcntain, 7 Baxt. 212, 214;

286; Brewer v. Browne, 68 Ala. 210, 213. Espy v. Comer, 76 Ala. 501, 505 ; Leafs

1 Dyer v. Clark, 5 Met. (Mass.) 562, Appeal, 105 Pa. St. 505; Martin v. Morris,
5Y5; Shearer v. Paine, 12 Allen, 289; 62 Wis. 418 ; Brewer r. Browne, 68 Ala.
Pierce v. Trigg, 10 Leigh, 406, 421 et seq. ; 210.

but see on this point, Bush v. Clark, 127 * Ludlow v. Cooper, 4 Ohio St. 1, 8
Mass. Ill, as to the distinction drawn in et seq.: NicoU r. Ogden, 29 111 323; Cos-
Massachusetts between personalty and ter r. Clarke, 3 Edw. Cli. 428; Hoxie v.
real estate, post, p 293, note 8. Carr, I Sumn. 17-3.

2 As, for instance, in Davis v. Smith, -^ Negatively in Mississippi : Markham
82 Ala. 198. v. Merrett, supra ; affirmatively in Ohio :

3 Wilcox V. Wilcox, 13 Allen, 252 ; Ludlow i-. Cooper, 4 Oh. St. 1, 9 ; New
Dil worth v. Mayfield, 86 Miss. 40, 51 ; York : Coster v. Clarke, supra ; Iowa :
Buckley v. Buckley, 11 Barb. 43, 75; Mallory r. Russell, 71 Iowa, 63.
Buchan v. Sumner, supra; Wooldridge v. ^ Roys v. Vilas, 18 Wis. 169, 174 ; Case
Wilkins, 3 How. (Miss.) 360, 371 et seq. ; v. Abeel, 1 Pai. 393, 398; Ludlow v.
Goodburn v. Stevens, 5 Gill, 1, 2G; Mark- Cooper, 4 Oh. St. 1; Sage v. Woodin, 66
ham V. Merrett, 7 How. (Miss.) 437, 446; N. Y. 678, 581.

§ 127 DISTRIBUTION OF PARTNERSHIP EFFECTS. 291

partnership contract stipulates no division in a different manner,
insist on a sale of the joint stock ;i and where a court saie of joint
of equity winds up the concerns of a partnership it is '^^"'^^'
usually done by a sale of the property, whether real or personal,
and a conversion of it into money ; ^ but there may g^jg may be
be cases in which the peculiar circumstances wpuld dispensed with.
make a sale injurious, and where the true interest of all parties
may be better preserved and protected without it.'^ It gaie at public
seems to be understood that a sale at public auction is *"^''o"-
most favored, because at such a sale all interested ])arties may be
present, and bid to prevent a sacrifice of the stock; uut no conciu-
but there is no conclusive rule upon the subject, and sive mie as to

' •• nietiiod of sale.

the circumstances of each case must suggest the best
course to be adopted.'* The representatives of the deceased part-
ner may sell the interest of the latter to third persons, or to the
survivor, if the sale is fair and honest ; ^ but not where the sur-
viving partner is also executor or administrator of the deceased
partner,*' The surviving partner cannot shield himself from
responsibility for the true ^ alue of partnership property bought
secretly and indirectly by himself, by showing that the sale was
under judicial authority ; nor where bidders were deterred for his
benefit from bidding, although in consequence of deceit he did
not obtain the proporty.'^ But the court may, upon a proper
showing, permit the surviving partner to retain the assets upon
payment of their full value. ^

The good will of a firm dissolved by the death of one of its
members has often a marketable value, and in such case it is liable
to be sold for the benefit of all the partners, like any Goodwill an
other property of the firm. In such case it must be ^*^'^^"

1 Freeman v. Freeman, 136 Mass. 2('!0. * Pars, on Part. *52-5.

- 3Kent Com. 64; Story on Part. §.347; * Taylor v. Hutcliison, 25 Gratt. ."i3fi.
1 Coll. on Part. § 331 ; Gow on Part.'*2.34 ; ° Case v. Abeel, 1 Pai. 393, 398 ; Kim-
Evans n. Evans, 9 Pai. 178, 181; Sigour- bnll v. Lincoln, 99 111. 578 (but the sur-
ney v. Munn, 7 Conn. 11, 21; Harper y. vivor cannot become purchaser at liis own
Lamping, 33 Cal. G41, 649 ; Dickinson ?». sale : p. 585) ; see Grim's Appeal, 105 Pa.
Dickinson, 29 Conn. 601 ; Lyman v. Ly- St. 375, 382.

man, 2 Paine, 11, 39 et srq. Surviving " C-Ase v. Aheo\, snjirn ; Nelson v. Hay-
partners " cannot take the property of the ner, CG 111. 487, 493.
firm to themselves at an estimated value ' Klotz v. Macready, 39 La. An. 638.
without the consent of the representatives ^ Sheppard v. Boggs, 9 Neb. 257, 2G2.
of the deceased partner": Ogden v. As- This course is in many cases the best or
tor, 4 Sandf. 311, 313, 834; Freeman v. only expedient to avert serious loss, es-
Freeman, 130 Mass. 260, 263. pecially of the value of good will.

292 ESTATES OF DECEASED PARTNERS. § 127

taken into consideration in the valuation of the stock, ^ and the
proceeds of its sale become assets for the payment of debts or
distribution between the deceased and surviving ])artnei's. But it
is not always either valuable or salable. It is described as the
sum whicli a person would be willing to give for the chance of
being able to keep the trade established at a particular place,^ or
rather it is the price to be paid for the advantage of carrying on
business either on the premises or with the stock of the old firm,
or connected therewith by name, or in some manner attracting
the customers of the old to the new business. Upon the sale of
an established business, its good will has obviously a marketable
value ; ^ but this depends largely, if not entirely, on the absence
of competition on the part of tliose by whom the business has
been previously carried on. Hence, since a surviving partner is
under no obligation either to retire from business merely because
the partnership is dissolved, or to carry on the old business so as
to preserve its good will until the final winding up of the partner-
ship affairs,^ its market value is often destroyed or inconsider-
able.^ So too the sale of an establishment in toto will carry with
it the good will to the purchaser ; 'Mf a lease, the property of a
partnership, be sold, the good will passes with it to the person
purchasing." In such cases the good will is included in or con-
stitutes a part of the value of the thing sold, and it follows that
it can be valued or sold only in connection with such property ;
the stock or business sold is enhanced in value by the estimated
value of such good will.^ Lindley in his work on Partnership
intimates that good will is generally valued at so many years'
purchase on the amount of profits,^ and in an English case ^^ it
was remarked that it was equal to about one year's purchase.

1 Case V. Abeel, 1 Pai. 893, 401 ; Day- application of a partner was directed to
ton ;;. Wilkes, 17 How. Pr. 610, 511; continue tlie publication of a political
Sheppard y. Boggs, 9 Neb. 257, 2G1 ; Ram- paper until a sale could be effected, so
melsberg v. Mitchell, 29 Oh. St. 22, 54; that the good will might be saved to the
Piatt V. Piatt, 42 Conn. ."30, 347. purchaser, and the full value of theestab-

2 1 Coll. on Part., p. 238, note 1. lishment secured to the partners. See

3 Lindl. on Part. *859. also Williams v. Wilson, 4 Sandf. Ch. 379,

4 Lewis V. Langdon, 7 Sim. 421, 425; 380.

Howe V. Searing, 10 Abb. Pr. 2i)4, 271 ' Dougherty v. Van Nostrand, 1 Hoff.

et seq. Ch. 68, 70.

6 Davies v. Hodgson, 25 Beav. 177, » 1 Coll. on Part. § 117, p. 241.

188 et seq. '•> Lindl. on Pa-t. *863.

^ Marten v. Van Schaick, 4 Pai. 479. ^'^ Davies v. Hodgson, supra.
In this case the receiver appointed upon

§ 127 DISTRIBUTION OF PARTNERSHIP EFFECTS. 293

Where the good will is the sul)ject of a special contract, or arises
out of it, it assumes a more tangible shape, and may be valued and
assigned with the rest of the effects ; it is described by Collyer as
" an advantage arising from the fact of sole ownership to the
exclusion of other persons."^ Good will of this kind, being a valu-
able addition to a trade, cannot be implied from the general words
'' stock, elTects, ttc," but must be created by some appropriate
words ; ^ and it has been held that the naked sale of the good
will of a business does not transfer a right to the use of the ven-
dor's name of trade.^ Nor can a surviving partner, without the
consent of the representatives of the deceased i^artner, use the firm
name or the name of the deceased partner in continuing the
business.*

It appears to be generally held that partnership assets must
first be applied to the payment of partnership debts and the
advances of either partner, before the other partner or any one
through him has any claim on them." This principle would, of
course, exclude the right of the widow to an allowance out of the
partnership assets,'' as well as any other person claiming as his
legal representative.'^ But in Massachusetts it is held that the
probate court may make an allowance to the widow of a deceased
partner out of the partnership assets in the hands of a surviving
partner at the time of his death, although these are insufficient to
pay the partnership debts.^

1 1 Coll. on Part., p. 237. tected : lb., p. 44. Aliter if tliey have

2 II) , p. 238 et set}., vvitli authorities. notice : Norwalk Bank v. Sawyer, 38
.3 Howe V. Searing, supra, Moncrief, J., Oh. St. 339, 343.

dissentiiiij : see 10 Abb. Pr. 264, 276; ^ Julian r. Wrightsman, 73 Mo. 569,

Comstock V. White, reported as a note to 571.

Howe V. Searing, p. 264. ^ Thomp. Homest. & Ex. § 194; Pond

* Fenn v. Bolles, 7 Abb. Pr. 202. v. Kimball, 101 Mass. 105.

^ Story on Part. § 97, and numerous * Bush v. Clark, 127 Mass. 111. In

cases cited in 7th ed. ; Keese v. Coleman, reasoning upon the proposition before the

72Ga. 658; Preston t-. Colby, 117 111. 477, court, it is assumed tiiat the surviving

483; Farley i\ Moog, 79 Ala. 148. Tiie partner holds tiie partnersliip assets, "and

judgment lien of a separate creditor on not as a trustee" (p. 112); and "as it is

partnership lands, though lield in the in- personal estate of the deceased, it is liable

dividual name of the debtor, is postponed to diminution by the expenses of admin-

to the equity of a firm creditor whose istration, and by allowance to the icidow."

claim accrueil during tiie existence of the "And when such allowance is made,

jiartnership, though subsequent to the wliatever part of the estate is included

time when sucii lien attached : Page v. in it ceases to be assets for the payment

Thomas, 43 Oil. St. 38. Bnt bona Jide of debts." (p. 11.3.) " This rule applies,

purcliasers for value, without notice that whetlier the estate came to tiie intes-

same was partnership property, are pro- tate as surviving member of a firm, or

294 ESTATES OF DECEASED PARTNEKS. § 128

It need hardly be suggested, that the property of a firm, if all
its members die intestate, without heirs or known next of kin,
escheats in the same manner to the State as the property of an
individual.^

§ 128. Jurisdiction of Probate Courts over Partnership Estates. —
In several of the States provision is made by statute for the wind-
Statutory ing up of partnership estates under the jurisdiction of
batYcomts^' the probate court. In Maine the executor or adminis-
sLip estates'" trator of a deceased partner is required to include in
In Maine. liis inventory the property of the partnership, which
must be appraised as in other cases, and to retain and administer
such property unless the survivor give bond for the faithful and
diligent closing up of the partnership estate.^ Under this statute
it is held that a sale by the surviving partner who lias not given
such bond is void, and notes given for goods so sold are without
consideration ; 3 and when the administrator has given the bond,
which on citation the survivor refused to give, he is entitled to
the partnership property against an officer who has attached it in
an action by a creditor of the firm against the survivor.* Tlie
same statute, substantially, was enacted in Oregon.^
^^^^ ' A. doubt was expressed in this State whether, under
the statute, a surviving partner could transfer real estate, or any
interest in real estate, held for partnership purposes, without an
order of the probate court, and without giving the bond required
by the statute.^ But in a later case it was held that the probate
court took no jurisdiction from the statute to partition real estate

had been his separate estate." (p 114.) they rest, modify the strict technical rules

Granting that the surviving partner holds by which rights of creditors are otherwise

the partnersliip assets ""oMn trust," the enforceable." He accordingly allowed

result reached in tliis case is inevitable ; the exemption to which an individual is

but there may be some difficulty in recon- entitled under the law of Missouri to be

ciling this view with earlier Massachusetts divided between the two partners. Other

cases (see Pond v. Kimball, 101 Mass. similar cases are mentioned by Thompson

105), and with authorities in general. On in his work on Homesteads and Exemp-

principle, it seems that the exemption of tions, § 214 et serj.

a certain amount of property, to protect i Commonwealth f. No. Am Land Co.,

the widow and infant children of a de- 57 Pa. St. 102.

ceased partner from want and suffering, ^ Rgy. St. 1883, ch. 69.

may be as necessary and just against tlie ^ Cook v. Lewis, 36 Me. 340, 345 ; Hill

creditors of a partnership, as against those v. Treat, 67 Me. 501.

of an individual ; a similar view has been * Putnam v. Parker, 55 Me. 235.

enforced in proceedings against a bank- ^ Code, 1887, § 1101 et seq.

rupt firm : says Treat, J., in Young in ^ Knott v. Stephens, 3 Oreg. 269, 273.

re, 3 N. B. Reg. 440, " The policy of But the case went off on a question of

exemptions, and the legal rules on which fact.

§ 128 JURISDlCnON OF PROBATE COURTS. 295

beluiig-inj5 to a [nu-tiicrsliip iiiulor admiuistratiun, and that it is
the province of a court of equity so to do.^ A similar ^^^ ^^^^^^
statute exists in Kansas."-^ It was held in this State
that where the administrator of the deceased partner's estate gives
the additional bond required of him on taking charge of the
partnership estate, the two administrations are entirely separate
and distinct ; that the sureties on the administration bond in the
estate of the deceased partner are not liable for any acts of the
administrator concerning the partnership estate ; that the funds
derived from the one estate are primarily liable for the individual
debts of the deceased, and those of the other for the debts of the
firm.3 Also, that an action will lie by a creditor of the firm on
the partnership bond, although there was no allowance of the
claim in the probate court, nor a settlement of the partnership
affairs ; and that no citation is necessary to give validity to the
bond, if the surviving partner appears without citation and refuses
to comply with the statute.* Before an account between a sur-
vivor and the representatives of his deceased partner can be adju-
dicated, the account between such survivor and the partnership
estate must first be determined ; and in a controversy between
the representatives of the deceased partner and the survivor, who
has given the statutory bond in the probate court, the district
court has jurisdiction to determine such account between the sur
vivor and the firm.'^

In Illinois the surviving partner is required to make a full in-
ventory of the partnership estate, and have the same appraised,
and return the inventorv and appraisal, together with .

^ ^ 1 ^^ Illinois.

a statement of the liabilities of the firm, to the pro-
bate court ; to settle without delay, and account to the executor
or administrator of the deceased partner ; and may be compelled
upon application of such executor or administrator to render
account in the probate or circuit court. Upon proper applica-
tion, the surviving partner may l)e compelled to give security
for faithful settlement, &c., and for refusing to give such secu-
rity, a receiver may be appointed, with like powers and duties
as receivers in courts of chancery. It is held that some of the

1 Burnside v. Savier, 6 Greg. 154, 15G. * Carr v. Catlin, 13 Kans. 393, 403 et

2 Diissler's Rev. 1885, ch. 37, § 31. seq.

2 Glass Company v. Ludlum, 8 Kans. ^ Anderson v. Beebe, 22 Kans. 768,

40, 46 et seq. 771.

296 ESTATES OF DECEASED PARTNERS. § 128

provisions of this act afford cumulative remedies, but that it does

not change the nature of the relation existing between survivino-

partners and the representatives of the deceased partners in

equity.i A similar law exists in Indiana, the enact-
in Indiana. . c i • i i i i

ment ot which was held not to affect the rights of a
surviving partner, who had charge of an estate under the law in
force prior thereto.^

In Ohio, the surviving partner must apply to the probate court
for the appointment of three appraisers, upon notice to the admin-
^ ^, . istrator of the deceased partner, who must make out

In Ohio. p 11 •

a lull inventory of the partnership estate and liabil-
ities ; and such survivor may, with the consent of such admin-
istrator and the approval of the probate court, take the estate at
its appraisal, securing the payment of tiie excess remaining after
deducting tlie liabilities, and giving bond for the payment of the
partnership debts.^

So in California, the interest of the deceased partner must be
included in the inventory, and appraised as other property ; the

, ^ surviving imrtner must settle the affairs of the part-

In California. , • i • , i

nership, and account with the executor or adminis-
trator ; and upon application of the latter the court may order
the surviving partner to render an account, and compel it, in case
of neglect or refusal, by attachment.* If the surviving partner
admit the existence of the partnership, the court may compel
him to testify in relation to such account;^ but the probate
court can neither adjudicate upon the question of partnership, if
raised,^ nor decree a balance on the account.-

In Alabama, where the surviving partner becomes also co-
administrator with another of the deceased partner, the probate

court has no iurisdiction over the settlement of the

In Alabama. . , i p i i -i

nrm account with the estate ot the deceased partner ; *>
nor has the probate court power to order the sale of a deceased

^ Nelson v. Hayner, 66 III. 487, 492. estate belonping to the partnership may

2 Adams v. Marsteller, 70 Ind. .S81. be transferred to the survivor under this

3 Rammelsberg v. Mitchell, 29 Oh St. statute: p. 53.

22, 49. It is held in tiiis case, that the * Code Civil Proc. § 1585.

law applies where the surviving partner ^ Andrade v. Superior Court, 17 Pac.

is also one of the executors ; that an R. 531.

appraisement is valid, although made ^ Andrade v Superior Court, supra,

upon the basis of a previous appraise- p 532,

mcntmadeat the request of the executors, "^ Theller r Such, 57 Cal 447,459.

and by the same persons ; and that real ^ Vincent v. Martin, 79 Ala. 540.

§ 129 HISTORY OF THE MISSOURI STATUTE. 297

partner's intei'cst in [)artncrsliip lands, before the firm debts have
been paid and the accounts between the partners settled and
adjusted.^

§ 129. History of the Missouri Statute giving Jurisdiction to Pro-
bate Courts over Partnership Estates. — The statute of Missouri on
this subject is very full, and gives greater powers over surviving
partners to the probate court than is given to it in any other
State. Its history furnishes a strii^ing instance of the increasing
confidence in the efficiency of probate courts, and of the tendency
of legislation in the American States to enlarge the scope of their
powers and jurisdiction. The first legislative enactment subject-
ing surviving partners to the jurisdiction of probate courts is met
with in the Revised Statutes of 1845, incorporating therein the
substance of the Maine statute, witli change of verbiage only.^
In 1849 the probate court was authorized to order a surviving
partner, upon petition of two thirds in interest of the creditors, and
proof that injustice would not be done to other parties, to adjust,
close, and settle the business of the firm without such bond or
security ; but it was specially enacted that such surviving part-
ner shall in other respects be subject to the control and superin-
tendence of the court.3 In the Revised Statutes of 1855, the
right to give the bond, and to administer the partnership effects,
is limited to surviving partners residing in the State, and such
administration is directed to be had in the county in which the
partnership business was conducted.^ Authority is also given to
the surviving partner to pay partnership debts, without requiring
them to be exhibited for allowance in the probate court ; but
where the administrator of tlie deceased partner administers the
partnership estate, and also where the surviving partner refuses
to pay demands against the partnership, provision is made for the
allowance and classification of such demands.^ Provision is made

^ Roulston V. Washington, 79 Ala. 529. taining the provisions referred to in the

2 Rev. St. 1845. Tlie commissioner text,) "are new": p. 61, note,
directing and superintending their pub- 3 Laws of Mo. 1849, p. 10. In the

lication says : " There were some impor- next following revision of the laws tliis

tant modifications and several new pro- provision is omitted, and the power to

visions introduced into the general code, permit the surviving partner to adminis-

. . . The ciianges in tiie administration ter without bond tliiis witiidrawn.
laws relative to partnersliip effects ... ■* Rev. St. 1855, p. 121, § 51.

supply a deficiency in that law wliich has 5 jb.^ p. 124, §§ 62, 63. A surviving

long been felt": Pref., viii. Tlie revis- partner need not e.xhibit even his own

ers content themselves with tiie remark, claim against the pnrtnership : Kahn's

" Sections 49 lo 56, both inclusive," (con- Estate, 18 Mo. App. 420.

298 ESTATES OF DECEASED PARTNERS- § 129

for the appearance of surviving partners, when a claim is pre-
sented against the partnership estate administered by the admin-
istrator of the deceased partner, and authority given them to
defend against such claim, and appeal from the decision of the
probate court.^ It is also provided, that the administration of the
partnership effects shall in all things conform to administrations
in ordinary cases, and that the person administering, and his sure-
ties, shall perform the same duties, be governed by the same lim-
itations and restrictions, and be subject to the same penalties, as
other administrators and their sureties.^ The General Statutes of
1865 introduced no change ; but in the Revised Statutes of 1879
the language subjecting surviving partners to the jurisdiction of
the probate court is made peremptory and comprehensive: "The
administration upon partnership effects, whether by the surviving
partner, or executor or administrator of the deceased partner,
shall in all respects conform to administrations in ordinary cases,
except as herein otherwise provided, and the person administer-
ing upon partnership effects, and his sureties on his official bond,
shall perform the same functions and duties, be governed by the
same limitations, restrictions, and provisions, and be subject to
the same penalties, liabilities, and actions, as other administrators
and their sureties." ^

In 1883 the legislature introduced a further provision, requiring
the surviving partner administering to pay partnership debts pro
rata, according to their respective classes, securing to all the
creditors an equal participation in the assets of insolvent part-
nerships.*

1 lb., § 64. Previous to this revision to be in the power of a surviving partner
a surviving partner could not appeal from at common law, and the provisions of
the judgment of a probate court allowing the statute requiring classification of de-
a demand against the deceased partner's niands, and tiieir payment in t!ie same
administrator: Asbury v. Mcintosh, 20 manner as in ordinary cases of adminis-
Mo. 278. tration, were, previous to this amendment,

2 lb , § 65. lield insufficient to deprive liim of such
8 Rev. St. 1879, § 68. power : Collier v. Cairns, 6 Mo. App. 188.
4 Laws of Mo. 188-3, p. 22. Thisprovis- Where there is an administering surviv-

ion brings the administration of partner- ing partner, and no refusal by him to pay

ship estates into harmony with that of the a claim against the partnership estate,

estates of individuals with respect to the its allowance and classification by the

payment of debts : it destroys the power probate court is unauthorized, and gives

of surviving partners to prefer creditors, such demandant no priority over other

to the deprivation of creditors not pre- creditors who present their claim to the

ferred, where the assets are insufficient survivor: Easton v. Courtwright, 84 Mo.

to pay the debts in full. Such was held 27.

§ 129 HISTORY OF THE MISSOURI STATUTE. 299

The liistory of this statute, together witli the hitcrprctations it
received from the judieiai-y in the varitnis ])hases of its develop-
ment, strikingly illustrates, also, the diiheulty attending the in-
troduction of principles which require, on the part of judges and
lawyers, a departure from the familiar, well trodden paths of the
common law. " The provision requiring the surviving ))artner to
give bond is a new one," says Scott, J.,^ " in derogation of the
rights of the surviving partner as they existed at common law.
All interference with his rights must have a support in the statute
law, and we are restrained from going further in diminishing his
control over his goods than the words of the law fairly warrant.
. . . There is nothing here" (reciting the statute) "like a power
of removal. ... It would be against all principle to assume by
imjjlication a power of taking away the right of control whieh a
man has over his own property." This language was used in the
decision of a case arising under the law of 1845, the Supreme
Court denying the power of the probate court under said law to
remove a surviving partner, and deprive him of the administration
of the partnership estate, on the ground of non-residence. In the
revision of the statutes which took effect in 185G, the same year
in which this decision was rendered, the residence within the
State of the surviving partner was made a condition to his right
to give the bond, and the section added which placed the surviv-
ing partner under the same control of the probate court which it
possessed over administrators.^

Notwithstanding these provisions, and the further provision
requiring claims of partnership creditors which the surviving
partner " shall refuse to pay " to be exhibited to the probate court
"for allowance and classification," giving the court "the same
jurisdiction of demands thus presented as it has of demands against
estates in ordinary cases," the Supreme Court held that " under
this act the powers of a surviving partner in closing up the af-
fairs of the partnership are not changed or restricted, otherwise
than as he is required to give bond and security that he will use
due diligence and fidelity ; . . . for any misconduct or neglect
there is a remedy on his bond." ^ The same view was announced

1 Green v. Virden, 22 Mo. 50G, 511. 80, it was held that a partnership creditor,

2 Sup/a, p. 298, preceding; notes 1 and 2. who failed to cause his claim to be classi-
* Crow V. Weidner, HO Mo. 412, 416. fied in the probate court, lias no cause of

In the case of State v. Woods, 30 Mo. 73, action on the partnership bond ; but in

300 ESTATES OF DECEASED PARTNERS. § 130

by the Court of Appeals ;^ but the latter court also held, that the
remedy by scire facias, given by the statute against the sureties
of an administrator, may be resorted to by the administrator of a
deceased partner against the sureties of a surviving partner who
fails to obey an order of the probate court directing him to pay
over the amount found due by him on final settlement.^

We have seen that upon these decisions the legislature, in 1879,
directed the winding up of a partnership estate by the surviving
partner to conform, in all respects, to the law of administration,
so far as applicable, and in 1883, to meet the cases of Denny v.
Turner, Collier v. Cairns, and Crow v. Weidner, expressly required
the payment of partnership debts pro rata according to their
class.^ But even the peremptory terms of the statute of 1879 are
inadequate to extinguish the difference between the winding up
of a partnership by the surviving partner, and the administration
of an estate by the executor or administrator of a decedent. The
Supreme Court has recently decided that the probate court has
no power to authorize the surviving partner to sell partnership
real estate for the payment of partnership debts.*

§ 130. Power of Probate Court to require Bond. — The jurisdic-
tion conferred upon probate courts over the estates of partner-
ships dissolved by death is exclusive, and carries with

Exclusive .

jurisdiction of it such equitable powers as may be necessary to wind
pio cou . ^^^^ ^^^^ partnership affairs. Until final settlement of
such estate in the probate court, the circuit court or court possess-
ing original chancery powers has no jurisdiction over it.^ The
final settlement has the force and effect of a judgment, from
which appeal may be taken.^

In Maine, as already shown,'' the surviving partner has no
power over the partnership effects, after the death of a copartner,
until he has given the statutory bond ; ^ but in Missouri he is not

Denny v. Turner, 2 Mo. App. 52, the ^ Supra, p. 2fl8, notes 3 and 4.

promise of the surviving partner to pay * I'^aston v. Courtvvriglit, 84 Mo. 27, 39,

a tlemand was held sufficient to defeat the lioUling tlint such a partner may sell the

statutory limitation, so as to enable the realty to pay firm debts, without a license

creditor to obtain the allowance against from the probate court.

tlie administrator of the deceased partner, ^ Ensworth v. Curd, 68 Mo. 282 ; Cald-

if presented within the two years after well r. Hawkins, 73 Mo. 450.

the removal of the surviving partner. '^ McCartney v. Garneau, 4 Mo. App.

1 Denny v. Turner, supra; Collier v. 566.

Cairns, 6 Mo. App. 188, 191. ^ Ante, § 128.

2 McCartney v. Garneau, 4 Mo. App. ^ Cook v. Lewis, 36 Me. 340.
566, 567.

§ 130 POWER TO REQUIRE BOND. 301

divested of his common law powers to wind up the pff^^^^f^^_
j)artuci-sliii) until the administrator of the deceased fusai to give

1 • • 1 • J. 1 bond.

partner has given the bond authorizing him to take
charge of the partnership efi'ects on the survivor's refusal to do
so.^ This doctrine involves the power of the surviving partner to
fully settle up the partniM-ship affairs and transfer the firm projj-
erty in payment of its debts without giving the bond required by
the statute, unless the administrator of the deceased partner give
the bond, which he cannot do until the expiration of at least
thirty days from the partner's death. It also results from these
cases, that no one can be authorized to take charge of the partner-
ship estate, save the surviving partner or the administrator of the
deceased partner.^ Hence, if the estate of the deceased partner is
in charge of the public administrator, it may become the duty of
the probate court to order the public administrator to take charge
of and wind up the partnership estate in his official capacity, if
the surviving partner refuse to give the bond.^

Although the statute provide for citation against the surviv-
ing partner, such citation is not essential to the validity of the
bond to be given by the administrator of the deceased ^^.^^j^^ ^^ ^^^
partner; notice to him that he will ap])lv to the pro- smvivm- in-

^ ' 1 1 .- » administrator

bate court for an order directing him to take charge of deceased

1 ,1 • • pavtner.

of the partnership estate unless the survivor give
bond, is sufficient.*

The inventory which the administrator of a deceased partner is
required to make before it is determined whether he or the sur-
viving partner shall administer the partnership estate. Liabilities of
includes the partnership effects for the purpose only relpecUv'e" ^^
of ascertaining the interest of the deceased partner ; '^°'"^*-
it does not authorize such administrator to take charge of or exer-
cise any control over the same. Hence the sureties on his bond
are not liable for conversion of the partnership effects so invento-
ried, made after giving the additional bond required to authorize
him to take charge of the partnership effects.^

1 Weise'y. Moore, 22 Mo. App. 530, " Weise v. Moore, 22 Mo. App. 530.

534; Bredow v. Mutual Savings Institu- ^ Headlee v. Cloud, 51 Mo. 301.

tion, 28 Mo. 181, 184, recognized in Mu- * James v. Dixon, 21 Mo. 538; Cam',

tual Savings Institution v. Enslin, 37 Catlin, 13 Kans. 30.3.
Mo. 453,457; Ilolman v. Nance, 84 Mo. 5 Orrick r. Vahey, 40 Mo. 428, 430;

674, 678; Easton v. Courtwright, 84 Mo. Carr v. Catlin, 13 Kans. 393; Glass Com-

27, 38. pany i;. Ludlum, 8 Kans. 40.

302 ESCHEATS- § 131

CHAPTER XIII.

ESCHEATS.

§ 131. Devolution of Property in Default of Heirs. — Property
of deceased persons necessarily vests in the State if no one is
The State sue- Competent to take it as heir or testamentary donee.^
ceeds to prop- a j^ sccms to be the nnivcrsal rule of civilized society,

erty if there _ ''^ ^

are" no heirs. that when the dcccascd owner has left no heirs it
should vest in the public and be at the disposal of the govern-
ment." 2 Such property is said to escJieat, — a term applied in the
common law to the reversion of an estate to the lord from whom it
was held, either propter defectum sanguinis, i. e. on account of the
failure of heirs of the grantee, or propter delictum tenentis, i. e. on
account of the felony or attainder of the tenant.^ Of course, there
can be no escheat in this country on the latter ground (nor in
England, since corruption of the blood and forfeitures and es-
cheats are done away with by statute ^) ; hence, in the United
States, escheat signifies a reversion of property to the State in
consequence of a want of any individual competent to inherit.^

§ 132. Escheat at Common Law. — It will be remembered that
at common law the term escheat is properly applicable to real
estate only, since it is an incident to the feudal ten-
estate escheats ure,*^ although Blackstone, in one part of his Comm.en-
at common law. ^^^-^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^j^^ doctriuc of cschcats as applying to

property in general.' The title by escheat accruing to the lord

1 " It is right and proper, that when * 33 & 34 Vict. c. 23.

the owner of property flies without giving ^ Within the States of the American

it away, and without leaving any object Union, escheats for defect of heirs are to

having natural claims to his bounty, such the State in which the property is situate,

as heirs or next of kin, his property and not to the United States : Cooley's

should go to the community of which he Blackst., vol. 1, bk. 2, p. 302, note 9.
is a member " : Per Tucker, P., in Hub- « 2 Bla. Comm. 72, 89, 244.

bard v. Goodwin, 3 Leigh, 492, 518; ^ "!„ case no testament be permitted

Matthews i\ Ward, 10 Giir& J. 443, 450. by the law, or none be made, and no

- Bouvier, Law Diet. "Escheat," citing heir be found so qualified as the law

Domat, Droit Pub., liv. 1, t. 6, s. 3, n. 1 ; requires, still, to prevent tlie robust title

4 Kent, 424 ; 2 Bla Comm. 244 : 1 Washb.- of occupancy from again taking place, the

R. Prop. 24, 27 ; 1 Browne, Civ. L. 250. doctrine of escheats is adopted in almost

3 Abbott, Law Diet. " Escheat." every country " : 2 Bla. Comm. 11.

§ 132 ESCHEAT AT COMMON LAW. 303

upon the termination of liis vassal's tenancy (by death r^j^j^ j^^. ^^_
without heirs or corruption of the tenant's blood) was ^^^^^^'/^Jj^J^i'^
not complete until the lord performed an act of his some notorious
own by entering on the lands and tenements so es-
cheated, or suing out a ivrit of escheat, on failure of which, or by
doing any act amounting to an implied waiver of his right, as by
accepting homage or rent of a stranger who usurps the posses-
sion, his title by escheat was barred.^ It is accordingly said,
that at common law a process like a recovery of the lands by
suit must be gone through with before the land can properly be
considered as belonging to the State.^ But the ne-

p f.^ ,, ,, /.^ p 1 ,, when inquest

ccssity of an " mquest oi oihce, or " oihce round, ofoiiiceis
as the proceeding to ascertain the sovereign's title is "^'^'-^^^''y-
called, seems to apply to cases only in which the escheat is claimed
on the ground that the heir is an alien. Story, J., states the com-
mon law to be,^ that an alien can take lands by pur- ahcu holds
chase, though not by descent ; he cannot take by the to hhn bypSr-
act of law, but he may by the act of the party. There ti' be dTv'd'S
is no distinction, whether the purchase be by grant or on office found.
devise. The estate vests in the alien, not for his own benefit, but
for the benefit of the State ; the alien has the capacity to take, but
not to hold lands ; they may be seized into the hands of the sov-
ereign. Until the lands are so seized, the alien has complete
dominion over them, and may convey them to a purchaser. The
title acquired by an alien by purchase is not divested until office
found, because, as the freehold is in the alien, and he is tenant to
the lord of whom the lands are holden, it cannot be divested out
of him but by some notorious act, by which it may appear that
the freehold is in another. And the reason of the on death of
difference why, when an alien dies, the sovereign is eSirtTwUh^
seised without office found is because otherwise the out inquest,
freehold would be in abeyance, as an alien cannot have any in-
heritable blood. Even after office found, the king is not adjudged
in possession, unless the possession were then vacant ; for if the
possession were then in another, the king must enter or seize

1 2 Bla. Comm. 24.5. until tlie fact is judicially ascertained by

2 3 Washb. on R. Prop. *444. "By the a proceeding in the nature of an inquest
civil law as well as the common law, the of office": People v. Folsom, 5 Cal. 373,
King cannot take upon himself tlie pos- 378.

session of an estate, said to have escheated, * Fairfax v. Hunter, 7 Cr. 603, 619.

304 ESCHEATS. § 133

by his officer, before the possession in deed shall be adjudged
to him.

It seems to follow that " whenever the owner dies intestate,
without leaving any inheritable blood, or if the relations whom
he leaves are aliens, there is a failure of competent heirs, and the
lands vest immediately in the State by operation of law. No
inquest of office is requisite in such cases." ^

The distinction between escheat (to the chief lord of the fee)

and fojfeiture (to the crown) must not be overlooked. The one

Distinction be- ^^^ ^ coiisequence of the feudal connection, the

andTorfdture. o^hcr was anterior to it, and inflicted upon a principle

t- . r of public policy.2 It follows from the nature of es-

No escheat of ^ i ^

lands held in cheats at comiuon law, that trust property does not

escheat upon the death of the cestui que trust, because,

the legal title being in the trustee, there is no lack of an owner,

although the owner of the beneficiary title die without heirs.^

Personal property, which in default of next of kin

But otherwise i i . • • n t i i i

as to personal goes to the king, as parens patrice, is allodiaf by law ;
P'ope'ty. ^^^ £^^, ^j^jg reason, when held in trust, the king is as

well entitled to it as to any other personal estate.*

§ 133. Escheats under the Statutes of the several States. — It

results from what has already been stated, that escheat in the

feudal sense has never existed in America, at least not

Nature of t-> i r i i i i- n • <•

escheat in siiicc the Revolution,"' but has here become a tailing oi
the estate into the general property of the State, either
because the tenant is an alien, or because he has died intestate
without lawful heirs to take his estate by succession.^ This prin-
Personai and ciplc includcs personal property as well as real, and
Iht'^s'ubj'ec? i^ ^0 treated in the statutes governing the subject in
to escheat. ^^q several States, some of them distinguishing between
the two species of property in the method pointed out for its
recovery by the State, and as to the time allowed claimants to

1 4 Kent, *424; Farrar v. Dean, 24 Mo. ^ Mr. Washburn calls attention to the
16; People v. Conklin, 2 Hill, (N. Y.) G7, existence of tsclieat, in the feudal sense,
74 ; Pom. Mun. L. 667. See post, § 133, in Marj'land, and perhaps a few other of
on the necessity of inquest under the the Colonies, before the Revolution . 3
statutes. Washb. R. Prop. *443. A full account

2 4 Kent, *427. of the grant of lands to Lord Baltimore
8 Burgess v. V^heate, 1 Wm. Bl. 123 ; maj' be found in the cases of Fairfax v.

1 Eden, 177 ; 2 Washb. R. Prop. *185. Hunter, 7 Cr. 603, and Ringgold r Ma-

4 Burgess v. Wheate, 1 Wm. Bl. 123, lott, 1 Har. & J. 2f)9.
164. ^ 3 Washb. *448 , 4 Kent, *424.

§ 133 ESCHEATS IN THE SEVERAL STATES. 305

prove their right to property declared escheated ; but in all of
them, (except where the statute is silent on this point, as in Colo-
rado,^) the right of the State to property left without [„ Maryland
a competent heir or testamentary donee is placed upon jj^op'^rty
the same ground, whether it is real or personal. In j'^gg'^^e^'e^rs
Maryland, personal property escheats if there be no be within fifth
heirs within the fifth degree of consanguinity. ^

The American doctrine also includes property held in trust,
whether by express enactment of the statute, as, for instance, in
Kentucky ,3 Pennsylvania,* Virginia,^ and West Vir- property held
ginia,*^ or as a necessary consequence of the right of '" t*""*^-
the State as ultimus hceres ;"* a fortiori if the trust be a contriv-
ance to defeat the law, as where an alien purchases real estate
in the name of a trustee to evade the law prohibiting aliens from
holding real estate.^

It has also been held, that an estate in remainder, if vested in
fee, may escheat before the termination of the life estate ; as
where a testator devised the remainder to one who is Escheat of
incompetent to take it, and dies without heirs. In ""emamders.
such case, the interest devised goes to the State by escheat ; ^ but
in Pennsylvania it is held that the remainder cannot be escheated
until the termination of the life estate.^*' This subject is again
mentioned in connection with the subject of the title of the
State."

We have seen that at common law no inquest of office is neces-
sary to vest the title by escheat in the king,!^ unless the escheat
is claimed because the heir is an alien.^^ The same inquest not
doctrine holds good in the United States, except where "eTs^reqiured"
such proceeding is directed by express statute.^* With ^y statute.

1 The Constitution directs that the « Kelley's Rev. St., p. 548, § 24.
school fund shall consist, i. a., of prop- '' Matthews v. Ward, 10 G. & J. 443,
erty escheated to the State : Const. (Gen. 451 et seq. ; Commonwealth v. Naile, supra.
St. 1883), art. ix. § 5. ^ Hubbard v. Goodwin, 3 Leigh, 492,

2 Rev. Code, 1878, p. 417, § 17. 514.

8 Gen. St. 1887, p. 542, § 4. ^ People v. Conklin, 2 Hill, (N. Y.)

* But the Pennsylvania statute (of 67, 74.

1869) was held impossible of execution ^° Commonwealth v. Naile, supra.

as to trust estates: West's Appeal, 04 ^^ Post, § 134.

Pa. St. 186, 194. See, however, Com- '- Ante, § 132.

monwealth v. Naile, 88 Pa. St. 429, 434, ^^ Maynard v. Maynard, 36 Hun, 227,

in which the escheat of property held 231.

by a trustee was held good. " Crane v. Reeder, 21 Mich. 24, 78 et

6 Code, 1887, § 2396. seq. (citing Mooers v. White, 6 John. Ch.
VOL. I. — 20

306 ESCHEATS. § 133

respect to real estate this is in many States required. Tlie statutes
of Arkansas,^ Illinois,^ Maine,^ Mississippi,* Missouri,^ Pennsyl-
vania,*' South Carolina,^ Virginia,^ West Virginia,
saiy for per- and pcHiaps some other States, distinguish between
propel y. ^^^^^ ^^^ personal property in this respect ; so, by the
present Code in California ; ^ but in Delaware,^** Georgia,^i and
Oregon,^2 there must be proceedings in the nature of an inquest
Escheat of per- for personal as well as for real property. In respect
de'tenimmi b"^ ^^ pcrsoual property the law in most States makes it
probate court, ^he duty of the probate court in wliich administration
is pending to adjudge the question of escheat, either as constitut-
ing an element of the order of distribution, since the State is but
the ultimus hceres in such cases, or by express direction of the
statute, as in Alabama,^^ Arkansas,^* Georgia,^'^ lUinois,^^ Indiana,^"
lowa,^^ Missouri,!^ and Vermont.^** The action or pro-
cover escheated ceeding by the State to recover escheated property
piopery. fj'om a pcrson in possession, is distinct from and must

not be confounded with the inquest of office ; in such action the
State is in the same position as any individual suing for his right,
and in ejectment must recover upon the strength of its own title,
the bare possession of the defendant being sufficient to defeat the
State unless full proof be made of all the elements constituting

300; Slater v. Nason, 16 Pick. 345, 349; proceeding to secure the property of an
Montgomery v Dorion, 7 N. H. 475 ; Ru- intestate leaving no resident heirs, as an
beck ?'. Gardner, 7 Watts, 455; O'Hanlin escheat to the school fund, is premature
V. Den, 20 N. J. L. 31 ; s. c. 21 N. J. L. if brought witliin five years . People v.
582); Sands v. Lynham, 27 Gratt. 291, Eoach, 18 Pac. K. 407.
296 ; Reid v. State, 74 Ind. 252. Where i" Laws, 1874, p. 495.
the statute requires proceedings in the ^^ Code, 1882, § 2671.
nature of an inquest of office, the record ^^ Code, 1887, § 31.36.
thereof is the only evidence by which a i^ Code, 1886, § 1936 et seq. The ad-
title by escheat can be established : Wal- ministrator must pay the money to the
lalian v. Ingersoll, 117 111. 123. judge of probate; and if no heir appears

1 Dig. 1884, § 2768. within two years after publication, he is

2 St. & Curt. St. 1885, p. 1058, par. 3. to cause the real estate, if any, to be sold,

3 Rev. St. 1883, p. 785, § 11. and the proceeds, after payment to him
* Rev. Code, 1880, § 88-5. by the administrator, are placed in the

5 Rev. St. 1879, § 5573. State treasury.

6 Bright. Purd. Dig. 1883, p. 713, § 8. " Dig. 1884, § 2760.

7 Rev. St. 1882, § 2300; Muir v. Thorn- i^ Code, 1882, § 2671.

sou, 6 S. E. R 309. is St. & Curt. St. 1885, p. 10-58, par. 2.

8 Code, 887, § 2375. i^ Fuhrer v. State, 55 Ind 1-50, 152.

9 Code Civ. Proc. § 1269. Since all is Miller's Code, 1886, § 2461 et seq.
non-residents may appear and claim sue- i^ Rev. St. 1879, § 5.571.

cessions within five years after the death 20 liev. L. 1880, § 2235.
of the decedent (Civil Code, § 1404), a

§ 133 ESCHEATS IN THE SEVERAL STATES. 307

tlic escheat.^ So the State may, like an individual, be estopped
by its own grant and warranty from claiming escheat.^

In most of the States it is made the duty of some officer, spe-
cially vested with autliority for such purpose, to investigate and
ascertain whether property, real or personal, have
escheated, and to take all needful steps in securing
such to the State. In Delaware,'^ Kentucky,* Virginia," and West
Virginia, this officer is appointed by the governor, and is called
Escheator ; in Pennsylvania^ the auditor general, and in Soutli
Carolina' the county auditor, is made by statute ex Egciieators
officio escheator ; and in Alabama,^ Georgia,^ and lowa,^*^ *^ ogicw.
the administrator of an estate to which there are no competent
heirs is charged with the duties of an escheator. In most States
the duty to recover escheated property for the State is imposed
upon the attorney general,^^ prosecuting attorney,^^ State's at-
toruey,^^ district attorney,^* or directly upon the representative
officers of the school boards to be benefited by the proceeding ;^5
because, with rare exceptions, the proceeds of escheated property
are dedicated in the several States to the general school fund, or
otherwise appropriated for the purposes of public in- Re„e(5c,aries
struction.i*^ It is held, that the beneficiaries of these ""\''''" '^^ of

esfheat enti-

donations acquire a vested right to the property es- tied to notice

. . ' before sale of

cheated, as soon as the tacts which give rise to the piopert.v for
escheat exist ; hence a law changing the destination

1 3 Washb. R. Prop. *445 ; Common- " Rev. St. 1882, § 2316.

wealtli V. Hite, 6 Leigl), 588 ; Catliam v. » Code, 1886, § 1937.

State, 2 Head, 558; Hammond v. Inloes, 9 Code, 1882, § 2G71. But the admin-

4 Md. 138; Ramsey's Appeal, 2 Watts, istrator will be restrained in equity from

228, 231 ; Commonwealth v. Selden, 5 recovering possession of a tract of lain!

Munf. 160; State v. Meyer, 63 Ind. 33, left by one who died intestate, without

38. But it is held in Louisiana, that heirs, distributees, or creditors, from one

where the State claims the succession, who purchased the same and has been

III a proceeding against the universal leg- many years in possession : Smith v. Gen-

atee, who is m possession of the estate, try, 16 Ga. 31.

on the ground of his alleged incapacity, ^^ Miller's Code, § 2462.

in which proceeding third parties inter- ^i In California, Maine, Massachusetts,

vened claiming as heirs at law, the bur- Minnesota, New Jersey, New York,

den is not on the State to prove that the i- In Arkansas, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio,

deceased had left no heirs ; but on the in- '^'^ In Illinois.

tervenors to prove their heirship • Sue- " In Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas,

cession of Townsend, 3 Southern R. 488. '^ In Kansas, North Carolina (see Oli-

- Commonwealth »•. Andre, 3 Pick. 224. veira v. University, Phill. Eq. 09).

8 Laws, 1874, p. 495, § 2. "^ In many States this is provided by

* Gen. St. 1887, p. 540. the constitution, and gives rise to doubts

6 Code, 1887, § 237. concerning the power of the legislature

8 Bright. Purd. Dig. 713, § 8. or of courts to dispose of escheats.

308 ESCHEATS. § 134

of escheats can operate prospectively only ; ^ and an order to sell
the land of one who died without leaving heirs, for the payment
of his debts, is void, unless the parties entitled to escheated lands
are present, or have notice of the application for such order.^ So,
where the constitution provides who shall be the recipient of
escheated property, the same cannot be diverted, either by admin-
^ . . istration, or by act of the leffislature.^ The law in

Law 111 force *' °

at the time of force at the time of the death of one who leaves only

the intestate's v i • t • .

death governs alien lieirs dctcrmmes the question of escheat ; and a
treaty securing to aliens competent to inherit real
estate the right to such inheritance, confers no right upon an
alien who was, at the time of the intestate's death, incompetent,
though subsequently aliens were by statute enabled to hold real
estate by inheritance.*

§ 134. Nature of the Title by which the State holds Escheats. —
Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, mentions wdth disapproba-
At common tion "a Very inequitable rule of the common law, that
esdiea't'ckar'^^ ^^ ^^^^ king took lands by escheat, he was not subject
of trusts. to the trusts to which the escheated lands were previ-

ously liable " ; ^ and says, that " the opinion in England is under-
stood to be, that, upon the escheat of the legal estate, the lord will
hold the escheat free from the claims of the cestui que trust ^^;^
and he points out certain English statutes'^ as calculated to check
In America the ^hc Operation of SO unreasonable a i)rinciple. In
fn?ere*t*orthe^ America the principle is universally recognized, that,
decedent. where property escheats, the State takes precisely the

title which the party dying had, and no other.^ It is taken in the
condition and to the extent in which he held it. This is the ne-
cessary result of the principle that escheat in America means only
the substitution of the State to the rights of an owner who is

1 Rock Hill College v. Jones, 47 Md. 5 4 Kent, *425, citing 3 Harg. Co. Litt.
1, 18 et seq.; University of North Car- 13, n. 7 ; Pimb's case, Moore, 196.

olina V. Foy, 1 Murphy, 58, 81 et seq., « 4 Kent, *426.

flail, J., dissenting, on the ground that "^ 40 Geo. III. c. 88 ; see also 59 Geo.
the University is but the agent of the III. c. 94, enabling the king, by war-
State, p. 89. rant or grant, to execute the trust. The

2 Ilinkle v. Sliadden, 2 Swan, 46 ; statute of 4 & 5 Wm. IV. c. 23, provided
Parchman v. Charlton, 1 Coldw. 381, 388. that, when a trustee of lands died with^

3 State V. Reeder, 5 Neb. 203, 205 ; out an heir, the court of chancery may
Harvey v. Harvey, 25 S. C. 283. appoint a trustee to act for the party

* Hauensteins v. Lynham, 28 Gratt. beneficially interested.

62, 67. 8 3 Washb. R. P. *446 ; 4 Kent, *42?.

§ 134 TITLE BY WHICH THE STATE HOLDS. 309

incompetent to hold the title, or as heir to an estate in case there
be no other heir conii)cteiit to take it.^ In sonic of the States it
is i)rovided by statute that trust estates shall not escheat for the
want of a trustee,'-^ or that the State holds escheated lands subject
to existing trusts.*^ It likewise follows, that an estate in remain-
der may be escheated during the existence of a valid life estate,"*
and that the escheat of the intervening estate does not affect the
remainder ; ^ and that an " escheat grant," i. e. a grant by the
State of proi)erty which it had accjuircd by escheat to a purchaser,
passes the estate just as the original grantee held it, with all
privileges and appurtenances, and subject to all liens and incum-
brances, existing at the time of the escheat.*^

Most of the States make liberal provisions to enable heirs to
recover property even after judgment of escheat, if they were not
parties to the inquisition, and had no notice of the How heirs may
proceeding. Where money and the proceeds of the [Xrkalce"^
sale of personal or real property have been paid into '^f'^'" escheat.
the State treasury, the relief consists in a provision authorizing
the payment of the net amount of the escheat to the claimants
who within a certain time make sufficient proof of their title.
The time is limited to three years for personal property in Mis-
sissippi ' ; to five years for personalty in Delaware,^ and for re-
alty in Illinois,^ Mississippi,^^ Missouri,ii and South Carolina ^'^ ;
to six years in Georgia ^^ ; to seven years in Arkansas ^^ and Del-
aware ^^; to ten years in lowa,^^ North Carolina,^^ Oregon,^^
Virginia,^^ West yirginia,^'^ and for personalty in lUinois^^ and
Missouri 22 ; to seventeen years in Vermont -^ , to twenty years in

1 Casey v. Inloes, 1 Gill, 430, 507 ; ^ Rev. Code, 1880, § 891.
Straub v. Dimm, 27 Pa. St. 36, 39 ; Pareli- » Laws, 1874, p. 498, § 18

man v. Ciiarlton, 1 Coldw. 381. But the 9 St. & Cur. St. 1885, p. 1060, par. 7.

State is not an heir in the sense of being w Rev. Code, 1880, § 892.

entitled to notice of the probating of a " Rev. St. 1879, § 5588.

will, like an heir at law : State v. Ames, i- Kev. St. 1882, § 2306.

23 La. An. 69. is Code, 1882, § 2674.

2 As in Virginia and West Virginia. 1* Dig. 1884, § 2783.

8 New York may be instanced. I6 p^r real estate : L. 1874, p. 498, § 18.

* People V. Coniclin, 2 Hill, (N. Y.) 67. ic Miller's Code, § 2464.

But see antp, p. 305, note 10. n Code, 1883, § 1504.

6 Borland v. Dean, 4 Mas. 174, 180. is Code, 1887, § 3141.

« Casey v. Inloes, 1 Gill. 430, 507. As i^" Code, § 2403. See also Code, 1873,
land is not escheatable so long as there p. 877, § 33.

are competent heirs of the original gran- -o KcUey's Kev. St. ch. 81, § 32.

tee, the grant by the State of lands before 21 gt. & Curt. St. 1885, p. 1060, par. 7.

there is a failure of heirs is simply void : 22 r^v. St. 1870, § 5586.

Hall V. Gittings, 2 Har. & J. 112, 125. 23 Kev. L. 1880, § 2238.

310 ESCHEATS. § 135

California ;i to twenty-one years in Kansas ;2 and to thirty years
in Connecticut.^ No time seems to be fixed within which applica-
tion must be made in Maryland,* Michigan,^ New Hampshire,*^
Rhode Island,' and Texas.^ It is held in Pennsylvania, that the
heirs or kindred of any partner of a partnership whose property
has escheated may claim the property taken by the State.^ In
South Carolina it is held that, where an heir claims comiiensation
for property declared escheated, the fact that the legislature has
granted away the right to the land in question, and that no money
has been paid into the treasury, does not defeat the claim. ^"^

The State may, by legislative grant, give title to lands escheated
for the want of heirs before office found ; ^^ but if the grant be of
land to which the State has no title, the statute constituting the
grant is void.^^

§ 135. Administration of Escheated Estates. — It is provided in
the statutes of some of the States, that where a person dies leav-
ing no competent heirs, there shall nevertheless be

Administration ° . . / , ^ ■ ,i i t

of personalty admmistration of his estate in the usual manner. In
as usual. Alabama,!^ Arkansas,!* Coimecticut,!^ Illinois,!^ Iowa,"

Kentucky, IS Missouriji^NewHainpshire,^^ North Carolina,^! Texas,^^
and Wisconsin,23 this is affirmatively required by the language of
the enactments. It is obvious that in these States the object of
the law is fully accomplished by placing the State in the category

1 Code Civ. Proc. § 1272. But this i' Colgan v. McKeon, 24 N. J. L. 566

only authorizes such non-resident alien McCaughal v. Kyan, 27 Barb. 376, 378

to show that which he might have shown Rubeck o. Gardner, 7 Watts, 455, 458

had he been made a party to the escheat Nettles v. Cunimings, 9 Rich. Eq. 440.

proceedings, to wit, that he did appear ^^ Colgan v. McKeon, sujna.

and claim the property within five years ^^ Code, 1886, § 1937. Creditors of

from the time of the succession : State v. a decedent whose lands have been es-

Smith, 70 Cal. 153, 157. cheated cannot subject such lands to the

'■^ c'omp. L. 1885, § 2624, ch. 37, § 179. satisfaction of their claiuis without an

8 Gen. St. 1888, § 648. order from the ordinary to the adminis-

* Rev. Code, 1878, p. 417, § 18. But no trator, as in other cases • Congregational

collateral heirs more distant than children Church v. Morris, 8 Ala. 182, 193.

of brothers and sisters can apply. ^* Dig. 1884, § 2760.

5 Howell's St. § 5988. ^^ Gen. St. 1888, § 647.

6 Gen. Laws, 1878, p. 477, § 8. Ap- is st. & Cur. St. 1885, p. 1058, par. 2.
plication must, however, be made to the " Code, 1886, § 2461.
legislature. ^^ Gen. St. 1887, p. 538, § 8.

■7 Attorney General v. Providence, 8 ^^ Rev. St. 1879, § 5565.

R. I. 8 10. "" Gen. L. 1878, pp. 476, 477.

8 St. 1888, § 1783. 21 Code, 1883, § 1504.

9 Commonwealth v. No. Am. Land Co., ^^ Rev. St. 1888, § 1771.
57 Pa. St. 102. ^3 Rev. St. 1878, § 3936.

1^ Ex parte Williams, 13 Rich. 77, 84.

§ 135 ADMINISTRATION OF ESCHEATED ESTATES. 311

of an heir, represented in all matters requiring representation,
in court or otherwise, by the official eschcator or person desig-
nated to guard the interest of the State in such proceeding ; and
the rights of creditors or other claimants against such estate are
adjudicated precisely as if there were no question of escheat.
In other States the necessity of administration in the usual form
results from the absence of legislation directing the management
of escheated estates. But in some States administra- Administration
tion in the ordinary sense is excluded by the authority ^^ escheator.
vested in the escheator, or person acting for the State, with
respect to property escheated. Such seems to be the case in
Delaware,! Georgia,^ Indiana,^ Mississippi,* Ohio," Pennsylvania,^
Rhode Island,^ South Carolina,^ Tennessee,^ Virginia,io and West
Virginia.

1 Upon inquest and finding that de- * Rer. Code, 1880, § 888.
cedent left property and no heirs, the ^ Rev. St. 1880, § 4163.
escheator seizes the goods and causes ^ West's Appeal, 64 Pa. St. 186, 193.
tliem to be sold, unless the person in pos- '' Haigh v. Haigh, 9 R. I. 26, 29.
session gives bond that he will traverse » Rev. St. 1882, § 2310.

at the next term of the court : Laws, » Code, 1884, § 2962.

1874, p. 497, %8et seq. lo Code, 1887, § 2371 et seq. ; Watson v.

2 Code, 1882, § 2671. Lyle, 4 Leigh, 236, 246.

3 Rev. St. 1881, §§ 1143, 2478, 5668.

TITLE SECOND.

OF THE INSTRUMENTALITIES EFFECTING THE
DEVOLUTION.

§ 136. Tribunals and Officers employed by the Law to accom-
plish the Devolution. — Having in the preceding pages pointed
out the principles which determine the succession of property
upon the death of its owner, and considered the various channels
through which it descends to the new owners, it seems natural
now, in the further development of our subject, to examine the
instrumentalities employed by the law to accomplish and control
the devolution. It seems more convenient, in doing this, though
not, perhaps, in strictly logical sequence, to consider, in the first
place, the nature, scope, and power of the various courts and
tribunals armed with jurisdiction in this respect ; and, next, the
nature and extent of the authority of those officers whom the law
intrusts with the active administration of the estates of deceased
persons, — appointed, or at least confirmed, by these courts and
tribunals, and amenable to them for their official conduct, but
deriving their authority directly from the law, which determines
the scope of their powers, duties, and liabilities, and whose office
it is to personate the deceased in all matters touching the legal
disposition of his property.

PART FIRST.

OF THE TRIBUNALS CONTROLLING THE ADMINISTRA-
TION OF THE ESTATES OF DECEASED PERSONS.

CHAPTER XIV.

PROBATE POWERS AS EXISTING AT COMMON LAW AND UNDER
ENCxLISH STATUTES.

§ 137. Origin of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over the Probate
of Wills. — Surrogate Bradford, in the Introductory Note to his
series of Surrogate Reports, gives a concise and lucid account of
the origin of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the probate of
wills and the administration of the estates of deceased persons,
evincing great learning, and a thorough investigation of the his-
torical development of the jurisdiction, and of the rules and
principles of the civil law as affecting this department of juris-
prudence.i It is indispensable to a proper understanding of the
nature of probate courts in the United States to travel over the
same ground, ta some extent at least, in order to gain an insight
into the principles and doctrines of the common, civil, and canon
law constituting the unwritten presuppositions, tacitly understood
and premised, of American statutes regulating the administration
of the estates of deceased persons. Mucli that seems contradic-
tory, capricious, or incomprehensible in the several enactments and
decisions, will be seen to harmonize, and the principles of the civil
and canon law, vitaliziug the dry formulae of the common law,
will serve to fill out and round off the statutory provisions.^

i 1 Bradf. v. et seq. the land, that is, to that branch of the
- Courts of probate "exercise many common law known and acted xipon for
powers solely by virtue of our statutes ; ages, the probate or ecclesiastical law " :
but tliey have a very extensive jurisdic- Bell, C. J., in Morijan v. Dodge, 44 N. H.
tion not conferred by statute, but by a 255, 258. And see pout, § 149, on the pro-
general reference to the existing law of cedure in probate cnurts.

314 PROBATE POWERS AT COMMON LAW. § 137

This branch of English jurisprudence, or rather of practice
under the common law, was for a long time, and until quite re-
cently, known as well by the name of ecclesiastical as by that of
testamentary or probate law, because the clergy had assumed
testamentary jurisdiction and exercised it in their spiritual courts.
Just when this authority was first asserted does not very clearly ap-
pear; but on the Continent certainly before the reign of Justinian,^
because he undertook to curb the practice by an edict.^ " But,"
says Selden, " here we see that the clergy, even in those days, had
set their foot upon the business ; and I suppose that since that time
they never pulled it wholly out again." ^ In England, although
the claim and practice of spiritual courts in this particular is said
to have been originally a mere usurpation,* it became a privilege
enjoyed by them, not as a matter of ecclesiastical right, but, as
Blackstone puts it, by the special favor and indulgence of the
municipal law ,5 producing what he terms " a peculiar constitu-
tion " of the island.

This jurisdiction, exercised in the county court, where the
bishop and the earl sat conjointly for the transaction of business
until the separation of the ecclesiastical from the secular jurisdic-
tion by William the Conqueror,^ was plausibly claimed by the
bishop, as being in harmony with the customs of the Normans,
and the civil and canon law, which gave to bishops the charge of
the execution of testaments containing bequests in pios ususJ It
is certain, says Bradford, that the constitution of the ecclesias-
tical tribunals was authorized by William ; and that their juris-
diction included the probate of wills soon after, if not from the
instant of separation from the county courts, is almost capable of
direct proof.^

1 A. D. 527-565. wode, " the ablest canonist of the fif-

2 " And also by a mulct of 50 pound teenth century," and from a canon of the
weight of gold, saying Ahsurdum est nam- Archbishop Stratford to show that tes-
que si promiscuis actibus rerum, turbentur tamentary causes and the administration
officla, et alii creditum alius subtrahat ; ac of intestates' goods was ab olim granted
prcEcipue Clericis, quibus opprobrium est, si to the ordinary consensu regio et magnatum
peritas se velint Disceptationum esse Forpn- regni Anglii^.

siinn oslendere" : Spelman, Prob. of Wills ^ 2 Burn's Eccl. Law, 33; Spelman,

(Posthumous Works), 129 ; 3 Blackst. 96. 131.

3 Spelman, 129. '^ 1 Bradf. xxii.

* See note appended to Hensloe's Case, » i Bradf. xxii.; 3 Blackst. 96; Spel-

in 9 Co. 37,41; Spelman, sM/)ra; 4 Burn's man, 131; 4 Burn's Eccl. Law, 291;

Eccl. Law, 291 ; 3 Blackst. 95. Hensloe's Case, citing numerous ancient

o 3 Blackst. 95, quoting from Linde- authorities, 9 Co. 37.

§ 138 ORIGIN OF ADMINISTRATION IN ENGLAND. 315

But as the jurisdiction before the Noriuan cumiuest was a
purely lay jurisdiction, exercised not only in the county courts,
courts of hundred or tithing, but also, by special custom or fran-
chise, in local courts in which the earl, the lord of the manor, the
municipal magistrate, or other civil officer presided, those courts
that were such by special custom or franchise retained their
powers in this respect; tiiere were many lay courts in England
exercising testamentary jurisdiction, of indefinite antiquity or of
Saxon origin, when the act establishing courts of probate^ was
passed. 2

§ 138. Origin of Administration in England. — Anciently, SayS
Blackstone,^ the king, as parens patrice, seized upon the goods of
persons dying intestate and administered them through his minis-
ters of justice, probably in the county court ; and the prerogative
was granted as a franchise to many lords of manors, and others,
who continued to hold, by prescription, the right to grant admin-
istration to their intestate tenants and suitors in their own courts
baron.^ While the franchise so granted remained in the preroga-
tive and prescriptive courts for many centuries, and until the
passage of the Probate Act, together with the jurisdiction to
grant probate of wills of personalty,^ the jurisdiction formerly
exercised by the king or his representatives was vested in favor
of the Church in prelates, "• because it was intended by the law
that spiritual men are of better conscience than laymen, and that
they have more knowledge what things would conduce to the
benefit of the soul of the testator than laymen have."^ The
Church, accordingly, obtained the supervision of the distribution,
or administration, of the personal property of intestates ; the
ordinary might seize them and keep them without wasting, and
also might give, alien, or sell them at his will, and dispose of the
money m pios tisus. " So that," says Blackstone, " properly the
whole interest and power which were granted to the ordinary
were only those of being the king's almoner within his diocese, in
trust to distribute the intestate's goods in charity to the poor, or
in such superstitious uses as the mistaken zeal of the times had
denominated pious." "^

1 20 & 21 Viet. c. 77. * Antp, § 137, notes 1 and 2, above.

2 1 Bradf. xix. ; Foster's " Doctors' "^ Perk., Prof. Book. § 486.
Commons " : see post, § 204. "^ 2 Bl. 494, 495. Surrogate Bradford

3 2 Comm. 494. calls attention to tlie omission of the 32d

4 Ibid. article of Magna Cliarta in the cliarter of

316 PROBATE POWERS AT COMMON LAW. § 139

The trust thus vested in the ordinary was most solemn and
conscientious in its nature. The reverend prelates were not ac-
countable to any but to God and themselves for their conduct.
" If he [the ordinary] did otherwise [than dispose of the money
in pios usus], he broke the confidence which the law reposed
in him."i "The common law did not make him, being a spir-
itual governor, subject to temporal suits for such things. And
this was a great defect in the common law." ^ The trust was,
in the course of time, grossly abused. The Popish clergy, says
Blackstone, took to themselves (under the name of the Church
and poor) the whole residue of the estate of the deceased,
after the partes rationabiles, or two thirds, of the wife and
children were deducted, without paying even his debts, or other
charges thereon. This led to the enactment of the Statute of
Westminster II.,^ directing the ordinary to pay the intestate's
debts so far as his goods will extend.^ But even after this check
to the exorbitant power of the clergy, whereby the ordinary was
made liable to creditors, yet the residuum after payment of debts
remained still in their hands, to be applied to whatever purpose
his conscience should approve. It was the flagrant abuse of this
power that again called for legislative interposition ; by the stat-
ute of 31 Edw. III. c. 11, the estates of deceased persons were
directed to be administered by the next of kin of the deceased, if
he left no will, and not by the ordinary or any of his immediate
dependants. This statute originated the system of confiding the
settlement of the estates of intestates by their next of blood, ap-
pointed by the ordinary ,5 putting them, with respect to suits and
accounting, upon the same footing with executors, and making
them officers of the ordinary .^

§ 139. Powers of Ecclesiastical Courts in England. — The Com-
mon law of England, as affected by the statutes above named,'
and such of those noticed below as were enacted before the settle-
ment of the American Colonies, is at the basis of the American

Henry III., as to the payment of the debts * "A use more truly pious than any

of the deceased; an omission, he says, requiem or mass for his soul " : 2 Blackst.

which is thought to have been procured 495.

by ecclesiastical influence: 1 Bradf. xxv. & The process ran in the name and

note /*). under the seal of the bishop: 1 Bradf.

1 2 Blackst. 494. xxvi. note t.

2 Graysbrook v. Fox, 1 Plowd. R. 275, ^ Hensloe's Case, 9 Co. 39 ; 2 Blackst.
277. 496.

3 13 Edw. I. c. 19. ' 13 Edw. I. c. 19; 31 Edw. III. c. 11.

§ 139 POWERS OF ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS. 317

statutes concerning adniinistration, and tlic law in the American
States in so far as it has not been supplanted l)y their own stat-
utes. It is therefore necessary to follow, still further, the history
of the English law on this subject.

By the statute of 21 Henry VIII. c. 5, the discretion of the ordi-
nary in the appointment of administrators to intestate statuto au-
estates was enlarged, so as to authorize the appoint- poi^VtmentTf
mcnt of either the widow, or the next of kin, or both, ^'f?^- ^^f^,,

' ' ' 01 Kin, or both,

at the ordinary's pleasure; and in the case of two or to administer.
more persons of the same degree of kindred he might appoint
whichever he pleased.^

The Statute of Distributions ^ destroyed the common law right
to the pars ratioyiah'dis^ and made the estate distributable among
the widow and next of kin, leaving still, however, in

11 1 r- 1 1 . . P , . 1 Statutes re-

the hands oi the administrator, for his own use, tlie quiring cUs-
third formerly retained by the Church, until finally, by
the statute of 1 Jac. II. c. 17, this third was made distributable, as
well as the remainder of the intestate's estate.^

The powers of the spiritual courts were thus restricted to the
iudicial cognizance of the class of cases arising out ^ , . . ,

. ° Ecclesiastical

of the probate of wills, the grant of administration, jmisciiction
and the payment of legacies, and thus remained un- of deceased
til, by the statute creating the Court of Probate,* P"*""^"
their powers in this respect were wholly abrogated, fnjclfurro?
The authority to appoint administrators, and to take ^''^bate.
proof of wills, resided in the bishop of the diocese wherein the
testator or intestate dwelt at the time of his death, unless
he left effects to such an amount as to be considered notable
goods (bona notabilia, fixed by the ninety-third of the canons at
the value of X5 or over) within some other diocese or peculiar ;
in such case the will was to be proved before the metropolitan
of the province by way of prerogative, whence the courts, where
the validity of such wills was tried, and the offices where they
were registered, were called the prerogative offices of Canterbury
and York.^

This spiritual jurisdiction of testamentary causes is described
by Blackstone as " a peculiar constitution of this island ; for in

' 2 Bla. Comm *496. s i Bradf. xxvi.

2 22 & 23 Car IL c 10 ; 29 Car. II. * 20 & 21 Vict. c. 77.

c. 30. 6 Wms. Ex. [289.]

318 PROBATE POWERS AT COMMON LAW. § 140

almost all other, even Popish, countries all matters
spiritual testamentary are under the jurisdiction of the tempo-

junsdiction. ^^^ magistrate." ^ It was exercised by the consistory
courts of diocesan bishops, and in the prerogative court of the
metropolitan, generally, and in the arches court and court of
delegates by way of appeal. It is divisible into three branches,
the probate of wills, the granting of administrations, and the
suing for legacies, in respect to the latter of which the jurisdic-
tion is concurrent with courts of equity .^

As the rules of tlie canon and civil law had been adopted by
the ecclesiastical courts, they gradually became the basis of the
ecclesiastical law, prevailing, not propria vigore, but only so far as
the custom and prescription have admitted them in the spiritual
courts.3 "The proceedings in the ecclesiastical courts," says
Blackstone,* " are therefore regulated according to the practice
of the canon and civil law ; or rather, according to a mixture of
both, corrected and new-modelled by their own peculiar usages
and the interposition of courts of common law. . . . When all
pleadings and proofs are concluded, they are referred to the con-
sideration, not of a jury, but of a single judge, who takes informa-
tion by hearing advocates on both sides, who thereupon forms his
interlocutory decree, or definitive sentence, at his own discretion,
which, if not appealed from in fifteen days, is final by the statute
of 25 Henry VIII. c. 19.

" But the point in which these jurisdictions are most defective
is that of enforcing their sentences when pronounced,

Ordinarv could , . , , , ,, i - j.i i. r

enforce his for which they have no other process but that ot
excommumca- ex communication ; which is described to be twofold :
tiononiy. ^j^^ j^^^ ^^^ ^1^^ greater excommunications."^

S 140. Probate Jurisdiction in other English Courts. — The ex-
tent of jurisdiction exercised by the ecclesiastical courts of Eng-
land included but a small proportion of the judicial

Fowers in '■ '■

ecclesiastical authority involved in the adjudication of questions

courts but a •' ciTij.j.rr'

small piopor. arising iu the settlement of dead mens estates, lo

tion of iudicial '" , , , ,i i „£

control over somc cxtcnt, the power to pass upon the accounts ot
adminTstmtoi. cxccutors and administrators, if no trial of issues,

1 3 Bla. Conini. *95. ^ By act of 53 Geo. TTI. c. 127, the

2 3 Bla. Comm. *97, 98. sentence of excommunication was dis-

3 1 Bradf. xxvi. citing Hale's Hist, placed by the writ de confumace capiendo,
Com. L. 28. issued out of chancery upon the signifca-

* 3 Bla. Comm. *100. vit of tiie ecclesiastical court.

§ 141 JURISDICTION IN OTHER ENGLISH COURTS. 319

either of fact or law, was necessary, and to grant them a dis-
charge after a true accounting, seems to have been exercised by
the ecclesiastical tribunals.i B,it the trial of disputed accounts,
involving the testimony of witnesses, questions of de- Residue of
vastavit, liability to creditors, legatees, and distribu- -rcourts o*!
tees, the marshalling of assets, recourse to real estate ^^'^ "'"^ ^^"''y-
for the payment of debts and legacies, etc. ; in short, the control
over executors and administrators in every respect not included
in the probate of wills, appointment of administrators, and pay-
ment of legacies, was exclusively in the common law and chan-
cery courts, as well as the appointment and removal of guardians
and curators to minors and persons of unsound mind, and the
control over them in respect of the management of their estates.
It should therefore be remembered, that there is a ^.^^^^^^^^^^^
very ereat difference between the totalitv of the pow- two!Mi powers

. . " ,. -.I of F,n;;li-<h tes-

ers exercised by the English courts m connection with tanu-ntaiy
the administration of estates of deceased persons, Ameriom pro-
sometimes called testamentary or probate jurisdiction, b^tecouns.
and the testamentary or probate jurisdiction of ecclesiastical
courts,-^ a distinction which is of the utmost importance in as-
certaining the conclusiveness of the judgments and decrees of the
several classes of courts in collateral proceedings, and also in
comparing the relative powers of ecclesiastical courts with those
of American probate courts. For although the tribunals estab-
lished in the Colonies were at first modelled after those of the
mother country, whose functions they were to perform, so that
they were to some extent governed by the rules of the civil and
canon law, and in some instances took even the name of their
prototypes, yet in the course of time they were invested with
greater powers and jurisdiction,^ and to fit them for the efficient
exercise of the new functions invested in them, they were made

1 Swinb. on Wills, pt. 6. § 21 ; 4 Burn's courts of common law, and not analocrous
Eccl. L. 609 (9tli ed.) ; Wms. Ex. [2000] ; to any proceedings of the probate court
Toll. E.x. & Adin 495. See post, § 498 as a court of ecclesiastical jurisdiction.
et seq., on the subject of accounting. Those various statutes, based upon the

2 " The powers of the probate courts suggestions of practical expt'Hence, and
have been gradually increased by a series passed with the view of promoting the
of state and provincial statutes reaching prompt and economical disposition of the
back to the time of their sopamtion from matters to which they relate, have re-
the common law courts. Jurisdiction has suited in the large jurisdiction now exer-
been given them of matters formerly cised by probate courts " : Smith's Prob.
within the exclusive cognizance of the Law (Mass.), ch. 1.

820 PROBATE POWERS AT COMMON LAW. § 141

courts of record, with a public seal and a clerk ; have organized
process and executive officers, stated terms, and continued func-
tions.^ The several legislatures, being at perfect liberty to adajjt
the constitution and powers of the courts to the requirements and
convenience of the people, invested these tribunals, not only with
the powers possessed by the spiritual courts in England, but, in
most instances, with all the powers possessed by the English
ecclesiastical, common law, and chancery courts, in so far as they
were necessary to control the administration of decedents' estates ;
and within the sphere of the jurisdiction conferred upon them
they are a branch of the judiciary of the State, as much so as any
other court of general or plenary power.^

1 Obert V. Hammel, 18 N. J. L. 73, 79. 2 Miller v. Iron County, 29 Mo. 122.

§ 141 ORIGIN OF PROBATE COURTS IN AMERICA. 321

CHAPTER XV.

NATURE OP PROBATE COURTS IN AMERICA.

§ 141. Origin of Probate Courts in America. — The essential
characteristics of courts whose office it is to control the adminis-
tration of estates not owned by persons competent to act sui juris,
have been indicated in an earlier chapter.^ It will appear from
the consideration of the nature, power, and scope of the courts
intrusted with this species of jurisdiction in the several American
States, to what extent the principle, there mentioned as resulting
from the nature of property and the office of the State, has been
practically realized and found recognition in the statute-books.
It is easy to understand why this principle was so inadequately
recognized, and never expressed as an organic element of the
law, in England. The only courts exercising a peculiar jurisdic-
tion over the subject, the present Court of Probates, taking the
place of the former ecclesiastical and manorial courts, extend
their control over a part only of the subject ; another portion
falls exclusively within the province of chancery courts, who treat
executors and administrators as trustees ; while yet another ele-
ment of the functions of these officers is dealt with in the courts of
common law. However incongruous such a system might have
been recognized to be, and however strongly a change might
have been desired, the conservative spirit of the Eng- ^

111 <. Circumstances

lish people and the peculiarity of the English con- retardins re-
stitution are unfavorable to reform in this direction, mentary courts
Prescriptive rights and prerogatives are tenaciously '" ^'"»'''*"*^'
adhered to. The habits, customs, and practices of the people, the
bar, and the bench represent a vis inertice to overcome which the
impetus must be powerful indeed. The statute creating the new
Court of Probates, thereby abrogating the^ secular jurisdiction
of the spiritual courts, strongly illustrates the intense conserva-
tism of even the legislative branch of the English government,
in the pension which it was found necessary to grant to the

1 Ante, § 11.
VOL. I. — 21 •

822 NATURE OF PROBATE COURTS IN AMERICA. § 142

bishops and archbishops, and even to the proctors practising in
these courts, to compensate them for the loss of their lucrative
privileges.

But in America circumstances have been peculiarly favorable to
the rational development of this principle. Ecclesiastical courts
r,- , with secular powers did not exist. Prerogatives and

Circumstances -i fc

fuvonnf; (level- prescriptive rights were swept awav bv the repub-

oiniieiit olthe f. \ , i mi i i'

i)iin(ipie un- licau Spirit of the people. The legislatures were, un-
i.ate comts^n hampered by the traditions and customs of the mother
menca. country, armed with full authority to carry out the

views and convictions of the people, who thus exerted a con-
trolling influence in shaping the law and regulating the prac-
tice of managing and settling estates of deceased persons and
minors ; for no branch of the law concerns the general public so
universally, and affects their interest so directly, as this. The
consequence has been a rapid development of the law of admin-
istration, particularly in those States which early cut loose from
the common law doctrines in this respect. The American courts
of probate, with their extensive powers, their simple and efficient
procedure, their happy adaptation to the wants of the people
ill the safe, speedy, and inexpensive settlement of the estates
of deceased persons, attest the marvellously clear insight of the
people of the Colonies and young States into the principles in-
volved, and the genuine instinct which guided them in their
realization. Necessarily diverse in their details, as the systems
of the several States cannot but be, since each State enacts its
own code, there is a common intendment of them all in the direc-
tion of recognizing the law of administration as a distinct, inde-
pendent branch of jurisdiction, based upon and determined by its
own inherent principles. The rich and manifold experiences of
a century of unexampled national growth and development have
tended to mould these systems in the national spirit common to
nil the States ; as each is the reflex of the nation, so their insti-
tutions are rapidly assimilating into a national system, in which
the incongruities incidental to the experimental enactments of the
several and indepenrdent legislatures are gradually disappearing
before the light of common experience and intelligent discussion.
§ 142. American Statutes the only Source of Probate Po-wers in
the States. — We have seen that by the common law the entire
scope of jurisdiction over the estates of deceased persons vested

142 STATUTES THE SOURCE OF PROBATE POWERS. 323

in the ecclesiastical, common law, and chancery courts.^ Ilencc,
there being no ecclesiastical courts in America, all such jurisdic-
tion, in so far as it became a part of the juridical system of the
States, necessarily vested in the common law and chancery courts,
to the extent in which it was not lodged elsewhere by statute.
It follows from this, tliat although in many of the probate courts
States the constitution establishes or provides for the ei'Voir/ule""^'
establishment of courts of probate, yet they take all »'"'"'«•
their powers from the statutes regulating them.^ From this cir-
cumstance arises an important rule to be observed in Hence they
ascertaining the extent of power lodged in any one of such povvers as
this class of courts : they can exercise such powers emier'ex-'^^
only as are directly conferred upon them by legisla- {Je^g«l:arv ^^
tive enactment,^ or necessary to carry out some power implication;
so conferred.* Unless a warrant for the exercise of jurisdiction
in a particulfir case can be found in the statute, given eitlier ex-
pressly or by implication, the whole proceeding is but jurisdiction

..r,, , ..,.,. . f. , con ferrod over

vonl;^ but where jurisdiction is conierred over any any sui)ject
subject matter, and it becomes necessary in the ad- wiThTt au'^pow-
iudication thereof to decide collateral matters over f '* "^'''^a'y

J _ to anjudicate

which no jurisdiction has been conferred, the court thereon,
must, of necessity, decide such collateral issues.*^

The courts so created took various names. In many of the
States they are known as Probate Courts, or Courts of Probate,
which is also the name given to the English court ere- Courts of pro-
ated in 1857, to which the jurisdiction previously timf k",',owirby
exercised by ecclesiastical, manorial, and other courts

various names.

1 Ante, § 140. clause in the Revised Statutes was accord-

- Tucker v. Harris, 13 Ga. 1, 8; Mc- ingly repealed, and tlie exercise of neces-

Phcrson v. CunlHf, 11 S. & R. 422, 429; sary incidental powers restored to the

Russell y. Lewis, 3 Oieg. 380; Pennisson surrogates: Laws, 1837, p. 536, § 71 j

V. Pennisson, 22 La. An. 131; Pelham r. Sipperly v. Raucus, 24 N. Y. 46; In re

iMurray, 04 Tex. 477, 481. Verplnnck, 91 N. Y. 439, 450.

^ Erwin v. Lowry, 1 La. An. 276 ; » Hijlgs ''• Crag<i, 89 N. Y. 479, 489 ;

Brittin v. Phillips, 1 Demarest, 57, 59; nor does the consent of parties confer

Snyder's Appeal, 30 Pa. St. 160. jurisdiction : Tlieller i: Such, 57 Cal.

^ In New York the attempt was made, 447, 459; Sibley v. Waffle, 10 N. Y. 180,

by the Kevised Statutes of 1830, to limit 185; Sitzman v. Pacquette, 13 Wis. 291,

tlie surrogates to the exercise of expressly 305 ; Leman v. Sherman, 18 111. App. 368 ;

conferred powers. But it was found that s. c. 117 111. 657.

the exercise of incidental powers was "^ Otherwise the end would be conceded

essential to the due administration of without the means : BaiUio ?•. Wilson, 5

justice : Dayton on Surr. 4 ; Pew v. Has- Mart. n. s. 214, 217 ; Lawson ?•. Ripley, 17

lings, 1 Barb. Ch. 4.52. The restrictive La. 238, 249; Estate of Altemus, 32 La.

£24 NATURE OF PKOBATE COURTS IN AMERICA. § 143

of testamentary jurisdiction was transferred. This term is in-
dicative of one of the chief and characteristic elements of their
powers, and is used in tliis treatise to designate all courts of this
class, being at once the most convenient, familiar, and accurate.^
In other States they are called Orphan's Courts,^ Ordinaries or
Courts of Ordinary,^ Surrogates,* Prerogative Courts,'^ Registers ® ;
while in many of them the jurisdiction is conferred upon courts
of plenary powers,' or upon the county courts,^ all of which, how-
ever, are known as courts of probate jurisdiction when acting
upon testamentary matters, and are then governed by the princi-
ples and rules of such, and not by their method of procedure
when acting as common law, chancery, or county courts.^

§ 143. Their Dignity as Courts. — In consequence of the statu-
tory origin of courts of probate, they have been said to be courts
of limited,^^ inferior,^^ special and limited,^^ limited though not
special,^^ or limited though not inferior jurisdiction.^.* The result
Judgments of this peculiarity, i. e. their lack of all power save
factfclnfer'-^^ as Conferred by statute, has been, in some of the
rinfijurisdic- Statcs, to deprive their judgments and decrees of all

tion appear ■> r j o

of record. Validity uulcss the facts upon which their jurisdiction

depends appear affirmatively from the face of their proceedings,^^

An. 364, 369; Hinckley's Estate, ]\Iyr. 9 Wells v. Smitli, 44 Miss. 296, 304.

189: Crooks' Estate, Myr. 247 ; Fowler i» Erwin v. Lowry, 1 La. An. 276, 278;

r. Lockwood, 3 Rerlf. 465; Hyland v. Snyder's Appeal, 36 Pa. St. 166 ; Gallman

Baxter, 98 N. Y. 610, 616. r. Gallman, 5 Strobh. L. 207 ; Brodess v.

1 It is used in tlie statutes of Alabama, Tliompson, 2 Harr. & G. 120; People's

California, Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Bank v. Wilcox, 15 R. I. 258.

Maine, Massacliusetts, Michigan, Min- '^ Townsend v. Gordon, 19 Cal. 188.

nesota, Missouri, Nebraska, and New ^'-^ Potwine's Appeal, 31 Conn. 381 ;

Hampshire. Wood v. Stone, 39 N. H. 572; Peoples.

- In Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Corlies, 1 Sandf. 228, 247; Hendrick v.

and Pennsylvania. Cleaveland, 2 Vt. 329, 337.

3 In Georgia. 13 Qbert v. Hammel, 18 N. J. L. 73, 79 ;

* In New York and New Jersey. Plume v. Howard Savings Institution, 46

5 New Jersey. N. J. L. 211, 229.

6 In Delaware, Maryland, New Jerse.v, i* Cody v. Raynaud, 1 Col. 272, 277 ;
and Pennsylvania. Turner v. Malone, 24 S. C. 398, 401.

" Such as District Courts, as in Ne- ^^ Kemp v. Kenned^', Pet. C. C. 30, 36,
vada ; Circuit Courts, as in Arkansas, In- Washington, J., announcing that "courts
diana, and Iowa ; Chancery Courts, as in of limited jurisdiction must not only act
Mississippi and Tennessee. In North within the scope of their authority, but
Carolina probate jurisdiction is in the it must appear upon the face of their pro-
Clerk of the Superior Court, as an inde- ceedings that they did so, and if this
pendent and original tribunal : Edwards does not appear, all that they do is coram
V. Cobb, 95 N. C. 4. non judlce, and void "; Turner v. Bank of

8 In Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, and North America, 4 Ball. 8, 11. Both of

Illinois. these cases arose in federal courts, de-.^

§ 143 THEIR DIGNITY AS COURTS. 325

But this view does not seem sound on principle ; it ig- This doctrine
nores the character of these tribunals as courts, and the appifcrbk in
necessity that their judgments and decrees should be America,
binding, as authoritative announcements of the law, upon all the
world. It is held that federal courts, although of limited jurisdic-
tion, are not inferior courts in the technical sense ; and that their
judgments, although reversible by writ of error or appeal, are
binding, although the jurisdiction be not alleged in the pleadings.^
The doctrine that judgments of probate courts are void unless
the facts upon which their jurisdiction depends appear of record,
arose probably from the necessity of the application of such a rule
to the ecclesiastical courts of England, whose jurisdiction is ex-
ceedingly limited, which were not courts of record, possessed no
means of enforcing their judgments or decrees,^ and whose exer-
cise of jurisdiction was jealously scanned by the temporal courts
to guard against encroachment and usurpation. No one of these
reasons exists in the United States.^ Courts of probate in Amer-
ica are entitled to the sanction which every court of record
holds;* they are not to be classed with those tribunals which
have no authority beyond special powers for the performance of
specific duties, little or in no wise relating to the general adminis-
tration of justice, whose modes of proceeding are prescribed by
the statute,^ but are of that class of courts whose judgments, like
those of the federal courts, are held good without a recital of the
facts upon which they rest.^ The subject of the validity of judg-
ments and decrees of probate courts is more fully considered
hereafter.'^

scribing them as limited, but not inferior p. 147) : Davie v. McDaniel, 47 Ga. 195>

courts. Tlie following cases originated 200.

in probate courts : Lii)e v. Mitchell, 2 ^ Such as commissioners, surveyors,

Yerg. 400, 404 ; Overseers v. Gullifer, 49 appraisers, committees, directors, over-

Me. 360; Dakin o. Hudson, 6 Cow. 221, seers, and the like: Obert v. Hammel, 18

224 ; Potwine's Appeal, 81 Conn. 381, 383. N. .1. L. 7-3, 79.

1 Skillcrn v. May, 6 Cr. 267 ; McCor- o Grignon v. Astor, 2 How. 319, 342
mick V. SuUivant. 10 Wheat. 192, 199. Thompson o. Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 165

2 See ante, § 139. Shroyer v. Richmond, 16 Oh. St. 4-55, 464

3 Tucker v. Harris, per Lumpkin, J., People ?•. Gray, 72 111. 343, 347 ; Johnson
13 Ga. 1,8; Fisher v. Bassett, 9 Leigh, v. Benzley, 65 Mo. 250, 254; Martin v.
119, 131; Adams v. Adams, 22 Vt. 50, 57. Robinson, 67 Tex. .368. .374; Acklen v.

4 McPherson r. Cunliff. 11 S. & R. 422, Goodman, 77 Ala. 521 ; Plume v Howard
429 ; Hahn v. Kelly, .34 Cal. .391. See Savings Institution, 46 N. J. L. 211, 228.
Tucker v. Harris, supra, in which Judge By statute in Rhode Island : Angell ".
Lumpkin appealed to the lesrislature for Angell, 14 R. I. 541 ; but see People's
an ai't so declaring, which respt>nded to Bank v. Wilcox, 15 R. I. 258, 260.

the call by act of 1856 (Acts. 1855-56, '' Po.s^ § 145.

326 NATURE OF PROBATE COURTS IN AMERICA. § 144

§ 144. Their Powers as Judicial Tribunals. — They are ill lliust,

if not all, of the States courts of record/ havin<^ a public seal

and a clerk, or authority in the iudoe to act as clerk,

General powers ' . .

of probaie organized process, and executive officers, as well as
stated terms and continuing functions. Within the
field of their jurisdiction they are as much a branch of the judi-
ciary of the State as any court of general or plenary powers.^ As
judicial tribunals they have the inherent power of such to punish
. , , for contempt to the same extent as common law

to punish for '■

contempt and courts,^ to compcl obediciice to their orders and de-

compel obedi- -, ,t • • ^ , ii -ji • .i •

ence to their crecs,'* and their judgments upon matters within their
jurisdiction are enforced, usually, by the same means
which are at the disposal of common law and chancery courts.^
Their orders, judgments, and decrees are therefore as conclusive
upon the parties to the record, until reversed or annulled on ap-
peal, writ of error, or direct proceeding in chancery for fraud, as
decrees in chancery or iudgmcnts at law ;^ but if want

Their judg- \ ■, ■ r , i

nients are void of jurisdiction appears from the lace of the proceed-
jurisdiction ings, they are, like the judgments of any court under
appear; y^^^ circumstanccs, merely void.^ Thus it has been

said by very high authority on questions of probate law, that
„ jurisdiction of the subject matter is to be tested by the

but collaterally "> •' o ■ ^

conclusive authorized extent of the powers of the court m regard

to the alleged cause of action ; and if the court had

power to try that, did try it, and pronounced judgment thereon,

the question cannot again be tried in another court.^ It is how-

1 Shroyeri;. Richmond, 16 Oh. St. 455, St. 508, 512; Caruth v. Anderson, 24
464; Chase I). Whiting, 30 Wis. 544, 547; Miss. 60; Yoeman v. Younger, 83 Mo.
Milan v. Pemberton, 12 Mo. 602 ; Tebbets 424, 429.

V. Tilton, 24 N. H. 120, 124; Dayton v. « Watson v. Hutto, 27 Ala. 513 ; Dick-

Mintzer, 22 Minn. 393; Turner y. Malone, inson y. Hayes, 31 Conn. 417, 422 ; Tomp-

24 S C. 398, 401. kins v. Tompkins, 1 Sto. 547; Jones v.

2 Obert I'. Haramel, 18 N. J. L. 73 ; Coon, 5 Sm. & M. 751, 767 ; Bryant v.
Miller v. Iron County, 29 Mo. 123. Allen, 6 N H. 116 ; Granbery v. Mhoon,

3 Bac. Ab., tit. Courts and their ju- 1 Dev. L. 456; Brovpn v. Gibson, 1 N. &
risdiction, E; Chess's Appeal, 4 Pa. St. McC. 326, 328; Cummings v. Cummings,
52, 54. 123 Mass. 270, 273; Dayton v. Mintzer,

4 In re Brinson, 73 N. C. 278, 280; 22 Minn. 39.3, 394; Mercer v. Hogan, 4
Seaman v. Duryea, 11 N. Y. 324 ; Tome's Mackey, 520, 527.

Appeal, 60 Pa. St. 285, 295 ; People v. ' Mohr v. Tulip, 40 Wis. 66, 76 ;

Marshall, 7 Abb. N. Cas. 380; Sherry's Epping v. Robinson, 21 Fla. 36, 49.

Estate, 7 Abb. N. Cas. 390; Stratton v. » Bradford, S., in Black v. Black, 4

McCandliss, 32 Kans. 512,516; Ex parte Bradf. 174, 204, citing Bissell v. Briggs,

Hayes, 88 Ind. 1, 5. 9 Mass. 462 ; Williams v. Robinson, 63

5 McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 4 Oh. Tex. 576, 581, citing earlier Texas cases.

§ 145 I>OWEUS AS JUDICIAL TUlliCTNALS. S^7

ever asserted, ou the other hand, that, where courts of probate
are courts of limited jurisdiction, a distinction is to be drawn
between their judgment on a fact which may be decided without
deciding the case on its merits, — such judgment being collaterally
assailable although the jurisdictional fact is averred of record and
was actually found upon evidence heard by the court, — and judg-
ment on a fact involved in the gist of the suit, so that it cannot
be decided without involving the merits, which judgment is col-
laterally conclusive.^

Although these courts are courts of record, it does not follow
that they recognize an " attorney of record." Parties in interest
may appear in person, by agent, or attorney at law; They are courts
they may appear by one attorney at one hearing, and oni'iiv,''b'ut'''^""
by another on the next. Notice or process served up- ''eys'iize no

•' 1 L attorney of

on an attorney is of no more avail than if served upon record.
a stranger, unless the party respond to the notice or summons.^

§ 145. Conclusiveness of their Judgments in Collateral Proceed-
ings.— The development and growth of the jurisdiction of courts
of probate in the United States has o-iven occasion to ti . - .

^_ c' Uncertainty

considerable divergence in the authorities on the ques- whether ju'dg-

. . ments are

tion whether their judgments are conclusive, or im- assailable
peachable collaterally. The uncertainty produced by '^^ "* ^^"^ ^'
the vacillation of courts in this respect is not only perplexing to
the administrators, practitioners, and judges, but injurious and
sometimes ruinous to the interests of all persons concerned in the
administration of estates ; and particularly to the purchasers of
real estate sold under the order of probate courts, who sometimes
lose the fruits of their purchase because the officers of the court
are not sufficiently skilled or careful to let the record show all
jurisdictional facts ; and to the heirs or creditors, because the
risk incurred by purchasers depresses the price of the property at
the sale.

On principle there seems to be no difficulty attending the ques-
tion, except, perhaps, to ascertain whether the tribunal intrusted
with jurisdiction in probate matters is a court, with

7 . . 7 , - • X 1 Principle of

J uaieial functions in the common law sense, or whether collateral
its functions are miyiisterial only, or having no author. "^"""^ ""iveness.

1 People's Bank v. Wilcox, 15 R. I. ject is more fully treated in the sections
258, contaliiinij an extensive collection of injm.
American cases on this point The sub' '^ Hoes v. Halsey, 2 Dem. 577.

328 NATURE OF PROBATE COURTS IN AMERICA. § 145

ity beyond special powers for the performance of specific duties
not relating to the general administration of justice.^ If tlic
latter be the case, it is obvious that, to give validity to its acts, it
must affirmatively appear that everything necessary to such end
has been observed. But if it be found that the tribunal is one
competent to decide whether the facts in any given matter confer
jurisdiction, it follows with inexorable necessity that, if it decides
that it has jurisdiction, then its judgments within the scope of the
subject matters over which its authority extends, in proceedings
following the lawful allegation of circumstances requiring the
exercise of its power, are conclusive against all the world, unless
reversed on appeal, or avoided for error or fraud in a direct pro-
ceeding. It matters not how erroneous the judgment: being a
judgment^ it is the laio of that case, pronounced by a tribunal
created for that purpose. To allow such judgment to be ques-
tioned or ignored collaterally, would be to ignore practically, and
logically to destroy, the court. And it is not necessary that the
facts and circumstances upon which the jurisdiction depends shall
appear upon the face of their proceedings, because, being compe-
tent to decide, and having decided, that such facts exist by assum-
ing the jurisdiction, this matter is adjudicated, and cannot be
collaterally questioned.^

The English ecclesiastical and manorial courts were not courts
in the common law sense, — "they did not proceed according to
the common law,"— hence the English rule requiring them to
show jurisdictional facts on the face of their proceeding.

Many of the American courts of probate were, in early colonial
times, modelled after the ecclesiastical courts ; hence the neces-
sity of the same rule as applicable to their acts, and the early
American cases so holding.

In the progress of time, however, most of these courts were re-
modelled and vested with greatly increased judicial powers, made
courts of record, etc.^ The reform was initiated and carried out
by the legislative branch of government, — the only one having
power to accomplish it, — thus compelling the judiciary to fol-

1 j\^„te^ § 143. that the same rule must apply to judg-

2 Wyatt V. Steele, 26 Ala, 639,650; merits of inferior courts), 295 e< sp^. ,• Mor-
Bostwick V. Skinner, 80 111. 147, 152 ; Cox ford v. Dieffenhacker, 54 Mich. 593, 605,
i;. Thomas, 0 Gratt. 323 (announcing the citing earlier Michigan cases.

rule in the case of Circuit Courts), 325 et " See ante, §§ 141-144.

seq. ; State v. Scott, 1 Bai. 294 (showing

§ 145 JUDGMENTS IN COLLATERAL PROCEEDINGS.

329

low ; and it is but natural, perhaps, that they followed reluctantly.
Lawyers and judges were equally imbued with the doctrines of
the common law which ignored the ecclesiastical courts as judicial
tribunals ; and they found it difficult to assign to the American
probate courts a different status. And since the enlargement of
their powers emanated from as many different sources as there
are States, and proceeded in as many different channels, it is not
strange that for a long time there was very great divergence in
their decisions. It is gratifying to observe, however, that, while
unanimity has by no means been attained, yet tlie magnitude of
the divergence is gradually diminishing, in the proportion in
which the principle upon which these courts rest is understood
and practically realized.

Thus it is denied by the federal courts that courts of probate
are in any technical sense inferior courts,^ and their judgments
within the sphere of their jurisdiction are as conclusive ^^^^.^_^ holding
as those of the circuit or any other general court, and judgments of

JO pri)b;ite courts

entitled to the same intendments and presumptions m unassaiiaijie

r^. -. ••11T-A11 r collaterallj%

their favor. The same doctrme is held in Alal)ama,-
Arkansas,^ California,* Connecticut,^ Florida,^ Georgia," Illinois,^
Indiana,^ Iowa,io Kansas," Kentucky ,12 Louisiana,^^ Maine,i'* Michi-

1 Grignon v. Astor, 2 How. 319, 341 ; Williams, 76 111. 175 ; Andrews v. Bern-
McNitt V. Turner, 16 Wall. 852, 366; hardi, 87 111. 365; Goodbody v. Good-
Cornett v. Williams, 20 Wall. 226, 249. body, 95 111. 456, 460; McCormack v.
See ante, § 143. Kimmel, 4 111. App. 121, 124.

2 Wyman v. Campbell, 6 Port. 219, ** Dequindre v. Williams, 31 Ind. 444,
244 ; Perkins v. Winter, 7 Ala. 855, 863 ; 454.

Field V. Goldsby, 28 Ala. 218, 224; King i" Read v. Howe, 39 Iowa, 553, 559 et

V. Kent, 29 Ala. 542, 549 ; Satcher v. se/j., citing numerous Iowa cases ; Myers

Satcher, 41 Ala. 26, 39; Whorton v. u. Davis, 47 Iowa, 325. (See tlie case of

Moragne, 62 Ala. 201, 207; Farley v. Cooper v. Sunderland, 3 Iowa, 114, 134,

Dunklin, 76 Ala. 530; Barclift v. Treece, in which the doctrine announced in the

77 Ala. 528, 531. federal cases is criticised.)

3 Montgomery v. Johnson, 31 Ark 74, " Bryan i'. Bauder, 23 Kans. 95, 97.
83; Sturdy v. Jacoway, 19 Ark. 499, 514 ; i- Fletcher v. Wier, 7 Dana, 345, 347.
Borden v. State, 11 Ark. 519, 525; Rogers (This case holds the assumption of juris-
v. Wilson, 13 Ark. -507, 509. diction by probate courts to be i>n ma facie

* Hahn v. Kelly, 34 Cal. 391, 402. evidence of the jurisdictional facts.)

6 Dickinson v. Hayes, 31 Conn. 417, ^^ Sizemore v. Wedge, 20 La. An. 124;

422; Judson v. Lake, 3 Day, 318. Barbee r. Perkins, 23 La. An. 331 ; Duck-

6 Epping V. Robinson, 21 Fla. 36. worth v. Vaughan, 27 La. An. 599 ; Green

■7 McDade v. Burch, 7 Ga. 559, 562; v. Baptist Church, 27 La. An. 563; Wis-

Doe V. Roe, 30 Ga. 961 ; Patterson v. dom v. Parker, 31 La. An. 52.

Lemon, 50 Ga. 231, 2-36. " Bent r. Weeks. 44 Me. 45, 47 ; Record

8 Iverson v. Loberg, 26 111. 179, 182; v. Howard, 58 Me. 225, 228.

Moore v. Neil, 39 111. 256, 262 ; Logan v.

330

NATURE OF PROBATE COURTS IN AMERICA.

145

gan,i Mississippi,^ Missouri,^ New Jersey,* New Hampshire,^
New Yorlv,*^ North Carolina,^ Ohio,^ Pennsylvania,^ South Caro-
lina,io Texas,^^ Vcrmont,i2 Virginia,^^ and Wisconsin.^* The re-
verse has been held in many of these States, until the
suchjudKiiieiirs law was changed by legislation, or until the courts,
Tn coUaurar^ ou principle, reversed their former doctrine ; but in-
proceeduigs. gtances are not wanting in which the doctrine is ruled
both ways in the same State, under the same statute, and under
circumstances presenting no essential difference. It has been
held that substantial compliance with the statutory requirements
must be afhrmatively shown by the record to secure the validity of
judgments of probate courts against collateral assailability, in Cal-
ifornia,i5 Colorado,!^ Massachusetts,^' Mississippi,^^ Tennessee,!^
and Wisconsin,-'^ beside numerous cases involving the validity of
probate powers, where the owner of property had been erroneously
adjudged to be dead.^^

1 Coon V. Fry, 6 Mich. 506, 508 ;
"Woods r. Monroe, 17 Mich. 238 ; Osman
V. Tra])liagen, 23 Mich. 80; Alexander v.
Rice, 52 Mich. 451, 454.

2 Jones V. Coon, 5 Sm. & M. 751, 767.

3 Johnson v. Beazley, 65 Mo. 250 ;
Camden v. Plain, 91 Mo. 117, 129; Rott
mann v. Sclimucker, 94 Mo. 139.

* Plume V. Howard Savings Institu-
tion, 46 N. J. L. 211 ; Obert v. Hammel,
18 N. J. L. 7.3, 80.

5 Merrill r. Harris, 26 N. H. 142, 147 ;
Kimball r. Fisk, 39 N. H. 110 ; Gordon v.
Gordon, 55 N. H. 399, 401 et seq.

6 By statute, in tins State, judgments
of probate courts (surrogates) are iield
good unless sbown to be without jurisdic-
tion, the o»(/s probanfli resting upon those
who assail the validity : Wood v. Mc-
Chesney, 40 Barb. 417, 421; Forbes w.
Halsey,' 26 N. Y. 53, 65 ; Richmond v.
Foote", 8 Lans. 244, 253.

^ Overton v. Cranford, 7 Jones L.
415.

8 Shroyer v. Richmond, 16 Oh. St.
455, 465; Sheldon v. Newton, 8 Oh. St.
494, 500, citing Ludlow v. Jolmston, 3 Oh.
560; Goforth v. Longworth, 4 Oh. 129;
and Adams v. Jeffreys, 12 Oh. 253.

9 McPherson v. Cunliff, 11 S. & R. 422,
432; West v. Cochran, 104 Pa. St. 482,
488, citing earlier Pennsylvania cases.

1'^ Turner v. Malone, 24 S. C. 398.

11 Lynch v. Baxter, 4 Tex. 431 ; Poor
V. Boyce, 12 Tex. 440; Dancy v. Strick-
linge, 15 Tex. 557 ; George ;-. Watson, 19
Tex. 354, 369 ; Hurley v. Barnard, 48 Tex.
83, 87; Guilford v. Love, 49 Tex. 715,
739, Pelham v. Murray, 64 Tex. 477;
Martin c. Robinson, 67 Tex. 368.

12 Tryon r. Tryon, 16 Vt. 31-3, 817;
Doolittle V. Hokon, 28 Vt. 819, 823.

13 Fisher v. Bassett, 9 Leigh, 119, 131.
1-1 Gary, Pr. L., § 24, citing Barker v.

Barker, 14 Wis. 131, 147. See Portz v.
Schantz, 70 Wis. 497, 505.

15 Haynes v. Meeks, 20 Cal. 288, 314
et seq. ; Estate of Boland, 55 Cal. 310, 315.

iti Vance v. Maroney, 4 Col. 47.

17 Holyoke r. Haskins, 5 Pick. 20 ; s. c.
9 Pick. 259 ; Thayer v. Winchester, 133
Mass. 447.

18 Learned v. Matthews, 40 Miss. 210.
But equity will grant relief to avoid in-
justice ; Gaines i'. Kennedy, 53 Miss. 103,
109; Hill V. Billingsly, 53 Miss. Ill, 116.

ii» Hopper V. Fisher, 2 Head, 253, 257 ;
Whitmore v. Johnson, 10 Humi)h. 610;
Linnville v. Darby, 1 Baxt. 306, 311.

20 Gibbs V. Shaw, 17 Wis. 197 ; Howe
V. McGivern, 25 Wis. 525; Blodgett v.
Hitt, 29 Wis. 169 ; Chase v. Ross, 36 Wis.
267, 275.

21 As to which see post, § 208 et seq.

§ 14G HOW FAR MAY CORRECT THEIR JUDGMENTS. 331

§ 14G. How far Probate Courts may correct their Judgments. —
The orders, decrees, and judiiinents of proljute courts, probate courts
in so far as they are courts of record, can be known r|,'^^\j JJy^^^
by their record alone,^ which necessarily imports al)S0- ^,,i^i, imports
lute verity, and can neither bo questioned nor falsi- a'«"i:Jt« verity,
ried;2 from which it follows that the court is bound by its own
record, and can neither change nor disregard its or- ^^^^, ^.^^^^^^^ ,^^
dors, iudo-ments, or decrees after the lapse of the term "lodiiied after

' J '^ ' '^ _ ^ the close 01

at which they were rendered.^ It is consistent with the term,
this principle that it is the duty of a court, if the judg- But the record
mcnt, decree, or order is clearly void tor the want oi meats, etc. may
jurisdiction, or other defect apparent from the record, ^'■^^'^^ •
to vacate the same upon proper application ; * hence letters of ad-
ministration obtained by fraud may be revoked and granted to
otliors,° and probate of a will obtained by fraud set aside.*^ So it
was held that probate courts have power to reopen a former decree,
so as to charge the administrator with advancements and assets
omitted from the decree.^ But in the absence of statutory grant
of power to open orders and decrees, or to grant rehearing to liti-
gants, they have no power to revise their decisions on the ground
of error, either of law or fact;^ except, as will be more fully

1 Milan v. Pemberton, 12 Mo. 598; obtained thereby; MuUanphy v. County
Rutherford u. Crawford, .53 Ga. 138, 143. Court, 6 Mo. 563.

2 Halin r. Kelly, U Cal. 391, 405; « Haraberlin y. Terry, 1 Sm. & M. Ch.
Shroyer v. Richmond, 16 Oh. St. 455, 466 ; 589.

Selin V. Snyder, 7 S. & R. 160. 172; Ken- ' On the ground that power to revise

nedy v. Wachsmuth, 12 S & R. 171, 175; previous proceedings are incidental to all

18 Vin. Abr., t. Record, p. 178, § 4. courts of general jurisdiction, including

3 Johnson v. Johnson, 26 Oh. St. 357 ; probate courts, to which this power is
Alexander v. Nelson, 42 Ala. 462 ; Bryant peculiarly necessary : Adams v. Adams,
r. Horn, 42 Ala. 490; Wolf v. Banks, 41 21 Vt. 162, 100. The reasoning employed
Ark. 104, 107 ; State v. Probate Court, 83 does not seem to establish either the
Minn. 94; Browder v. Faulkner, 82 Ala. necessity or the wisdom of allowing pro-
257. bate courts to open judgments rendered

■* Johnson v. Johnson, 40 Ala 247, 251 at a former term, except for clearly appur-
(citing Stickney v. Davis, 17 Pick. 109; ent lack of jurisdiction. The case of
Mobley v. Mobley, 9 Ga. 247 ; and other French v. VVinsor, 24 Vt. 402, 407, sorae-
Alabauia cases) ; Huntington v. Finch, 3 times cited in support of the .same ])ropo-
Oh. St. 445, 448 (holding the power to va- sition, establishes only the right to correct
cate for irregularity or improper cond act in annual settlements at or before final set-
procuring the entry ) ; McCabey. Lewis, 76 tlement.
Mo. 290, 301 ; In re Gragg, 82 Minn. 142. « Daly, J., acting as surrogate, in the

5 Marston 1-. Wilcox, 2 111. 60; Perley thoroughly considered case of Brick's

V. Sands, 3 Kdw. Ch. 325, 328, holding Estate, 15 Abb. Pr. 12, 30, thus states

that a misstatement of facts is a "false his resum<f of the numerous authorities

representation" under the statute, author- by him consulted: "They may undo

izing the surrogate to revoke the letters what has been done through fraud, or

332

NATURE OF PROBATE COURTS IN AMERICA.

§146

noticed below, during the continuance of the term at which they
were rendered.^

o. . In some of the States, however, probate courts are

In some States ' '

probate courts authorized by statute to review, set aside, annul, or

review their . n • i

judgments for alter their judgments, on proper allegations, by parties
mistake! interested, if fraud or mistake be shown ;2 and in

In some, power otliers tliis powcr is held to inhere in probate as well
here in probate as all other courts.^ In New York, where this power
courts. |g granted by statute, it is held that the party com-

plaining of an adverse decision should be denied a rehearing, and
left to his remedy by appeal, unless he can bring himself squarely
within the rules laid down by the court of appeals for a rehearing
or reargument in that court ; ^ " the power is undoubtedly given

upon the supposition that they had juris-
diction, or on the assumption tliat a party
was dead who is living, or that there was
no will ; or they may open decrees taken
by default, or correct mistakes, the re-
sult of oversight or accident. . . . But
when all the parties in Interest have been
represented at the hearing, and the court
has given its final sentence or decree, I
know of no authority showing that these
courts liave ever exercised the general
power of opening and reversing it again,
upon the ground that they had erred as
to the law, or had decided erroneously
upon the facts."

1 Infra, p. 333.

2 See post, on Final Settlements. In
Mississippi, where it had been held that
a bill of review would not lie in the pro-
bate court (Farmers & Merchants' Bank
V. Tappan, 5 Sm. & M. 112), and that its
judgments and orders were final and could
not be set aside or annulled in that court
at a subsequent term (Hendricks v. Hud-
dleston, 5 Sm. & M. 422), power to that
effect was vested in probate courts by
act of 1846 : Hooker i-. Hooker, 10 Sm.
& M. 599 ; Austin v. Lamar, 23 Miss. 189.
In New Jersey the statutory provision
making settlements conclusive and final
" except wlien fraud or mistake can be
shown to the satisfaction of the court,"
is held not to clothe the court with a dis-
cretion merely, V)ut as equivalent to a
positive enactment depriving the judg-
ment of its conclusive character if fraud
or mistake can be shown : Crombie v.

Engle, 19 N. J. L. 82. Similarly in New
York : Campbell v. Thatcher, 54 Barb.
382; Janssen v. Wemple, 3 Redf. 229;
Matter of llawley, 36 Hun, 2-58, 2(30 ; but
see s. c. 104 N. Y. 250, 259. The statute
making provision for the correction of
accounts of executors and administrators,
the modes of correction, and the remedies
therein prescribed, must be followed :
Johnson v. Johnson, 26 Oh. St. 857, 364.
See also, to similar effect, McDermott r.
Hayes, 60 N. H. 9.

3 Adams D. Adams, s«/7ra ,• Milne's Ap-
peal, 99 Pa St. 483, 489 ; Montgomery v
Williamson, 37 Md. 421, 428, citing
Raborg v. Hammond, 2 H. & G. 42, 51 ;
Planters' Bank v. Neely, 7 How. (Miss.)
80, 90 ; Turnbull v. Endicott, 3 Sm. & M.
302 ; Bowers v. Hammond, 139 Mass.
360, 365 ; Vreedenburgh v. Calf, 9 Pai.
128, 129; Bronson v. Burnett, 1 Chand.
136, 140 ; Fortson v. Alford, 62 Tex.
676, 579.

4 Melcher v. Stevens, 1 Dem. 12-3, 130,
quoting from Mount v. Mitchell, 32 N. Y.
702, as follows : " Motions for reargument
should be founded on papers showing
clearly that some question decisive of
the case, and duly submitted by counsel,
has been overlooked by the court ; or
that the decision is in conflict with an ex-
press statute, or with a controlling de-
cision, to which the attention of the court
was not drawn, through tlie neglect or
inadvertence of counsel." The necessity
for such a rule is emphasized by the sur-
rogate, who calls attention to the Ian-

§ 147 ENTERING JUDGMENT NUNC PRO TUNC. 333

to the surrogate to open a decree, even after the time for appeal
has passed, and correct a palpable mistake if the moving party
shows fraud, deception, or excusable negligence in connection
with the alleged error." ^ The grant of power to the probate court
to review and set aside its orders for fraud or mistake does not
deprive a superior court of its equity power in the matter.^

But the rule applicable to all common law courts, that during
the continuance of the term the record remains in the breast of the
iudge,^ and the record as well as the judgment itself .

J o 1 JO During the

mav be altered, revised, or revoked, as well as amended term the record

- ... as well as the

in respect of clerical errors and matters oi lorm,^ is iuaf,mient itself
equally applicable to probate courts.^ " All the days of "'''^' ^^ '^^'"'
the term are considered as one, and everything is in the power of
the court during its continuance."^ But this power jf notice he
must not be exercised unless the parties to be affected ^J^^'^" .'^yc^ti
are present in court, or have notice, so that they may therehy.
be heard if they desire ;'^ and the presence of the parties, or notice
to them, must appear from the record itself ; no presumption of
notice arises where the record is silent.^ Any change or amend-
ment must also be upon such terms as will protect the interests
of third parties.^

§ 147. Entering Judgment Nunc pro Tunc. — The power to re-
cord a judgment or order at any time after it was rendered, and
to correct a judgment or order erroneously entered. Entering or
resides in the probate courts equally with common jud^nnent^ nawc
law courts. This power originated in the maxim, p''" '""''•
that " an act of the court shall prejudice no one," ^^ or, as worded
by Freeman, " a delai^ of the court shall prejudice no one," ^' and
was originally employed to relieve parties from hardships arising
out of the delay of courts, by entering a judgment nune pro tunc
as of the day on which it ought to have been rendered ; but is

guageofDaly, J., inCiirleyw. Tomlinson, ^ Moore t-. Moore, 1 Dev. L. 352;

5 Daly, 283, and cites numerous otlier Caldwell v. Lockridge, 9 Mo. 362.

New York cases. ^ Caldwell v. Lockridge, su^tra.

1 Matter of Dev Ermand, 24 Hun, 1,4. » Peake r. Redd, 14 Mo. 79 ; Freem. on

2 Baker i'. O'Riordan, 65 Cal. 368 ; Judgm. § 72, and authorities cited.
Douglass V. Low, 36 Hun, 497, 600; » Ligon r. Rogers, 12 Ga. 281 ; Perdue
Griffith V. Godey, 113 U. S. 89, 93. v. Bradshaw, 18 Ga. 287 ; McCormick v.

8 Co. Litt., 260 a. Wheeler, 36 111. 114, 119.

i Freem. on Judgm. § 69, and author- ^^ Broom's Legal Maxims, Actus Cti-

ities there collected? "'b nemhiem (jravablt, p. 122; Mitchell v.

5 Rottmann v. Schmucker, 94 Mo. 139, Overman, 13 Otto, 62, ()5.

l^^ 11 Freem. on Judgm. § 56.

334 NATURE OF PROBATE COURTS IN AMERICA. § 147

now resorted to for the purpose of entering of record judgments
rendered, but through inadvertence not entered, and of correcting
judgments erroneously entered, nunc pro tunc, as they ought
originally to have been entered of record. ^

There is some difference of opinion as to the circumstances
which shall be sufficient to authorize a nunc pro tu7ic entry.
Upon what evi- The purpose to be accomplished is salient enough:
^''"'^!,.?/!?l^"' it is to secure a true record of the precise ruling
may b(! made, ^f ^]^q judge as Originally pronounced, in cases where
the record is silent, or inaccurate, or false. But the question
here arising, How is the truth of the entry to be established ? is
not so easily answered. To allow it to be determined by parol
evidence is to assail the inviolable character and conclusiveness
of the record, (without which there can be neither stability of
legal rights, nor confidence in the unbending justice and integrity
of courts,) by subordinating it to the memory of witnesses who
may be produced by interested parties.^ If, on the otlier hand,
the recollection of the judge were alone to be relied on for the
rectification of the record, the rights of parties would be placed
absolutely at his mercy : confidence in the verity of the record
must be impaired, even where the integrity of the judge is un-
doubted, for his very anxiety to do right and accomplish justice
exposes him to the danger of unconsciously yielding to the power-
ful temptation to so frame the nunc pro tunc entry as to conform
the judgment to his conviction of what it ought to be, — a convic-
tion wrought, it may be, by subsequently developed facts, or by
maturer consideration.

1 Borer v. Chapman, 119 U. S. 587, nounced, or proceedings actually had, in-

596 ; Mitchell v. Overman, supra, and advertently omitted from or erroneously

cases cited in note, p. 66. The practice is entered of record ; it cannot be permitted

now firmly established as reaching all to supply a judgment or order which

oases in which the record is at variance might or ought to have been, but in real-

with the judgment, decree, or order pro- ity was not, rendered or made; Gray v.

nounced by the judge ; and no principle Brignardello, 1 Wall. 627, 636 ; Fetters

is more clearly deducible from the inhe- '•. Baird, 72 Mo. 389 ; Turner v. Benoist,

rent quality and nature of courts and the 50 Mo. 145; Howell v. Morelan, 78 III.

requirements of justice ; for upon it de- 162, 165. Nor can an appellate or revis-

pends the power of courts to vindicate ing court order the amendment, but only

their rulings and decisions from misstate- the court before which the original pro-

ment, perversion, or corruption, to which ceedings were had : Brooks?;. Duckworth,

otherwise they would be exposed by 59 Mo. 48; Walton r. Pearson, 85 N. C.

reason of inadvertence, misconception, or 34, 48 ; Binns v. State. 35 Ark. 118, 119.
bad faith of clerical officers. But it must ^ Perkins i'. Perkins. "27 Ala. 479, 480.

be confined to judgments actually an-

§ 147 ENTERING JUDGMENT NUNC PRO TUNC. 335

The logical and safo i-iilo seems to be that laid down in the
English statutes on this subject. ^ To relieve from the rigor of
the common law, which interdicted any alteration of the y.^f^w^h
proceedings after they had become a record, except st^'"'"^-
during the term to which it related,^ it was first enacted " that
by the misprision of a clerk ... no process shall be annulled or
discontinued by mistaking in writing one syllable or letter too
much or too little ; but as soon as the mistake is perceived . . .
it shall be amended in due form, without giving advantage to the
party that challcngeth the same, because of such misi)rision."3
This statute was held to apply only to proceedings before judg-
ment ; it was subsequently enacted that the justices have power
to amend the record and process as well after as before judg-
ment.* This statute, although permitting amendment of the
record after judgment, still confined it to " a syllable or letter."
The authority to amend was enlarged by a later statute,^ giving the
king's judges power "to examine such records, process, words,
pleas, warrants of attorney, writs, panels or return, by them and
their clerks, and to reform and amend (in affirmance of the judg-
ments of such records and processes) all that which to them in
their discretion seemeth to be misprision of the clerks therein, . . .
exce{)t appeals, indictments of treason, and of felonies and the
outlawries of the same, so that by such misprision of the clerk
no judgment shall be reversed or annulled. And if any record,
process, writ, warrant of attorney, return, or panel be certified
defective, otherwise than according to the writing, which thereof
remaineth in the treasury, courts, or places from whence they
are certified, the parties, in affirmance of the judgments of such
record and process, shall have advantage to allege that tlie same
writing is variant from the said certificate, and that found and
certified, that the same variance shall be by the said judges re-
formed and amended according to the first writing."

The rule deducible from these statutes is, that no amendment
of the record can be made unless there be a mistake There must be

... poniethiiiET in

of the clerk, and something in tiie record by which the record to
the mistake can be rectified.*^

1 Cited by Ray, J , in Makepeace v. « 9 Edw. V. St. 1, c. 4.

Lukens, 27 Ind 435, 437 et seq. » g Henry VI. c. 12.

■^ Co. Litt 2G0. ^ Ray, J., in Makepeace v. Lukens,

8 14 Edw. III. c. 6. supra, cites 1 Tidd, 713 ; Wynne v.

336

NATURE OF PROBATE COURTS IN AMERICA.

§147

This rule is adhered to in the federal courts,^ and in the
courts of Alabama,^ California,^ Georgia,* Illinois,^ Indiana,^
Kentucky,'^ Maine,^ Mississippi,^ Missouri,!*^ Tennessee,^^ and
Texas.^2 In other States, entries nunc pro tu7ic are
allowed upon parol evidence, or upon the memory of
the judge; for instance, in Connecticut,^^ Maryland,^*
Massachusetts,!" New Hampshire,!^ New York,i" North
Carolina,!^ Ohio,!'^ and Wisconsin.^*^

The correction of the record must be drawn with the view of
protecting the rights of third parties acquired by virtue of the

Where nunc
pro /?«;f entries
may be made
upon parol evi-
dence or mem-
ory of the
judge.

Thomas, Willes R. 563; Ray v. Lister,
Andrews, 351 ; Bac. Abr., tit. Amend-
ment, F ; Palm. 98 ; Harecourt v. Bishop,
Cro. Eliz. 497 ; and Clietle v. Lees, Car-
thew, 167.

1 Story, J., in Albers v. Whitney, 1
Sto. 310, 312, holding that a mistake in
tiie Christian name of a party, if not ap-
parent upon some part of the record, but
established by aliande evidence, will not
authorize an amendment of the record ;
Russell V. United States, 15 Ct. 01. 168,
171, Drake, C. J., holding that clerical
errors, but not errors in the judgment itself,
can be corrected under the federal statute,
citing Bank of the United States v. Moss,
0 How. (U. S.) 31.

2 Metcalf r. Metcalf, 19 Ala. 319 ;
Dickens v. Bush, 23 Ala. 849 ; Summer-
sett V. Summersett, 40 Ala. 596 ; Hudson
V. Hudson, "20 Ala. 364.

3 Morrison v. Dapman, 3 Cal. 255, 257 ;
Swain v. Naglee, 19 Cal. 127 ; De Castro
V. Richardson, 25 Cal. 49, 53; Smith r.
His Creditors, 59 Cal. 267.

* Di.xon V. Mason, 68 Ga. 478, 480.

5 Wallahan v. People, 40 111. 103.

6 Jenkins v. Long, 23 Ind. 460; Make-
peace V. Lukens, 27 Ind. 435.

7 Davis V. Ballard, 7 T. B. Mon. 603,
604; Scroggln v. Scroggin, 1 J. J. Marsh.
362, 364; Bennett v. Tiernay, 78 Ky.
580.

« Colby V. Moody, 19 Me. Ill, 113 ;
Wiiite V. Blake, 74 Me. 489, 493.

9 Russell V. McDougall, 3 Sm. & M.
234, 248 ; Moody v. Grant, 41 Miss. 565.

i'^ Priest V. McMaster, 52 Mo. 60, 62 ;
Allen V. Sales, 56 Mo. 28, 85; Blize v.
Castlio, 8 Mo. App. 290, 294, with
numerous cases cited.

11 State V. Fields, Peck, 140, 141.

12 Price V. Likens, 23 Tex. 635, 637.
In Burnett v. State, 14 Tex. 455, it is held
that the nunc pro tunc entry ma}' be
made if it appear to the satisfaction of
the court that an order was made at a
former term and omitted to be entered by
the court or clerk.

13 Weed V. Weed, 25 Conn. 337, Waite,
J., holding that " whether there was a
mistake in the record was a question of
fact for the court below, to be established
as any other fact in a court of justice, by
proper evidence " : p. 344.

1* Waters v. Engle, 53 Md. 179, 182, on
the ground that in such case the court
exercises a quasi equitable power, ac-
cording to tlie facts and circumstances
of the case ; Kemp v. Cook, 18 Md. 130,
138.

15 Fay I'. Wenzell, 8 Cush. 315, 317.
But see Sayles v Briggs, 4 Met. (Mass.)
421, 424, holding that the want of a judi-
cial record cannot be supplied by parol
evidence, and Kendall v. Powers, 4 Met.
(Mass.) 553, 555, to same effect.

16 Frink v. Frink, 43 N. H. 508, 515.

1" Bank of Newburgli v. Sevmour, 14
Jolms. 219; Marsh v. Berry, 7 Cow. 344.
348.

18 Wade V. Odeneal, 3 Dev. L. 423, 424 ;
Reid V. Kelly, 1 Dev. L. 313, 315, Phillipse
V. Higdon, Busb. L. 380; Mayo v. Whit-
son, 2 Jones L. 231, 235.

la Hollister v. District Court, 8 Oh. St.
201, 203. But in Ludlow v. Johnson, 3
Ohio, 553, it was held that an order nunc
pro tunc cannot be founded upon mere
parol proof of what was ordered to be
done at a previous term : p. 575 et seq.

2J Wyman v. Buckstaff, 24 Wis. 477.

§ 148 PROCEEDING IN HEM AND JN TERSONAM. 337

original entry and before tlie correction thereof,' and Must be made
after notice to the parties to be affected by it.^ But 3^" 'llfllX'!
where the amendment is merely as to form, or to com- ^''"'^ parties.
plete a ministerial act, notice to the other side does not seem to
be necessary.^ It is held that, where a judgment is stricken out
during the term at which it was rendered, such action is not the
subject of appeal ; * but where it is done after the laj)se of the
term, an ajjpcal lics;'^

§ 148. Proceeding in Rem and in Personam. — The expression is
often used, in asserting for the judgments of probate courts a
validity not claimed for them in respect of judgments „„
i)i, personam, that from the nature of the jurisdiction ceedings in
exercised by them they proceed in rem. The judg-
ment, being in rem, it is said, is conclusive upon all the world,
and hence all persons whatever have a right to be heard in the
proceeding.^ A distinguished jurist says, " That only is a pro-
ceeding in rem in which the process is to be served on the
thing itself, and the mere possession of the thing itself, by
the service of the process and making proclamation, authorizes
the court to decide upon it without notice to any individual what-
ever." " To constitute a probate proceeding a proceeding in rem,
says Mr. Waples, in his recent work on Proceedings in Rem, it
" must possess all the characteristics and embrace all the requi-
sites of that form of action." ^ It follows, that possession of tlie

1 McCormick v. Wheeler, 36 111. 114 ; State r. Central Pacific R. R. Co., 10 Nev.

Hunt V. Grant, 19 Wend. 90; and see 47,80; Grignon r. Astor, 2 How. (U. S.)

Freem. on Judgm. §66, for further author- 319; Day v. Micou, 18 Wall, lofi, 162

ities. It is no objection, however, that a (per Strong, J.) ; Dickey v. Vann, 81 Ala.

suit between the parties to the original 42'x

record be thereby defeated : Colby v. "^ Drake on Attachments, § 5. The

Moody, 19 Me. 111. author adopts the language of Chief

■•^ Poole V. McLeod, 1 Sm. & M. 391 ; Justice Marshall in Mankin v. Chandler,

Cobb r. Wood, 1 Hawk. 95; Wheeler v. 2 Brock. 125, 127, and also cites Megee

Goffe, 24 Tex. 660; Lovejoy v. Irelan, »;; Beirne, 39 Pa. St. 50, and Bray v. Mc-

19 Md. 56. Ill Alabama it is held that Clury, 55 Mo. 128.

no notice is necessary to the opposite ^ "Tiiere must be a rps, custody of

party : Allen v. Bradford, 3 Ala. 281, 282, tlie res, right to proceed against it, a cora-

citin"' earlier cases. potent forum, allegations equivalent to

^ Hagler v. Mercer, 6 Fla. 721 ; Allen an information, notice to all interested,

r. Bradford, s)(/jra; Nabcrs t'. JNIeredith, 67 a hearing, a finding of facts, an order,

Ala. 333. judgment, or decree, a sale, and a confir-

* Rutherford v. Pope, 15 Md. 579, 581. niation or homologation, before the 'new

^ Graff V. Transportation Company, title paramount ' can be evolved from

18 Md. 364, 370; Craig i'. Wroth, 47 iMd. probate proceedings": Waples, I'roc. in

281. Hem, § 563.

6 Lowber v. Beauchamp, 2 Ilarr. 139;
VOL. I. — 22

838 NATURE OP PROBATE COURTS IN AMERICA. § 148

thing (custody of tlic res') is one of the essential conditions of
jurisdiction over the thing. Every other requisite may be con-
ceded ; and if executors and administrators be looked upon as
officers of the court, so that possession by them may be considered
possession by the court, the disposition of personal property by
order or judgment of the probate court is clearly a proceeding in
rem. The law vests title to all personal property of a decedent
in his executor or administrator, and requires the latter to notify
"all the world," by publication, of his assumption of the office, — a
proceeding constituting the notice, monition, or proclamation re-
quired to obtain jurisdiction in rem.

But the title to real property vests, in most States, not in the
executor or administrator, but in the devisee or heir. Hence, in
all of these States, the essential requisite of jurisdiction in rem.,
possession, the custody of the res^ is wanting in I'espect of real
estate. Mr. Waples, in the work referred to, strongly empha-
sizes, that, if the estate be in the adverse possession of another,
the administrator must first gain possession before the probate
court can take jurisdiction over it.^ It is provided in most States
that notice must be given to the heirs, or others interested in real
estate, either by personal service or publication, before real estate
can be subjected to the satisfaction of debts of the decedent.^
AVlien such notice has been given, the importance of the distinc-
tion between proceeding in rem and in personam disappears : if
tlie notice was by actual service on the parties, they are parties to
the record, and as such bound by the judgment of the court ; if
by publication, then the analogy to the proceeding in rem is com-
plete ; the title of the administrator is thereby extended over the
real estate, and displaces that of the heir or devisee for the pur-
poses pointed out by the law. The judgment affects neither the
person nor any other property of the heirs or devisees save that
described in the notice published,^ which may then be said to be
in the custody of the law.* But if no notice was given to parties
in interest, and the administraltor was not in possession of the
land, under the law of the State, then the proceeding is necessa-
rily void, being neither in rem nor in personam.^

1 Waples, Proc. in Rem, § 565. * Doe v. Hardy, 52 Ala. 291, 295.

2 See pofit, § 4GG, on the subject of ^ And the record shouUl sliow such
the sale of real estate. notice: Waples, Proc. in Rem, §iiG9, citing

2 McPherson v. Cunliff, 11 S. & R. 422, numerous autliorities to show that with-
430. out notice to the heirs a sale of their real

§ 149 METHOD OF PROCEDURE IN PROBATE COURTS. 339

It is lianlly riccossarv to repeat, that the jurisdiction exercised
by i)r()bate ci)urts \n adjudicatiiiu- upon the rights of litigating
parties, is, so far as such parties are jtresent in court or repre-
sented by counsel, strictly followed by all the consequences
attendant upon adjudications in personam, to the extent of the
subject matter over whicli the court has power.

§ 149. Method of Procedure in Probate Courts. — Altliough
probate courts are mostly, if not universally, courts of record,^
having a seal, a clerk, or authority to act as their own proceedings
clerk, and executive officers, yet their procedure is, J.^u'ris'l'le
generally, summary, requiring no pleading in the s"'n'nary.
technical sense, nor adherence to artificial rules in the statement
of the cause of action or defence. An intelligible statement of
statement of an existing substantial right, which the asubsisnn^

~ ° ' right IS sum-

court has jurisdiction to enforce, is a sufficient allega- cienttoietin

, . all iiei^essarv

tion of all matters necessary to sustain a judgment ; proof to sus-
and the simple appearance of the defendant usually appearance
entitles him to rebut the proof offered by the other sufficie^iu ^"^^
side, or prove any matter in defence ; save, perhaps, t''^^e'"*e.
a cause of action constituting a set-off or counter claim, of
which the other side must have sufficient notice to enable it
to prepare any defence it may have to the same. " The prac-
tice in county courts is purposely so framed that parties can
attend to their own business in ordinary matters, and tlie decis-
ions should be so rendered as to subserve the ends of justice
according to the evidence, without regard to technical precision
in pleading." 2 In Rhode Island a statute requiring applications
to the probate court to be made in writing was held directory

estate by order of tlie probate court is form in wliicli it is presentefl." If "tbe

void. decree reaches the real justice of the

1 Ante, § 144. case," it will be affirmed : Stockton's

2 Per Wagner, J., in Subletfc v. Nel- Appeal, 64 Pa. St. 58, 68 ; Watkins i-.
son, o8 Mo. 487, 488. "The law has Donelly, 88 Mo. 322; McManus v. Mc-
pointcd out and adopted a summary mode Dowell, per Thompson, J., 11 Mo. App.
of proceeding for the convenience of the 4o6, 444 ; Noble v. McGinnis, 55 Ind.
people," continues the Judge, "and to 528, 5o2; Ramsey v. Fouts, 67 Ind. 78,
apply the doctrine of variance with the 80 ; Brook v. Chappell, .34 Wis. 405,
strictness here contended for would make 410; Comstock v. Smith, 26 Mich. .306,
it a snare to entrap tlie unwary." To 322; Anderson v. Gregg, 44 Miss. 170,
the same effect, P'linn v. Siiackleford, 176, citing numerous Mississippi cases;
42 Ala. 202, 207: " Tlie Orphan's Court Steph. Dig. of Ev. 4 ; Windell v. Hud-
is a court of equity, and looks only to son, 102 Ind. 521 ; Culvert v. Yundt, 112
the justice of the demand, and not to the Ind. 401.

340 NATURE OF PKOBATE COURTS IN AMERICA. § 149

merely ; but it was further held that the facts constituting the
Parties may causc of action must iu some manner appear of rec-
soii'ror'by ord.i It has already been stated, that a party may
agent? ""^ appear by attorney (or agent), or in person.^

It lies in the nature of these courts, that in the exercise of tlieir

jurisdiction they are not confined to legal principles or the rules

^ J of common law courts, but exercise eciuitable powers

Not confined _ _ ^ '

to legal or as wcll. Whenever, within the scope of the statutory

equitable, but ..,.. /^itjji i tp i--*^

exercise all jurisdictiou coniidcd to them, the rehet to be adminis-
cesTary'to' tcrcd, the right to be enforced, or the defence to an
fhrstatutory actiou properly pending before them, involves the ap-
functions. plicatiou of equitable principles, or a proceeding m

accordance with the practice in chancery, their powers are com-
mensurate with the necessity demanding their exercise, whether
legal or equitable in their nature.^

But they possess these powers only in so far as they have been

conferred by statute, or are indispensable to the exercise of such

as have been conferred.* Thev have no original chan-

Have no ongi- ' i i i • c

nai chancery ccry powcrs, sucli as to cnforco a vendor s lien,^ no
poweib. ancillary jurisdiction in aid of common law courts, no

power to follow a trust fund through various transformations,'^
nor over any purely equitable right.' Even where the chancery
court itself has probate jurisdiction, it will proceed in probate

1 Robbins u. Tafft, 12 R. I. 67. & Ross v. Julian, 70 Mo. 200, 212 ;

•^ Ante, § 144. West v. Tliornburgb, 6 Blackf. 542, 544,

3 Guier v. Kelly, 2 Binn. 294, 299 ; or set aside a deed • Estate of Dunn,

Dundas's Appeal, 73 Pa. St. 474, 477, 479 ; Myr. 122, 123.

Williamson's Appeal, 94 Pa St. 231, 236; « Butler v. Lawson, 72 Mo 227. 245.

Powell V. North, 8 Ind. 392; Deliart >: ' Davis v. Smith, 75 Mo 219. 227;

Dehart, 15 Ind. 167 ; Hurd v. Slaten, 43 Willard's Appeal, 65 Pa. St. 265, 267,

111. 348; Millard v. Harris, 119 111. 185, citing Brinker ;> Brinker, 7 Pa. St. 53, 55,

198; Hales v. Holland, 92 111. 494, 498; George's Appeal, 12 Pa. St. 260, Siiollen-

Donovan's Appeal, 41 Conn, 551 ; Blan- berger's Appeal, 21 Pa. St. 337, 341, Sny-

ton V. King, 2 How. (Miss.) 856; Titter- der's Appeal, 30 Pa. St. 166, 168, and

ington V. Hooker, 58 Mo. 593 ; Hyland v. Woodward's Appeal, 38 Pa. St. 322, 828;

Baxter, 98 N. Y. 610, 616 ; Ritch v. Bel- Wiley's Appeal, 84 Pa. St. 270, Stilwell

lamy, holding that where a surrogate or v. Carpenter. 59 N. Y. 414 425 , Presby-

probate power is at the same time a terian Church u McElhmney, 61 Mo.

chancery power, the jurisdiction is con- 540, 543; Gilliland v. Sellers, 2 Oh. St.

current in the two courts- 14 Fla. 537, 223, 228; Caldwell v. Caldwell, 15 N

542 ; Shoemaker v. Brown, to same ef- East. (Ohio), 297, 301 . Vail's Appeal, 37

feet : 10 Kans. 383, 890. Conn. 185. 195 , Mann v Mann, 53 Vt.

* Post, § 392. Pearce v. Calhoun, 59 48, 55 ; Hewitt's Appeal, 53 Conn. 24 ;

Mo. 271 ; Bernheimer v. Calhoun, 44 Sherman v. Lanier, 39 N, J. Eq. 249, 258.

Miss. 426, 429. See post, § 392.

§ 149 METHOD OF PROCEDURE IN PROBATE COURTS. 341

matters not according' to tin; strict and tcchni.-al practice resorted
to in cluuicery, but according to the sumniary method which is
prescribed for probate courts.^ The resemblance of probate courts
to courts of chancery consists in their practice of proceeding- by
petition and answer, containing tlie substance, but not the nice
distinctions of a bill in equity. ^

Jiut the oi-igin of our probate system, referable to the English
spiritual courts, is still recognizable in the decisions of some
States as to their mode of procedure, although the Procedure
rules of the civil and common law which governed the eivUnncr**
ecclesiastical courts are necessarily greatly modified '"'""" '•''''•
in the adaptation to the widely different circumstances and spirit
of the American people. So it has been held in Maine, that the
probate court " does not derive its mode of proceeding from tlie
common law, but the statute has conferred upon it the powers of
ecclesiastical courts, and prescribed the modes of proceeding
borrowed from these courts and the courts of chancery." ^ In
New Jersey they are said to partake of the powers of a chan-
cery and prerogative court instituted by law ;* in Mississippi^
and Georgia,*^ the civil and canon law, as it governed the proceed-
ings of the ecclesiastical courts of England in testamentary
causes, is the law of the courts of ordinary on similar questions ;
and in South Carolina their statutory organization is said to con-
stitute them civil, in contradistinction to ecclesiastical courts."
In New Hampshire courts of probate "have a very* extensive
jurisdiction not conferred by statute, but by a general Powers not

excliisivelv

eference to the law of the land, that is, to that branch SabiYtc
of the common law known and acted upon for ages, «

statutes.

1 Wells V. Smith, 44 Miss. 296, 304. probate would have jurisdiction to order

lu Sharp ;;. Sharp, 7G Ala. 312, 317, Clop- a sale."

ton, J. says: "When a court of equity - "By which, however, justice is ob-
takes jurisdiction of the administration tained more conveniently and as cer-
of an estate of a decedent, the court tainly as in courts of equity, purely so
takes the estate in its condition at the called": Brinker r. Brinker, si//)w .• Sim-
time of taking jurisdiction, and is gov- mons v. Henderson, Freem. Ch. 493, 497;
erned by the laws regulating and con- Satterwhite v. Littlefield, 13 Sm. & M.
troUiug the sales of property, payment 302, 307.

of debts, and settlement of administra- ^ Withee r. Rowe, 45 Me. 571, 580. ^

tions, which are applicable to the admin- * Wood v. Tallman, 1 N. J. L. 153, 155.

istration of estates in the Probate Court. ^ Cowden i: Dobyns, 5 Sm. & M. 82,

Following its own practice, the court will 90.

decree a sale of lands, when necessary, ^ Finch v. Finch, 14 Ga. 362.

and when in similar cases a court of ' Lide v. Lide, 2 Brev. 403.

342

NATURE OF PROBATE COURTS IN AMERICA.

§149

the probate or ecclesiastical law."^ l>ut the rules of evidence
and of property are equally binding upon probate and common
law courts.^

It is self-evident that the jurisdiction conferred upon a court,
as such, can be exercised only by the court when sitting in term
Court only time, and not by the judge in vacation. Hence a judg-
ment rendei'ed by the judge after the adjournment of
the term is coram 7ion judice, and void.^ And so is
a judgment rendered against a party without notice
to him.* Mere verbal orders, or ex parte proceed-
ings not of record, are not valid, and therefore afford
no protection to an administrator in a subsequent
proceeding.^

Probate courts, however, have the incidental power to adjourn;^
and when, for unavoidable reasons, the court cannot be held at
Have power ^^^^ county scat, its proceedings are not void if held
tcj adjourn. elscwlicre ; '^ and it will be presumed that the house in
which the court is held is the court-house.^

when in term ;
judge in va-
cation has not
tlie power of
the court.

Judgment
without notice,
verbal orders,
etc., %-oid.

1 Per Bell, C. J., in Morgan v. Dodge,
44 N. H. 255, 258; see remarks of Per-
ley, C. J., in Ha^es v. Hayes, 48 N. H.
219, 22G.

^ Evelethy. Croucli, loMass. 293. As
to the right of parties to testify in their
own behalf, see pust, pp. 829 et seg.

3 But semble such a judgment may be
declared void, and the cause proceeded
witli from the last previous continuance:
Moore v. Maguire, 2G Ala. 4(31, 464 ; the
judge has no power to hold a court at
any other time or place than those fixed
by law, and any decree passed in such
case will be void : White v. Riggs, 27
Me. 114, 117 ; a court of probate cannot
in vacation compel an administrator to
appear before it and give additional secu-

rity upon his bond : Wingate v. Wallis,
5 Sm. & M. 249, 258 ; nor remove an ad-
ministrator at a special term to which
the cause was not adjourned : Boynton
V. Nelson, 4G Ala. 501, 50:).

4 Wood c. Myrick, 16 Minn. 494, 502;
Wells V. Smith, 44 Miss. 290, 302; Gard-
ner V. Gardner, 42 Ala. 161.

5 Scott V. Fox, 14 Md. 388, 394, citing
Carlysle v. Carlysle, 10 Md. 440 ; Shine
V. Redwine, 30 Ga. 780, 794.

6 Kimball v. Fisk, 39 N. H. 110, 122.

' Sevier v. Teal, 16 Tex. 371, 873.
But it must be within the county : Cap-
per V. Sible}', 65 Iowa, 754.

8 ShuU V. Kennon, 12 Ind. 34, 36;
Kimball v. Fisk, supra.

§ 150 SCOPE OF TUE JUKISDICTION. '343

CHAPTER XVI.

OP THE SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF PROBATE

COURTS.

§ 150. Scope of the Jurisdiction. — Logically, tlic jurisdiction of
l)rol»ate courts should extend to all matters necessarily involved
in the disposition of the estates of deceased persons, j,,.;,^^.; j,^ ^f
from the time of the owner's death until the property jarisciietion of

pruljate courts.

has been placed in the possession of those to whom it
devolves. We have seen that the English testamentary courts
never possessed more than a comparatively small proportion of
this power ; ^ and it is equally true that in no one of the Ameri-
can States is the whole of it vested in probate courts. Some of
the elements of power necessary to the practical realization of the
rights of creditors, heirs, legatees, distributees, devisees, and of
the husband, widow, and minor children, are found wanting in the
statutory grant of powers to these courts in eacli State, which
therefore necessarily lodge in other courts.^ But the powers so
withheld are not the same in all the States ; those denied in some
are granted in others ; so that, while no one probate court pos-
sesses them all, yet the full scope of jurisdiction strictly subsum-
able under the principle which conditions this class of courts will
be found in the aggregate of powers conferred upon them in the
several States.^

It would involve unprofitable labor to enumerate in this place
the powers directly conferred by statute, wliich may be readily
found in the enactments of the several States conferring the
powers. But it should be mentioned that as to the incidental
powers there is considerable divergence in the differ- ^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
ent States, resulting from the different views taken incidental pow-

' " ers are granted.

by the courts upon the extent to which implied powers

are involved in the powers granted. The State of New York,

(under the Rev. St., 1830, before the amendment of 1837,*) in

1 Ante, § 18n. » 3 South. L. Rev. (x s.) 264.

2 Bnsli V. Lindsey, 44 Cal. 121, 125; * See ante, § 142, p. 323, note 4.
ante, § 142.

344 JURISDICTION OF PROBATE COURTS. § 1^1

which all powers of the surrogates were limited to such as were
expressly conferred by statute, and that of Pennsylvania, in which
very extensive ]jo\vers are held to reside in the Orphan's Court by
necessary implication, may be looked upon as marking the two
extremes in this respect, the other States taking intermediate
grounds. It is said, in Pennsylvania, that the Or])han's Court
alone has authority to ascertain the amount of a decedent's prop-
erty, and order its distribution among those entitled to it ; ^ that
amons: those entitled to distribution arc included creditors, next
of kin, legatees, caid other persons interested in the estate;^ that
"within its appointed orbit" the jurisdiction of the Orphan's
Court " is exclusive, and therefore necessarily as coextensive as
the demands of justice," ^ having ample power to inquire into
all questions standing directly in tlie way of a distribution to
the parties in interest ; * and upon the principles of equity may
dispose of every question that arises in the determination of
matters within its jurisdiction.^

§ 151. Jurisdiction as limited to the Devolution of Property on the
Owner's Death. — Since the functions of probate courts are limited,
- .... in respect of executors and administrators, to the con-

Junsdictinn >■

limited to prop- trol of the dcvolutiou of property upon the death of

ertv questions . . . n- t i

arising out of its owiier, it IS iiot tlicir province to adjudicate upon
on itrowiiei-'s Collateral questions. The right or title of the dece-
death. ^^^^^ ^^ property claimed by the executor or adminis-

trator against third persons, or by third persons against him, as
well as claims of third persons against creditors, heirs, legatees,
devisees, or distributees, must, if an adjudication become neces-
Uniess further sary, be tried in courts of general jurisdiction, unless
^vllfted'bv S"^^^ jurisdiction be expressly conferred on probate
statute. courts.^ It follows from this principle, that probate

1 Per Black, C. J., in Whiteside v. 231, 236; Lex's Appeal, 97 Pa. St. 289,

Whiteside, 20 Pa. St. 473, 474. 292.

- Per Lewis, J., in Kittera's Estate, 17 ^ Miskimins' Appeal, 114 Pa. St. 530,

Pa. St. 416, 422 et seq. ; Black v. Black, 533.

34 Pa. St. 354, 356; Ashford v. Ewinp, « Theller v. Such, 57 Cal. 447, 459;

25 Pa. St. 213,215 ; Linsenhigler i>. Gour- Shumway v. Cooper, 16 Barb. 556, 559;

ley, 56 Pa. St. 166, 172. Larue v. Van Horn, 25 La. An. 445 ;

3 Shollenberger's Appeal, 21 Pa. St. Homer's Appeal, 35 Conn. 118, 114;

387, 341 ; Ashford v. Ewing:, supra, citina; Dunn's Estate, Myr. 122 ; Gordon v.

Downer v. Downer, 9 Watts, 60, and Goule, 30 La. An. 138 ; Proctor v.

other Pennsylvania cases. Atkyns, 1 Mass. 321 ; Robinson's Estate,

* Diindas' Appeal, 73 Pa. St. 474, 12 IPiiila. 170; Edwards v. Mounts, 61

479 ; Williamson's Appeal, 94 Pa. St. Tex. 398 ; Wise v. O'Malley, 60 Tex, 588.

§ 151 LIMITED TO DEVOLUTIOX OF PROPEUTY. 345

courts have no power to investi<^atc the validity of an „ . . ,. .

* o ^ j^Q jurisdiction

assignment of the interest of an heir or legatee; the to try disputed

... 1111 1 assiyuuieuts.

decree of distribution or payment sliould be to the
legal successor to the property, leaving questions of disputed
rights between these and claimants against them to be adjudicated
in the ordinary courts.^ And this is so of the assignments of
creditors,^ and of the assignment by a widow of her interest in the
estate,'^ and of a legacy charged upon another legacy.'* But it
must not be inferred from this that the probate court But mav de-
has no authority to decree payment to an assignee u'iwu.rpavment
whose right is not disputed,^ or where the distril)utee '"»" assignee

o I ' with tlie assign-

is estopped by a release ;*^ for the decree in favor of an or's consent,

assignee, assented to by the assignor, is of the same effect as a
decree in favor of the assignor.' And such power may be con-
ferred upon the probate court by statute.^ So, too, an executor
or administrator, who wrongfully collects rents from „

' o ./ j^o pnwer over

real estate of which the title and right of possession property

■^ wroiigfullv

IS m the heirs or devisees, is not accountable for such taken by the
rents to tlie probate court, because he does not hold
the rents so collected as a representative of the estate, but as one
who has trespassed upon the rights of others, who may call him
to account in a court of ordinary jurisdiction.^ And the same is

1 Wood V. Stone, 39 N. H. 572 ; Hill ^ jf an assignee of a legatee snbmit

V. Hardy, 34 Miss. 289, 291 ; Decker v. liis claim to the decision of the probate

Morton, I Kedf. 477, 484; Portevant v. court, such decision, if not appealed from,

Neylans, 38 Miss. 104 ; Knowlton v. John- is binding : Otterson f. Gallagher, 88 Pa.

son, 46 Me. 489 ; Holcomb v. Sherwood, St. 355, .358.

29 Conn. 418 ; Harrington v. La Rocque, 6 Tillson v. Small, 13 Atl. (Me.) 402.

13 Or. 344; Farnliam v. Thompson, 34 " Ordinary ?•. Matthews, 7 Rich. L. 26,

Minn. 330, 336 ; Hewitt's Appeal, 53 ,30 ; Vanhorn v. Walker, 27 Mo. App. 78.

Conn. 24. This principle is recognized As to the rights of assignees, see post,

by the surrogate of New York in a num- § 5G3, and authorities,
her of cases : Mumford v. Coddington, 1 ^ See Re Phillips, 71 Cal. 285, where

Deni. 27 ; Fracnznick v. Miller, 1 Dem. it is assumed that the power is vested in

13(5 (disputed claim against an estate) ; the court having probate jurisdiction ;

and a number of other cases. Tilden v. Dows, 2 Dem. 489, 493, the sur-

- /^ost, § 412. rogate refusing to decide, but strongly

3 Woodruff V. Woodruff, 3 Dem. 50.5, doubting that such power exists indepen-
508; as in case of dower: Hewitt's Ap- dent of the statute; Mumford v. Cod-
peal, 53 Conn. 24, 37. dington, 1 Dem. 27, 28 ; and when given

* Ditsche's Estate, 13 Pliila. 288 ; Brit- by statute, is not to be exercised before

tin r. Phillips, 1 Dem. 57, 60. In Penn- final accounting : Tilden i". Dows, 3 Dem.

sylvania, however, tlie Orphan's Court 240.

has exclusive jurisdiction in case of leg- ^ Calyer v. Calyer, 4 Redf. 305. See

acies charged on real estate : Brotzman's post, § 513.
Appeal, 119 Pa. St. 645, 655.

346 JURISDICTION OF PROBATE COURTS. § 151

true of personal property seized or claimed bj the executor or

administrator as a part of the estate, and claimed by others.^

Where the statute confers exclusive iurisdiction upon

N(ir over ques- • . "^ '

tions of title courts of probatc to obtain and regulate the partition

paramount to p . , , , r • i i t , i

that of the of successions, the grant oi power is held to apply
tece eiit. ^^|^ ^^ cascs "where the thing to be partitioned is

one entire succession and the parties hold by the same title as
heirs ";2 if, therefore, the property to be divided bo owned in part
by heirs, and in part by a distinct and independent title, the pro-
Nor between l^^te court is without jurisdiction.^ So, the probate
trustee^'incMhe court lias no jurisdiction to compel an accounting
cestui que trust, between a testamentary trustee and the cestui que
trust; '^ but power in the executor to sell land, and to dispose of
the property of the estate as to the executor shall seem best, " and
without responsibility," does not create a trust in the sense of
depriving the probate court of its jurisdiction to compel the exec-
utor to account for waste of such estate.^ In like manner, where
the statute confers power on the probate court to order payment
of claims against the estate which are not disputed by the admin-
istrator, there is no power to order the payment of disputed
claims ° or legacies,' nor of claims acquired by subrogation.^ So
as to homesteads of widows, if their right is disputed.^ And
jurisdiction "in all matters relating to the allotment of dower"

1 Marston v. PauUling, 10 Pai. 40 ; see Rudd v. Rudd, 4 Dem. 335. In Mas-
Merrick's Estate, 8 Watts & S. 402 ; sachusetts, wliere by statute the Probate
Wadsvvorth v. Cliick, 55 Tex. 241; Cal- Court audits the accounts of testamentary
yer v. Calyer, supra. trustees, it has jurisdiction to determine

2 Henry v. Keays, 12 La. 214, 219; whether the trustee lias accounted in full
Buddecke v. Buddecke, 31 La. An. 572, to the beneficiaries for the whole of the
574 ; State v. Parker, 9 N. J. L. 242, 243; income of tlie trust fund : New England
McBride's Appeal, 72 Pa St. 480, 484. Trust Co. v. Eaton, 140 Mass. 532, and

3 Buddecke r. Buddecke, supra. But see authorities cited.

aliter if the statute determines the ques- ^ Auguisola v. Arnaz, 51 Cal. 435,438.

tion of jurisdiction: Brown's Appeal, 84 So where a trust is imposed upon the

Pa. St. 457, 458. executrix as such, the Orphan's Court

* Poole V. Brown, 12 S. C. 556, 558; has sole jurisdiction of such trust: Erie

Haverstick ;;. Trudel, 51 Cal. 431, 433; Savings Co. v. Vincent, 105 Pa. St. 315,

Billingsley v. Harris, 17 Ala. 214 ; Strong 322.

V. Stroiio:, 8 Conn. 408 (the statute re- ^ Magee u. Vedder, 6 Barb. 352, 354.

quiring the appointment of distributors "^ Matter of Hedding Church, 35 Hun,

in this State). The extent of tlie sur- 313.

rogatc's jurisdiction over testamentary ^ Leviness v. Cassebeer, 3 Redf. 491,

trustees and guardians uiuler the New 498 ; Burton's Estate, 64 Cal. 428.
York statutes is full}' discussed in Matter ^ Lazell v. Lazell, 8 Allen, 575, 577;

of Hawley, 104 N. Y. 250, 262 et seq. ; and Woodward v. Lincoln, 9 Allen, 239.

§ 152 LIABILITIES ARISING FROM THE ADMINISTRATION. 347

dous not (•uufer jurisdiction over a stranger claiming adversely to
the husband under an execution sale ; ' nor does the power con-
ferred upon probate courts to subj)oena and examine parties
alleged to conceal or withhold property of the estate authorize
such courts to try the title to the property in disi)uf('.'- In South
Carolina, where the constitution confers jurisdiction upon probate
courts, and the power to {jartition real estate is not expressly con-
ferred, it was held that an act of the legislature conferring the
power is unconstitutional, and the want of jurisdiction to decree
partition in a probate court may be insisted on in the appellate
court, or declared by the court itself, although neither side raised
the point in either court.*^ So the power to try civil and criminal
cases conferred upon the probate court by a Territorial legislature
has been held inconsistent with the act of Congress under which
the Territory is organized, and which conferred upon the supreme
and district courts general jurisdiction at common law and in
chancery ; ■* and where the jurisdiction of district courts " extends
over all civil causes where the amount in dispute exceeds fifty
dollars," the probate court was held to be without jurisdiction
to try charges of maladministration and spoliation against the
administrator.^

§ 152. Liabilities arising from the Administration. — Upon the
same princii)lc, probate courts have no jurisdiction to decree pay-
ment to persons employed by the executor or admin- no jurisiUctioa
istrator to render services for him, or for the estate, ai;;liusuiie^es-
in its administration.^ Although it may be the duty t:i'« :i''^|"ff ""t

'~ •' •'01 tl>u ailiiiuus-

of the court, in passing upon the administration ac- nation.
count, to determine the reasonableness of payments for such ser-
vices, and allow or reject the credits taken therefor, it has not the
power, unless expressly granted by statute, to adjudicate upon the
claims of such persons against the udministrator ; their remedy,
if he refuse to pay, is in another court. Thus, while the court
may make an allowance to an administrator who performs ser-

1 Jigsitts i;. Bennett, 31 Miss. GIO, 612, ?•. Gil more, 13 Mo. App. 155, 158; post,

citing former Mississippi cases, Fislier, J., § 325, p 681, note 1.

dissenting, on the ground tliat the term ^ Davenport v. Caldwell, 10 S. C. 317,

" allotment " of dower necessarily in- 347.

cluiles all cases in which an allotment of ■* Ferris r. Higley, 20 Wall. 375, 370.

dower is claimed : p. 614. 5 Fouriiiquet v. Perkins, 7 How. (U.S.)

- Simimerfield v. Howie, 2 Redf. 149 ; IGO.
Gibson c. Cook, 62 Md. 25G, 261 ; Smith « gge post, § 356.

348 JURISDICTION OF PROBATE COURTS. § 153

vices for the estate, as an attorney at law, not within the scope of
his duties as administrator,^ or allow him credit for counsel fees
properly paid,^ it has no jurisdiction to order the payment of
Nor of debts counsel fccs by the administrator.^ Debts created
created after j^£|-g,. ^j-^^ ^^^^^ ^f ^j^g intcstatc OF tcstator canuot be

decedent s

death. proved in the probate court ; * nor can the probate court

Nor to adjust adjust the rights or equities arising out of the sale of

the rights of n n •• c it i i j

purciiasers of real cstate, or out 01 the vacation of the sale, between
dmiif'Mhe^" the purchaser and administrator;^ nor between co-
administration, administrators as to the commissions allowed them
in gross ; ^ nor determine the validity of a purchase by an adminis-
trator in his own name for the benefit of creditors." Neither has
it power to try a claim against an executor for damages arising
out of his acts as such.^

§ 153. Adjudication of Claims against the Deceased. — The

power to adjudicate upon claims against deceased persons is in

most States conferred upon the courts having control

No power to . .

adjudicate on ovcr the administration of their estates, either exclu-

clainis against i • i i a i i_ i

the deceased sivcly, or Concurrently with other courts ;^ but unless
feri'edby'' f^uch powcr is cxpressly granted, the probate courts
statute. cannot exercise it. Thus it is held in Maryland that

authority in the Orphan's Court to pass such claims, and authorize
and approve their payment, does not include the power to ascer-
tain their validity and amount ;io lience the Orphan's Court has no
power, against the protestation of the administrator, to decree the
payment of any claim until a court of law shall have definitively
pronounced on its validity. ^^ And in New York the delegation of
authority to surrogates to decree distribution to claimants " ac-

1 Bates r. Vary, 40 Ala. 421, 441; or * Eichelberger v. Hawthorne, 33 Md.

order counsel fees to be paid where the 588, 590; Young v. Sliumate, 3 Sneed,

statute authorizes the court to direct the 369, 371; Bond v. Clay, 2 Head, 379;

payment of expenses of administration : Wolfe v. Lynch, 2 Dcm. 610, 616. But

Stokes I'. Dale, 1 Dem. 260. see post, § 154, where cases are cited

'^ Pearson v. Darrington, 32 Ala. 227. showing tiie exercise of such authority.

273. See post, on the compensation of "^ Mount v. Slack, 39 N. J. Eq. 2G0.

administrators, § 515 e< seq. But in New York jurisdiction is conferred

3 Wright !•. "Wilkerson, 41 Ala. 2G7, by statute: Re Dunkel, 5 Dem. 188. And

273; Townshend i'. Brooke, 9 Gill, 90; see Re Seitz, 6 Mo. App. 250.

Hoes V. Halsey, 2 Dem. 577, 579 ; Barker ^ Peters v. Carr, 2 Dem. 22, 29.

V. Kunkel, 10 111. App. 407, 411 ; and « Winton's Appeal, 111 Pa. St. 387,

see cases under § .356. 394.

* Presbyterian Church v. McElhinney, ^ See post, § 391.

61 Mo. 540, 542; Estate of Robinson, 12 "^ Bowie v. Giiiselin, 30 Md. 553, 556.

Phil. 170. " Miller v. Dorsey, 9 Md. 317, 323.

§ 154 INCIDENTAL POWERS. 349

cordin<^ to their respective rights," and " to settle and determine
all (|uestions concerning any dcl^t, claim, legacy, bequest, or dis-
tributive share," is held to give them no |)ovver to ascertain what
such rights were, and that they are utterly without jurisdiction
either to allow or reject any claim whose validity, not having been
established in some competent tribunal, is disputed by the execu-
tor or administrator.! Nor has the surrogate jurisdiction to de-
termine whether there has been an accord and satisfaction of a
judgment disputed by the administrator, or whether the estate is
entitled in equity to a release or discharge.^ But the New York
statute, which i)rovidcs for the [)roving and allowing of an execu-
tor's claim against the estate before the surrogate, is held to in-
clude claims that are disputed as well as those not disputed, and
the circumstance that other persons are jointly interested with
him does not affect the surrogate's authority to adjudicate the
same, because otherwise the executor would have no means to
have his claim allowed.^

§ 154. Incidental Powers conferred by necessary Implication. —
The necessity of recognizing power in the probate courts to carry
out the functions expressly pointed out for them, and ^ . ,. ^

r -I i- ' Powers iinplied

to accomplish the express purposes for which they in powers
are created, has already been mentioned.^ Thus the ^' ^" "^ '
power to compel the executor or administrator to return a correct
inventorv of the estate, includes the power to deter-

' ' ^ To ascertain

mine what property constitutes assets or belongs to what cousti-
the estate, and hence to try the title to property; ^au-
thority to direct and control executors and administrators includes
the power to approve or disapprove investments made by tiiem as
trustees under provisions of a will ; ^ the power to decree distribu-
tion or pavment of legacies involves the power to try Validity of

, - T, -, -p - -ii'- g^ifts mortis

the validity of an alleged gift mortis causa; ' the juris- causa.

1 Greene v. Day, 1 Deni. 45, 50. Tlie 2 McNulty v. Hurd, 72 X. Y. 518,

surrogate, on pp. 48 and 49, collects 521.

numerous New Yoric decisions, among 8 Shakespeare v. Markham, 72 N. Y.

tliem Tucker v. Tucker, 4 Keyes, 136, 400,407; Bougliton r. Flint, 74 N. Y. 476,

tlie leading case on this point; and 480. See yws<, § 391.

quaintly remarks that the statute author- ■* Ante, § 142, and authorities there

izes the surrogate " to settle and deterniiue citeil.

such questions, and such questions only, 5 McWillie v. Van Vacter, 35 Miss,

as were not a matter of dispute hetween 428, 445, citing Mississippi cases,

the parties, or, in simpler phrase, such ^ Jones v. Hooper, 2 Dem. 14.

questions as there was no question about." " Fowler v. Lockwood, 3 Eedf. 4G5,

Lambert v. Craft, 98 X. Y. 342. 470.

350 JURISDICTION OF PROBATE COURTS. § 154

diction to construe a will, and to ascertain and pass npon the
claims of parties asserting rights nnder or by virtue of it,
includes the power of the probate court to adjudicate ujion the
Indebtedness to Hghts of an cxccutor, as creditor, legatee, or heir,
[^lldaur'te^r^^ adverse to those whom he represents ; ^ under power
or legatee. a j-q clistributc the residuc of the estate among the

persons who by law are entitled thereto," to deter-
To try validity . "^ '

of trusts ere- mine whether a valid trust has been created by the

will,2 and what is the trust, who are the trustees and

beneficiaries, and to distribute accordingly.^ In the exercise of

Toenforcerem- the power to Sell succcssion property, the probate

bicider^uf asait coui't lias jurisdiction, as an incident thereto, to en-

consVitut74 force the remedies provided by law against a bidder

ajsets. -vvho refuscs to comply with his bid.* In Pennsylvania,

where the Orphan's Court has jurisdiction of the parti-
Partition lands. . CTl ••1111

tion 01 decedents estates, it is held that ejectment will

not lie by heirs against a widow in possession, but the proceeding

must be by partition in the Orphan's Court ;° nor dower

Ass)ii;n dower. . i i • ^ i

against the heirs,'' unless the land is m the adverse
possession of one denying her right, or not amenable to the pro-
cess of the Orphan's Court ; ' and enforce the payment of owelty
Specific per- in partition.^ Specific performance of a decedent's
cmurac^sfor coutracts for the sale of land has been held to be
sale of lands, -within the jurisdiction " pertaining to probate courts," ■'
as well as to try questions of fraud incidental to any subject of
which the probate court has jurisdiction.^'^

Where the power to award costs and enforce their payment is
given, it is exclusive ; a common law court to which issues are
To adjudicate scut by the Orphan's Court cannot enter judg-
tionofcostr* ment for costs, ^^ nor can an appellate court.^^ Costs

1 Denegre v. Denegre, 33 La. An. 689. See tlie case of Mussleman's Appeal, 65

2 Estate of Hinckley, Myr. 189, 194; Pa. St. 480, 485, in wliich Agnew, J.,
Estate of Crooks, Myr. 247, 249. reviews tlie history of the gradual en-

^ Estate of Crooks, supra. largement of jurisdiction of the Orphan's

* Succession of Bobb 27 La. An. 344, Court in Pennsylvania.

345; Bell's Appeal, 71 Pa. St. 471 But « Neel's Appeal, 88 Pa St 94

this is lield differently in some States : ^ Adams v Lewis 5 Sawy 229. Con

ante. § 151. cvirrent with chancery courts when con

6 Seider v. Seider, 5 Whart. 208, 217. ferred hy statute . Lynes v. Hayden, 119

6 Thomas v. Simpson, 3 Pa. St. 60, 67 ; Mass. 482.

a life tenant may also proceed for parti- 1° Wade v. Labdell, 4 Cush 510.

tion in the Orphan's Court : Kankin's '^ Levy v. Levy. 28 Md. 25, 29.

Appeal, 95 Pa. St. 358, 364. « Johns v Hodges, 60 Md. 215, 228 ,

■ Evans v. Evans, 29 Pa. St. 277, 280. Brown v Johns, 62 Md 333.

§ lo5 POWER TO CONSTIIUE WILLS. 351

follow the judgment or decree rendered, unless otherwise ex-
pressed in the judi>-nicnt; and when the term has lapsed at which
the judgment was rendered, the probate court has no further
power over it.^ It is held in ]\Iimicsota, that where a .„ , ^ ,

i ' To olfict dower

widow, who is entitled to her election l)etween the for insane
provisions of a will and her dower, is incompetent,
because of unsoundness of mind, to make the election, it is the
duty of the probate court to elect for her, unless there be a statu-
tory power committed to the guardian or committee ;2 in other
States such power rests in chancery courts,^ or, being personal to
the widow, is lost.^

§ 155. Power to construe Wills. — The jurisdiction of probate
courts over the estates of deceased persons necessarily includes
the power in the first instance to construe wills, whenever such
construction is involved in the settlement and distribution of the
estate of a testator. It is obvious that distribution cannot be
made, nor legacies ordered to be paid, unless the rights of lega-
tees are first adjudicated ; and such adjudication involves the
ascertainment of the testator's intention, in order to fix the rights
of legatees in accordance therewith,^ and whether a bequest is
valid or void,^ or adeemed." In New York a statute* confers
upon the surrogate of the county of New York, in a proceeding
to prove a last will, the same power as is vested in the Supreme
Court of that State to pass upon and determine the true construc-
tion, validity, and legal effect thereof, in case the validity of aiiy
of the dispositions contained in such will is contested, or the con-
struction, or its legal effect, called in question by any of the heirs
or next of kin of. the deceased, or any legatee or devisee. The
surrogate of New York construed this act as requiring him to
exercise the authority of determining the legal effect and true
construction of any of its provisions, as absolutely as tlie Supreme
Court might do when it obtained jurisdiction;^ hut this view was

1 Lucas V. Morse. lo9 Muss. 5P. r. Rl;isini, OO La. An. 1388, 1389 ; Appeal

- State ('. UelaiKl. :J0 Minn. 277, 282. of vScliaeffner, 41 Wis. 200, 264, approving

3 Kennedy v. Johnston, 65 Pa. St. 451, Brook r. Cliappell, 34 Wis. 405, 419 ; Harri-
45.5. son r. Harrison, 9 Ala. 470, 477 ; Covert v.

4 Collins V Carman, 5 'Mil. 503, 529; Sebern, 85 N. W. R. (Iowa), 636, 639.
Lewis I'. Lewis, 7 Ired. 72. See on tliis ^ Johnson v. Lonsniire, 39 Ala. 143.
subject ante, § 119 ^ May v May, 28 Ala. 141.

5 State V. Ueland, 30 Minn. 277, 282 ; 8 i^aws, 1870, ch. 359. § 11.

In re Verplanck, 91 N. Y 430, 450 ; Dii ^ Danser u Jeremiah, 3 Redf. 130, 137.

Bois V. Brown, 1 Dem. 317, 322, Blasini

352 JURISDICTION OF PROBATE COURTS. § 155

overruled by the Court of Appeals, holding that the effect of the
statute was restricted to the proceedings in proving the will ; and
that the surrogate possessed no more power to try the validity of
a disputed legacy, than to adjudicate upon the disputed claim of a
creditor. " When in good faith an executor resists the charging
of a legacy upon the residuary estate in his hands, and shows
that there is a real question of fact or of law in his refusal to
allow it, the jurisdiction of the surrogate ceases, or has never
attached. It is for the appropriate court of law or equity to adju-
dicate upon the matter. When determined there, the surrogate
may go on with the accounting, or whatever other proceeding was
before him when the question arose." ^ This decision is some-
what modified by later cases, in which it is held that the surro-
gate has power to pass upon the construction of a will where the
right to a legacy depends upon a question of construction which
must be detei'mined before a decree of distribution can be made,
and that this power can be exercised on final accounting only,
when all the parties who may be affected by the adjudication are
brought in.^

In Maryland the Orphan's Courts have power to take probate of
wills, but not to adjudicate questions of title dependent upon their
operation and effect, or to decide upon the right of disposition.
" When probate is granted, authority to determine what passes
under the will is devolved upon the courts of law and equity,
tribunals which are clothed with ample jurisdiction to decide that
question." ^

It may be proper to note in this connection the power of courts
of equity in respect of the construction of wills, upon the appli-
cation of an executor, administrator, or other trustee, or even of a
cestui que trust, to determine questions of doubt in carrying trusts
into effect.* The power arises out of the jurisdiction of courts of
equity to decree the payment of legacies (because the ecclesiasti-
cal courts could neither take the accounts necessary sometimes

1 Bevan v. Cooper, 72 N. Y. 317, 827 citing tlie case of Micliael v. Baker, 12
et seq. ; Fraenznick v. Miller, 1 Dem. 136. Md. 1-58, 160; Ramsey r. Welby, 63 Md.

2 Riggs V. Cragg, 89 N. Y. 479, 492, 584, citing earlier cases

and cases supra; In re Verplanck, 91 * See on tliis point 1 Redf. on Wills,

N. Y. 439, 450; Tappan v. Church, 3 488,493, Schoiil. Ex. §§ 265, 473 ; Story,

Dem. 187, disapproving Fraenznick v, Eq. § 1065 ; Rosenberg v. Frank, 58 Cal.

Miller, svpra. 387, 399 ; Williams v. Williams, 14 Pac.

3 SchuU V. Murray, 32 Md. 9, 15, 16, R. (Cal.) 394, 397.

§ 155 POWER TO CONSTKUE WILLS. 353

to ascertain the ani(Mint of legacies, nor enlorce their decrees,)
and to entertain bills of interpleader (in cases of conflicting
trusts, to save trustees from hazardous responsibility and future
litigation, or of conflicting legal claims against one who has no
interest in the thing claimed, but is a mere stakeholder). ^ It is
deduced from the equity jurisdiction given by statute in cases of
trust arising in the settlement of estates, where the trustees are
actors and seek the aid and direction of a court of e(juity in cases
of doubt and difficulty, and where conflicting claims are asserted
by different parties to the same property or rights under the in-
strument creating the trust ;2 and is expressly conferred by statute
in some of the States.^ Where equity jurisdiction is conferred
upon the probnte court, it may be api)lied to for instructions as to
the construction of a will ; '^ but the power does not reside in such
courts unless expressly, or by necessary implication, conferred.^
Thus an executor, administrator c. t. a., or any party claiming
against him, may apply to a court of equity to have his rights in
the estate ascertained and settled in respect of testamentary
trusts which may be valid or invalid ; for the executor holds the
property in trust for the persons to whom it is legally bequeathed,
and for those who are entitled to it under the Statute of Distribu-
tions if not effectually disposed of by the will. So in respect of
property devised, and where there is a mixed trust of real and
personal estate, questions may ai'ise as to the validity and effect
of contingent limitations, or other doubtful points, which it be-
comes necessary to decide in order to make a final settlement,
and to give proper instructions and directions touching the execu-
tion of the trusts.^ It is evident that application, whether by
an executor, administrator, or devisee, heir at law, or any other
person, for the construction of a will, or other aid to the proper
execution of a trust, can only be made when necessary for the
present action of the court, upon which it may enter a decree or

' Tnyloe ?•. Bond, per Pearson, J., 71 Mo. 326, vindicating the jurisdiction

Busb. Eq. 6, 15. of chancery courts by the majorit_v, p. .3-34,

2 Trciidwellr. Cordis, 5 Gray, 341,348; JJ. Hough (p. 33'.)) and Henry "(p. 352)

Mccliauics' Hanlf r. Harrison, (38 Ga. 4f)3, iiohling the jurisdiction to reside in the

409, relying on Miles v. Peabody, 64 Ga. probate court.
729. * Swasey v. Jaques, 144 ]\Iass. 1.35.

8 Such statutes are construed in Wil- ^ Chadwick v. Chadwick, 13 Pac. Rep.

liams V. Williams, 14 Pac. R. (Cal ) 394, 385.

397; Horton v. Caiitwell, 108 N. Y. 255, « Bowers v. Smith, 10 Pai. 193, 199,

263; First Baptist Church v. Robberson, per Chancellor Walworth.
VOL. I. —23

354 JURISDICTION OF PROBATE COURTS. § 153

direction in the nature of a decree ; for a court will never give an
abstract opinion or advice.^ Nor docs the principle upon which
courts administer this species of relief extend to questions grow-
ing out of the past management of the estate or trust, involving
an inquiry into the validity of such management.^ Hence a court
of equity will not judicially construe a devise on the application of
an heir at law, where no trust is involved, for that is a purely
legal question to be decided by a court of law, nor pass upon any
question properly triable in another court.^ Nor will a court of
equity, without urgent reasons, interfere with the discretion vested
in a trustee ; * nor does the court take the place of counsel, to act
as general legal adviser to an administrator or other fiduciary
respecting his official duties;^ and it is said that conrts are not
bound to entertain applications for the construction of doubtful
wills, and that they will, in their discretion, refuse to do so except
where great interests are involved, and a decision in the ordinary
course of litigation would be attended with great inconvenience,
delay, and expense.^ But having acquired jurisdiction for the
purpose of construing the will, they have authority to do com-
plete justice between the parties by enforcing their adjudications,'
unless exclusive jurisdiction is vested in tlie court of probate, in
which case the adjudication becomes binding as the law of the
will, to be carried out by the probate court.^

It is self-evident that the decree or adjudication rendered is
.binding on those only who have been made parties to the proceed-
ing ; ^ hence, if the judgment of the court is invoked on a par-
ticular sentence of the will, which is so connected with other

1 Little V. Thorne, 93 N. G. 69, 71 ; Tyson v. Tyson, 100 N. C. 360; Woodlief

Tayloe v. Bonfl, Bush. Eq. 5; Wend v. r. Merritt, 96 N. C. 226 ; Collins f. Collins,

Cantwell, 36 Hun, 528; Casperson v. 19 Oh. St. 468 ; Bailey y. Briggs, 56 N. Y.

Dunn, 42 N.J. Eq. 87; MuUloon ;;. Mul- 407, 413; Pratt v. Pond, 5 Allen, 59;

doon, 133 Mass. Ill ; Wilhur o. Maxam, Sprague v. West, 127 Mass. 471.
133 Mass. 541; Bowen v. Bowen, 38 Oh. * Greeri;.McBeth,13Kioli.L.&Eq.254.

St. 426, 428 ; Rexroad v. Wells, 13 W. Va. 5 ciay v. Gurley, 62 Ala. 14, 19.

812 ; Gafney v. Kenison, 10 Atl. R. (N. H.) 6 Crosby v. Mason, 32 Conn. 482, 484.

706, citing Greely i.\ Nashua, 62 N. H. A fortiori, if complete relief can be ob-

Biit sometimes courts will decide tained in the probate court : Wager v.

questions which have not arisen, but are Wager, 89 N. Y. 161, 168; Siddall y. Har-

" pretty certain " to arise in the execution rison, 15 Pac. R. 130.
of the trust: PerDurfee, C. J., in Goddard ^ Nash v. Simpson, 78 Me. 142, 151;

V. Brown, 12 R. I. 31, 41. Wager v. Wager, 89 N. Y. 161.

^ Sohier v. Burr, 127 Mass. 221, 224. » Allen v. Barnes, 12 Pac. R. (Utah),

3 Simmons v. Hendricks, 8 Ired. Eq. 912, 915.
84 ; Bowers v. Smith, 10 Pai. 193, 200 ; ^ Bowers v. Smith, 10 Pai. 193, 201.

§ 156 EXCLUSIVE AND CONCURRENT JURISDICTION. 355

sentences that these are necessarily affected by the adjudication,
all parties interested in the construction of such other sentences
should be made parties.^ And since a party must be presented in
the precise capacity in which he is sought to be charged, it is not
sufficient that one who may be interested as an heir at law has
been made a party as legatee or devisee.^ Where the application
is made by an executor in good faith, under circumstances creating
a doubt as to the intention of the testator or the rights of lega-
tees or heirs, the costs are payable out of the estate ; ^ not so,
however, where the proceeding was unnecessary or frivolous, in
which case the party causing it must bear the costs.*

§ 156, Exclusive and Concurrent Jurisdiction. — The jurisdiction
exercised by probate courts in the matter of admitting wills to
probate, appointing administrators, and taking admin- ^^^^.^ .
istration bonds, is exclusive of all other courts or tri- risdiction to
bunals in all the States. Other matters committed to and grant

,,...,.,. T, •J_^ • l.^ ' ^ administration.

their jurisdiction are, generally, witliin their exclu-
sive original jurisdiction, any party interested having, in most
States, a right to appeal and have a trial de novo in the appellate
court. From the nature of the jurisdiction so conferred, it is evi-
dently essential that the adjudications upon the subject matter,
not appealed from or reversed in direct proceeding, shall be final,
not only in the courts in which they are pronounced, but in all
other courts where the same question arises.^ Hence a superior
court has no power, in the exercise of its chancery superior court
jurisdiction, to set aside a will which has been admitted "„" revoke
to probate, or to remove an executor,^ or to control an P'f'''«te and

i ' ' to control

administrator in the discharge of the ordinary duties admimstrator.
of his office, while the administration is pending in the Or order the
probate court,''' or to subiect the lands of heirs to the •'''>''' "^ '=^"'^^

•^ 7 J ff,P payment

payment of debts of the ancestor, if the creditors have of debts.

1 Magers v. Edwards, 13 W. Va. 822, in wliich all parties except non-residents

831. were required to pay tlieir own attorney's.

=^ Lomerson v. Vroom, 11 Atl. R. * Mundell r. Green, 108 Jlass. 277, 283.

(N. J.) 13. 5 See nntp, § 14.5; Martin ;;. Roach, 1

3 Rogers v. Ross, 4 John. Ch. 608 ; Ilarring. 477, 486.

Morrell i'. Dickey, 1 John. Ch. 153, loG; o Tudor v. James, 5.S Ga. 302; Leddel

Sawyer i'. Baldwin, 20 Pick. 378, 388 ; r. Starr, 19 N. J. Eq. 159, 16.3.

Rowland r. Green, 108 Mass. 277, 285; " Overton r. McFarland, 15 Mo. 312,

Drew y. Wakefield, i54 Me. 291, .300; Jaco- citing Erwin v. Henrj', 5 Mo. 469, and

bus V. Jacobus, 20 X. J. Eq. 49, 54 ; but Miller v. Woodward, 8 Mo. 169, 171 ;

see Urey v. Urey, 5 S. W. R. 859, 864, Pearce r. Calhoun, 59 Mo. 271, 273.

356 JURISDICTION OF PROBATE COURTS. § 156

failed to present their claims for allowance in the probate court ;^
nor to allow and enforce payment of a claim against an estate ;2
nor has a common law court power to try an action
legacies and purely probatc in its character, having for its object
distribution. ^j^^ recognition of heirs, legatees, or distributees, and
establishing their rights judicially.'^

In some States, courts of equity have retained concurrent
jurisdiction with probate courts in some respects, chiefly in the
Concurrent matter of Compelling executors or administrators to
in"o'Jm!ei'iinff accouut.* The general tendency, however, is to vest
accounting. exclusivc Original jurisdiction over executors, admin-
istrators, guardians, curators, etc. in probate courts, arming them
with ample powers, both in the extent of their jurisdiction and
their mode of procedure, for the accomplishment of those pur-
poses which could not bo attained in the English testamentary
courts and rendered necessary the interference of equity courts.^
Hence, in this country, courts of equity do not, generally, inter-
fere in the administration of estates, except in aid of the probate
courts, where the powers of these are inadequate to the purposes
of perfect justice, and then for the same reasons which induce
them to interfere with the jurisdiction of common law courts.^
Where, for instance, an administrator dies before settling his
administration account, and the same person is appointed his
administrator and also administrator de bonis non of his intes-
tate,' the proper tribunal before which to make the settlement is
a court of chancery.^ So where it is necessary to restrain the

^ Titterington r. Hooker, 58 Mo. 59.",. Adams v. Adams, 22 Vt. 50, 58 ; Bryan

2 Kothman i». Markson, iJl Ivans. 542. v. Hickson, 40 Ga. 405, 408; Irvin v.

3 Linsenbigler r. Gourlcy, 56 Pa. St. Bond, 41 Ga. G30, 6.50 ; Jeter v. Barnard,
166, 171 ; Hart v. Hoss, 22 La. An. 517 ; 42 Ga. 43, 44.

Lusk V. Benton, 30 La. An. 686, 688. '' In such case the settlement by the

* Clark II. Perry, 5 Cal. 58; Brown's administrator with liimself as adminis-

Appeal, 12 Pa. St. 3.S3 ; Seibert's Appeal, trator dc bonis non is void : Hays v. Cock-

19 Pa. St. 49 ; McLean v. Wade, 5-3 Pa. reil, 41 Ala. 75, 80; for which reason, the

St. 146 ; Ritch r. Bellamy, 14 Fla. 537 ; probate court being powerless to act, it

Shoemaker v. Brown, 10 Kans. 383 ; is said that the jurisdiction of the court

Lynes v. Hayden, 119 Mass. 482. See of chancery is exclusive: p. 81.

post, § -500, as to the concurrent jurisdic- ^ CarswcU v. Spencer, 44 Ala. 204,

tion between chancery courts and courts 206. So if the surviving is also admin-

of probate, in compelling executors and istrator of the deceased partner : Heward

administrators to account. v. Slagle, 52 111. 336, 340 ; or administra-

6 Story, Eq. Jur. § 543 a, Redfield's tor, and guardian of the distributee :

(10th) ed. Cleere v. Cleere, 82 Ala. 581; Vaughn

6 Sto. Eq. Jur. § 531, note 1, 12th ed. ; v. Suggs, 82 Ala. 357.

§ 156 EXCLUSIVE AND CONCURRENT JURISDICTION. 357

sale of real estate in protectiun of the interest of the heirs,^
involving the accounting by the administrator ; ^ or to protect the
estate against fraud or waste by the administrator where the pro-
bate court is powerless,^ or in case of collusion between the exec-
utor and a creditor,* or, generally, where there is an evident
mistake or fraud in the settlement,^ or the probate court, by rea-
son of its limited powers, cannot administer proper relief.^ So a
non-resident executor, relieved by the will from giving bond, will
be compelled, at the instance of a legatee whose legacy is not yet
due and payable, to give security for its payment into court, Avhere
there is just cause to apprehend loss ;'' and an executor formerly
domiciled in another State may be called to account in equity by
an unpaid legatee ; ^ and where unadministercd assets are found,
too little in value to justify the opening of an administration, and
but one creditor, chancery will subject them to the payment of
that debt.^ But where the jurisdiction of the probate court has
once properly attached, no other court will interfere, or go behind
its judgments or decrees, without special and sufficient reasons. ^^

The jurisdiction of Federal courts is conferred upon them by
the Constitution of the United States and the laws of Congress in
pursuance thereof; and as this jurisdiction is inde- t • . ^- t

■t ' J Jurisdiction of

pendent of that conferred by the States upon their Ftniefai courts

^ ... unaffected

own courts, it is obvious that it cannot be affected by hv state
any legislation except that of the United States. ^^ °
Hence the proceedings in probate courts are no bar to the pro-
ceedings HI equity of a Federal court. ^^

1 McCook V. Pond, 72 Ga. 150. " Seymour v. Seymour, 4 John. Ch.

2 Finger v. Finger, 64 N. C. 183, 186. 409; Savage v. Benham, 17 Ala. 119, 126;

3 Freeman v. Keagan, 26 Ark. 37.3, Moren v. MoCown, 23 Ark. 93, 94 ; Wo-
378; Ragsdale v. Holmes, 1 S. C. 91, 95. .mack v. Womack, 2 La. An. 339, 341 ;

* Fleming v. McKesson, 3 Jones Eq. Branton v. Branton, 23 Ark. 569, 579 ;

316, 318. Deck v. Gerke, 12 Cal. 433, 436 ; Search

a Brackenridge v. Holland, 2 Blackf. v. Search, 27 N. J. Eq. 137, 140, citing

377, 380, referring to Allen v. Clark, 2 earlier New Jersey cases ; Kothman v.

Blackf. 343; Gafford v. Dickinson, 37 JNLirkson, 34 Ivans. 542, -550.

Kans. 287. n Payne v. Hook, 7 Wall. 425, 430,

•^ Clnrk V. Head, 75 Ala. 373. and numerous eases cited.

'• Walker r. Johnson, 82 Ala. 347. ^- Payne >-. Hook, sujva ; Borer v.

8 Colbert v. Daniel, 32 Ala. 314, 330. Chapman, 119 U. S. 587, 600.

9 Mallory v. Craige, 15 N. J. Eq. 73, 74.

358 DOMICILIAE AND AN'CILLAIlY JUKISDICTION. § 157

CHAPTER XVII.

DOMICILIAR AND ANCILLARY JURISDICTION.

§ 157. Authority of Representatives limited to the State granting
it. — The property of deceased persons is vested by law in repre-
Principieof sentativcs wlio, for the purposes of its devolution,
the limitation continue the person of the defunct.^ The authority

ot authority ^ •'

to property of thesG representatives emanates from the law of the

witliin the c, , -, i • i i i i i i

State granting fetate or couutry Under which they hold letters testa-

adniiuistration. „. £ i • • • i^- i • •• •

mentary or oi administration ; and since it is univer-
sally recognized that the laws of every State affect and bind
directly all property within its territorial limits and all persons
residing therein, whether natural born citizens, subjects, or aliens ;
and that a State may, therefore, regulate the manner and circum-
stances under which property within it, whether real or personal,
shall be held, transmitted, and enforced,^ it is evident that no
one can, in a representative capacity, whether a testato or ab in-
testato, meddle or interfere with a succession before probate of the
will or grant of administration, or some other formal induction
into the property in the forum of the country or State where it is
Letters testa- found.^ Tliis is the ncccssity of the rule, recognized
administration ^^^ England* as Well as in the Federal^ and State courts
have no extra- Qf America,^ that letters testamentary and of adminis-

territonal ' •'

effect. tration have no legal force or effect beyond the terri-

1 Ante, § 10 ; post, § 170 ; Westlake, ^ The cases so holding are very nu-
Private International Law, § 290. merous ; among them are, in Alabama •

2 Sto. Confl. L. § 18 ; Minor v. Card- Broughton v. Bradley, 34 Ala. 694, 708 ;
well, 37 Mo. 350, 353 ; Vauglian v. North- Arkansas : Clark v. Holt, 16 Ark. 257,
up, 15 Pet. 1, 5. 263 ; California : Brown v. Gaslight Co.,

3 Westl. Pr. Int. L. § 201 ; Fenwick v. 58 Cal. 426 ; Connecticut : Hobart v.
Rears, 1 Cr. 259,282; Graeme v. Harris, Turnpike Co., 15 Conn. 145, 147, Geor-
1 Dall. 456; Patterson v. Pagan, 18 S. C. gia : Turner v. Linam, 55 Ga. 253, 255;
584, citing Dial v. Gary, 14 S. C. 573, 579. Illinois : Hickox v. Frank (showing that

* Wms. Ex. [362]. the authority of a foreign adminis-

5 Dixon V. Ramsay, 3 Cr. 319, 323; trator depends upon the law of the fo-

Kerr v. Moon, 9 Wheat. 565, 571; Noo- rum), 102 111. 660; Iowa: McClure v.

nan v. Bradley, 9 Wall. .394, 399 et seq. ; Bates, 12 Iowa, 77 ; Indiana ; Naylor v.

Eells V. Holder, 2 McCrary, 622. Moody, 2 Blaekf. 247 ; Kentucky": Dor-

§ 158 ADMINISTRATION IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES. 359

torial limits within which the authority of the State or country
granting them is recognized as law.^

§ 158. Administration of same Successions in different Countries.
— It follows from this doctrine, that where a person dying leaves
property in several different jurisdictions, the legal Same person
reprcscntativcs of such person must derive their au- tur'in difierent
thority from each of as many sovereignties as may ^^'^^^^'^
have jurisdiction over the property so left, hecause the territorial
element of the law, or rather of the sovereignty from which the
law emanates, permits no other sovereignty to exercise authority
o^er it, and each therefore must itself create the legal ownership
necessary in its devolution.^ This authority or legal ownership
may be, and except in the States in which non-residence disquali-
fies a person from the office of executor or administrator'^ gen-
erally is, conferred upon the same person in several or all of the
States in which the deceased person left property ; for a testator
may appoint the same or different executors in different coun-
tries,* and it is held that ex comitate, and in order to preserve as
far as possible the singleness of administration, the person who
obtains administration as next of kin in the jurisdiction of the
intestate's domicil, or his attorney, is entitled to a similar grant
in any other jurisdiction where the deceased has per- but the admin-
sonal estate ;^ but the administration in each State is eac||'state"is
wholly independent, whether in the hands of the same independent.
or of different executors or administrators ,6 in no wise impaired,

sey V. Dorsey, 5 J. J. Marsh. 280 ; Kan- Vermont : Vauglin v. Barret, 5 Vt. 333,

sas: Moore v. Jordan, 36 Kans. 271; 336; Virginia: Dickinson v. McCraw, 4

Louisiana: Succession of Roffignac, 21 La. Rami. 158.

An. 364 ; Maine : Smith v. Guild, 34 Me. ^ Story, Confl. L. §§ 512, 513 ; 3 Redf.

443; Maryland: Barton y. Higgins, 41 on Wills, 24, note 7, and authorities cited;

Md. 539, 546 ; Massachusetts : Trecothick 2 Kent, 431 et seq.; Naylor i'. Moffat,

V. Austin, 4 Mas. 16, 32, and cases cited 29 Mo. 126 ; Wright v. Gilbert, 51 Md.

by Story, J. ; Michigan : Sheldon v. Rice, 146, 152.

30 Mich. 296, 302 ; Mississippi : Riley v. - Westlake, Pr. Int. L. § 291 ; Story,

Moseley, 44 Miss. 37, 43 ; Missouri: Es- Confl. L. § 513 et seq.

tate of Ames & Co., 52 Mo. 290, 293 ; » As to which see post, §§ 2.30, 241.

New Hampshire: Taylor v. Barron, 35 * Hunter v. Bryson, 5 G. & J. 483;

N. H. 48 i ; New York : Doolittle v. Lewis, Schultztv Pulver, 11 Wend. 361 ; Fletcher

7 Johns. Ch. 45 ; North Carolina : San- v. Wier, 7 Dana, 345, 349 ; Sherman v.

ders V. Jones, 8 Ired. Eq. 246; Grant v. Page, 85 N. Y. 123, 128.

Reese, 94 N. C. 720, 729 ; Oliio : Nowler ^ Westl. Pr. Int. L. § 292, and author-

V. Coit, 1 Oh. 519 ; Pennsylvania : Sayre ities there cited ; and see jtost, § 246, as to

V. Helme, 61 Pa. St. 299 ; South Caro- appointment of administrators ; Woodruff

lina: Carmichael v. Ray, 1 Rich, llfi; i-. Schnltz, 49 Iowa, 430, 431.

Tennessee : Carr v. Lowe, 7 Heisk 84 ; *^ So that the executor in one State is

360

DOMICILIAR AND ANCILLARY JURISDICTION.

§158

abridged, or affected by a previous, and a fortiori by a subsequent,
grant of administration in another State.^ There is

_ no privity between administrators in different States,^

different States althouo'h there mav be between executors of the same

of same estate, » •'

testator in different States,^ who, at common law, arc
said to be in privity as to tlie creditors.
The administration granted in the State of the domicil of the
decedent, is the principal, primary, original, or chief
administration, because the law of the domicil governs
the distribution of the personal property, whether to
heirs, distributees, or legatees ; ^ while that grant-
ed in any other country is ancillary or auxiliary.^
Both are local, however, to the jurisdiction in which they are
granted, being limited to the chattels having a particular situs,^
independent of each other, save that the origin and devolution of
Judgment the property in each may be the same J It follows
i^sn^atorinone" from this waut of privity that a judgment obtained

No privity be
tween admin-
istrators in

but there mav
be between
executors.

Principal ad-
ministration
is in State of
domicil ;
law of donncil
governs distri-
bution of per-
sonal property

not bound to inventory, or in any wise
account for, the assets of another executor
in another State : Shenuau v. Page, 85
N. Y. 123.

1 Henderson v. Clarke, 4 Litt. 277 ;
Pond ),'. Makepeace, 2 Met. (Mass.) 114;
Burbank v. Payne, 17 La. An. 15 ; Aspden
V. Nixon, 4 How. 467, 497 ; McLean v.
Meek, 18 How. IG; Banta v. Moore, 15
N. J. Eq. 97 ; Apperson ;'. Bolton, 29 Ark.
418, 435 ; Picqiiet, Appellant, 5 Pick. 65 ;
Equitable Life Assurance Soc. v. Vo^rel,
76 Ala. 441, 446 ; Grant ;;. Reese, 94 N. C.
720, 729 ; Graveley v. Graveley, 25 S. C.
1,19.

2 Taylor v. Barron, 35 N. H. 484 ;
Dent V. Ashley, Hemps. 54 ; King v. Clarke,
2 Hill (S. C.) Ch. 611 ; Freeman's A])peal,
68 Pa. St. 151 ; Wells v. Wells, 35 Miss.
638; Keaton v. Campbell, 2 Humph. 224 ;
Stacy V. Thrasher, 6 How. 44, 59 ; Hill v.
Tucker, 13 How. 458, 466; Creswell v.
Slack, 68 Iowa, 110, 11-3.

3 The privity between executors in
different States, appointed by the same
testator, is based upon the common law
doctrine, that the executor derives his
authority from the will, while that of
the administrator rests solely upon the
appointment by the probate court : Hill
V. Tucker, supra ; Goodall v. Tucker, 13

How. 469. This reason fails, however, in
those States in wiiich the authority of
the executor is likewise deduced from his
appointment by the court; and is not
applicable to an administrator de bonis non
cum testainento anuexo : Grant v. Reese,
94 N. C. 720, 7.30.

* " This," says Story, J., in Harvey v.
Richards, 1 Mas. 381, 402, " although once
a question vexed with much ingenuity and
learning in courts of law, is now so com-
pletely settled by a series of well con-
sidered decisions, that it cannot be brought
into judicial doubt." See Russell r. Mad-
den, 95 111. 485, 491. A noteworthy ex-
ception to this general principle is made
in Mississippi, where the statute directs
personal property to be distributed ac-
cording to the laws of that State ; post,
§168.

s Story, Confl. L. § 518; Spraddling v.
Pipkin, 15 Mo. 118; Goodall v. Marshall,
11 N. H. 88 ; Ordronaux v. Helie, 3
Sandf. Ch. 512; Clark v. Clement, 33
N. H. 563.

« Wcstl. Pr. Int. L. § 292, p. 281 ;
Green v. Rugely, 23 Tex. 539 ; McCord
r. Thompson, 92 Ind. 565; Dial v. Gary
14 S. C. 573; Reynolds o. McMullen, 55
Mich. 568.

' Story, Confl. L. § 522.

§ 159 JUEISDICTION OF TROPERTY REMOVED. 361

against one furnishes no cause of action against an- state not valid
other, so as to affect assets under the control of the '" another,
other ; ^ and it is immaterial that the judgment was obtained
against the administi-ator of the foreign jurisdiction in person,
npon due notice to him,^ or even upon his voluntary appearance.^
Nor will a judgment in favor of a foreign administrator against
the debtor of his intestate support an action against the debtor by
an administrator in another State.* But a question determined
by the courts of a sister State, so as to become res judicata be-
tween the parties, cannot be reopened by the same parties in
another State.^

§ 159. Jurisdiction of Property removed to another Country after
Owner's Death. — But it may be that the situs of property is
changed after the death of the owner, and before any

. . . . . T 1 Property re-

admnnstrator reduces it nito possession. In such moved from

T . . , , . , 1 one State to

case. Since every administration operates on such another, after
property of the deceased as is at the time of the grant, goe^To^ilr'^'
or shall be at any time during its existence, within the fj'st admims-

•^ ° trator who

jurisdiction of the court granting the same,^ the ques- seizes it within

. , .. , .^,... ,, ,. liis jurisdiction.

tion determining the jurisdiction is whether there is
or is not any vacancy in the legal title to the property where and
when found. For if goods are once in the legal possession of an
administrator duly appointed, they cannot afterward be affected

1 Brndie v. Brickley, 2 Rawie, 431 ; the extent of depriving the courts of tlie

Low i\ Bartlett, 8 Allen, 259; Aspden v. State in which lands lie from construing

Nixon, 4 How. 467 ; Stacey r. Thrasher, 6 the will as to such realty. Where a tes-

How. 44; McLean v. Meek, 18 How. 16; tator by a single will devises lands lying

Ela V. Edwards, 13 Allen, 48; Merrill v. in two or more States, the courts of such

N. E. Ins. Co., 103 Mass. 245; Taylor v. States will construe it as to the lands

Barron, 35 \. H. 484; Dent v. Ashley, situated in them respectively : McCartney

Hemps 54 ; King v. Clarke, 2 Hill (S. C.) v. Osburn, 118 111. 403, 411 ; s c. 121 III.

Ch. till ; Slauter v. Chenowith, 7 Ind. 211 ; 408 ; Staigg v. Atkinson, 144 Mass. 564.
Rosenthal v. Renick, 44 111. 202, 207 ; <= Thus the statute of Maine provides

Price V. Mace, 47 Wis. 23 ; Creswell c that letters of administration are granted

Slack, 68 Iowa, 110, 113. to persons dying out of the State, not only

^ Rentschler v. Jamison, 6 Mo. App. when they leave property to be adminis-

135, 136. tered in the county, but when such prop-

3 Judy V. Kelley, 11 111. 211, 214. erty '• is afterward found therein": Saun-

* Talmage v. Chapel, 16 Mass. 71. ders v. Weston, 74 Me. 85, 89, 91. And

^ Hence, where a court, having com- the debt due to a resident of anotlier

petent jurisdiction to construe a will, State from one removing into the State

adjudicates thereon, such adjudication is of the forum after the creditor's death

binding upon the courts of other States : authorizes the appointment of an admin is-

Washhurn v. Van Steenwyk, 32 Minn, trator on the estate of the creditor : Pin-

336, 357. But this doctrine does not go to ney i\ McGregory, 102 Mass. 186, 189.

362 DOMIOILIAR AND ANCILLARY JURISDICTION. § 160

by an administration granted in another jurisdiction to which
they may be removed, because there is then no vacancy in the
legal ownership ; they are, technically, no longer the goods of the
deceased, but of the administrator of the jurisdiction from which
they were removed.^ But if the goods have never been in posses-
sion of the administrator, although they be removed from the
jurisdiction where he might, but did not, take possession of them,
Without regard ^^^ administrator of the jurisdiction to which they are
in the ^ rain of ^akcu may do so, without regard to priority in the
administration, grant of the respective administration. Thus, where
stage-coaches and stage-horses belonged to a line running from
one State to another, it was said that, if there had been different
administrators in the two States, " the property must have been
considered as belonging to that administrator who first reduced it
into possession within the limits of his own State." ^ So, also,
ships and cargoes, and the proceeds thereof, may be situated in a
foreign country at the time of the owner's death ; but since they
proceed according to their usage, on their voyages and return to
the home port they are properly taken possession of and admin-
istered by the administrator of the forum domicilii.^

§ 160. Legal Status of Foreign Administrators. — No executor or
administrator can, in his official capacity, originate or maintain
Foreign admin- ^^^ action in the courts of any country, save that which
istratorcan j^g^g nrrantcd him letters testamentary or of adminis-

maintaiii no o ./

action as such, tratiou,* without authority from the country in which

unless author-
ized by statute, he brings the action ; nor collect rents,^ or in any

manner intermeddle with the property of the deceased in such

country.^ The strict correlative of this proposition is, that no ex-

1 Westl. Pr. Int. L. § 295. See also * Ante, § 157, and authorities ; Perkins
In re Hughes, 95 N. Y. 55, 62. v. Williams, 2 Root, 462 ; Nicole v. Mum-

2 Orcutt V. Orms, 3 Pai. 459, 465 ; ford, Kirby, 270 ; Oilman v. Oilman, 54
Wells y. Miller, 45 111. 382. But in North Me. 453; McAnulty v. McClay, 16 Neb.
Carolina an administrator was held liable 418 ; Lewis v. Adams, 7 Pac. Rep. 779 ;
for negroes sent out of the State to an s. c. 8 Pac. R. 619 ; Barclift v. Treece, 77
administrator in Tennessee before he Ala. 528 ; Kropff r. Poth, 19 Fed. Rep.
qualified as administrator, on the ground 200; Moore v. Jordan, 36 Kan. 271 ; Gib-
that his appointment related back to the son v. Ponder, 40 Ark. 195, 199.

time of his intestate's death, and he might ^ Smith v. Smith, 13 Ala. 329; Morrill

have reduced them into possession, and v. Morrill, 1 Allen,- 1.32; Rutherford v.

maintained an action for them in the State Clark, 4 Bush, 27; Patterson v. Pagan,

where appointed, or elsewhere: Plummer 18 S. C. 584; Eells i'. Holder, 2 McCrary,

V. Brandon, 5 Ired. Eq. 190, 194 et seq. 622.

3 Story, Confl. L. § 520 ; Whart. Confl. 6 Cabanne v. Skinker -56 Mo. 357, 367,
L. § 633 ; Wells v. Miller, supra. and authorities cited by Judge Sherwood.

§ 160 LEGAL STATUS OF FOllEIGN ADMINISTRATOR. 8G3

editor or administrator can be subjected to an action, Nor be sued
in his oHicial capacity, in the State or country in which *^ '*"*' *
lie is not recognized as such ; ^ nor is he accountable, except in
the forum from which he obtained his authority, for ^^^^ authority
assets collected in a forciorn State '^ by virtue of his may he mn-

° . » furred hv com-

office. By the comity of States the authority of dom- ity of tiie
iciliar administrators is recognized in different juris-
dictions to a greater or less extent ;3 and it is a matter concerning
which the authorities differ, whether an administrator Dut^of a^.
is guilty of laches or nctjligence in failing to collect ministrators to

0 J o o o ^ collect assets

assets beyond the jurisdiction of his forum, or obtain- in foreign

. P . . . ,. . . , . , ., States.

ing letters in a foreign jurisdiction in which there
may be property belonging to the estate.* If he collect such
property in a foreign jurisdiction without authority, either under
his domiciliar lettei's, or by new letters there obtained, he is
liable to be sued in the courts of the foreign State, as one unlaw-
fully intermeddling with the effects, by any creditor or other
person interested ; he would in such case be clearly liable as an
executor de son tort, wherever this species of liability is still rec-
ognized,^ " for it would not lie in his mouth to deny that he had
rightfully received such assets, and he could not rightfully receive
them except as executor " ; ^ or as executor de jure, if the inter-

1 Vaughan v. Nortliup, 15 Pet. 1, 5; ministration out of his own State, in San-
Caldwell r. Harding, 5 Blatclif. 501 ; Curie ders v. Jones, 8 Ired. Eq. 246, citing earlier
V. Moor, 1 Dana, 445 ; Garden v. Hunt, authorities ; Cabanne i-. Skinker, 56 Mo.
Cheves, 42, Part II. ; Bcelcr v. Dunn, 367 ; that it is devastavit if he refuse to
3 Head, 87 ; Allsup v. Allsup, 10 Yerg. procure such letters if the interest of the
28.3; Winter v. Winter, Walker (Miss.), estate requires: Helnie r. Sanders, 3
211; Sparks v. White, 7 Humph. 86; Hawks, 563; but it is clearly his duty to
Davis f. Phillips, 32 Tex. 564 ; Hedenberg collect assets in a foreign jurisdiction if
V. Hedenberg, 46 Conn. 30, 33 ; Magraw he can do so under the authority of his
V. Irwin, 87 Pa. St. 139, 142, disapproving letters in the State of the domicil ; Shultz
earlier Pennsylvania cases (Swearingen v. Pulver, 3 Pai. 182 ; s. c. 11 Wend. 361;
V. Pendleton, 4 S. & R. 389, and Evans v. Klein v. French, 57 Miss. 662; see also
Tatem, 9 S. & R. 252) ; Musselman's § 162 and notes. Wiiere he has posses-
Appeal, 101 Pa. St. 165, 170; Durie v. sion of the note of a person living in
Blauvelt, 49 N. J. L. 114. another State, it is his duty to make rea-

2 Succession of St. John, 6 La. An. sonable effort to collect it without suit :
192; Brownlee v. Lockwood, 20 N. J. Eq. Grant v. Reese, 94 N. C. 720, 731.

239; Norton i'. Palmer, 7 Ciish. 523; & Campbell u. Tousey, 7 Cow. 64. The

Selectmen v. Boylston, 2 Mass. 384 ; remedy by action against any one as

Campbell r. Sheldon, 13 Pick. 8, 23 ; Mc- executor de son tort was subsequently

Namara v. McNamara, 62 Ga. 200, 204 ; abolislied in New York by statute : Brown

Cocks V. Varney, 42 N. J. Eq. 514. v. Brown, 1 Barb. Ch. 189, 195.

3 See pos^. §§ 161, 167. « Story, Confl. L. § 514; Allsup v.
* It is held that an administrator is Allsup, 10 Yerg. 283, 285.

under no legal obligation to procure ad-

364 DOMICILIAR AND ANCILLARY JURISDICTION. § IGl

meddling was not a tortious one.^ Where a testatrix appoints
different executors for effects in different States, and all of them
qualify, the executors in one State are not bound to inventory or
account for the effects in another State, being there administered.^
§ 161. Validity of voluntary Payment to Foreign Administrator.
— Upon the question of the validity of the voluntary payment of
Voluntary pay- a dcbt to a foreign executor or administrator, the
debtor to a authorities are not unanimous. Chancellor Kent held
^[n'ift^ator such a payment to be a good discharge of the debt.^
IS a valid dis- ^j^^j jj-^ Massachusctts it was asserted, that voluntary

charge if paid ' •'

where he had payment of a debt by the citizen of another State,

jurisdiction .iri ii'-

to sue. in the state where the administrator received his ap-

pointment, is a good bar to an action for the same debt by an
administrator of the State of the debtor's domicil;* a propo-
sition resulting of necessity from the liability of the debtor to
pay wherever he may be reached by the creditor.^ Nelson, J., of
the Supreme Court of the United States, says : " There is doubt-
less some plausibility in it [the objection to the validity of the
voluntary payment to a foreign administrator] , growing out of the
interest of the home creditors. But it has not been regarded of
sufficient weight to carry with it the judicial mind of the country.
With the exception of the case in the State of Tennessee, none
have been referred to, nor have our own researches found any,
maintaining the invalidity of the payment. The question has
been directly and indirectly before several of the courts of the
States, and the opinions have all been in one direction, — in
favor of the validity." ^ So it is held that the voluntary pay-

^ Tunstall i\ Pollard, 11 Leigh, 1, 27, the sale of premises in New York secur-

retracting an intimation to the contrary ing the payment of a hond payahle by

in Pugh V. Jones, 6 Leigh, 299 ; Marcy v. a citizen of New York to a deceased

Marcy, 32 Conn. 308. When a debtor in resident of Vermont, " his heirs, execu-

Pennsylvania of a decedent dying domi- tors, and administrators," by the admin-

ciled in New Jersey has voluntarily pnid istrators of the intestate appointed in

to the foreign executor, he cannot subse- Vermont.

quently, when such executor shall have * Stevens v. Gaylord, 11 Mass. 256,

obtained ancillary letters in Pennsylvania, 264.

claim as a creditor to have the ancillary & Story, Confl. L. § 515, and note 3 ;

accountant surcharged with the debt so Equitable Association v. Vogel, 76 Ala.

paid him, where he has already accounted 441, 448.

for the same in the domicil : Gray's e Wilkins v. Ellett, 9 Wall. 740, 742,

Appeal, 116 Pa. St. 256. referred to with approval in Wyman v.

2 Sherman v. Page, 85 N. Y. 123, 128. Halstead, 109 U. S. 654. The cases ro-

3 In Poolittle v. Lewis, 7 John. Ch. ferred to by Justice Nelson are Williams
45, 49, which turned upon the validity of v. Storrs, 6 John. Ch. 353 ; Doolittle v.

§ 161 VALIDITY OF VOLUNTARY PAYMENT. 365

ment of a debt to a forci<'-ii adiuinistrator, or the Or if there be

" . , . . „ III! ailmiiiistra-

relcase of a debt by such, would not be held invalid if tion in the State

, . 1 • • , , • ,1 1 1 i ? 1 • -I • i. of the debtor's

there is no administrator in the debtor s domicil inter- domicii.
fcring ; ^ and that in the absence of a domestic administrator pay-
ment of debts could only be made to a foreign executor.^ The
case of Trecothick v. Austin, sometimes relied on in support of
the view that a foreign executor may sue without probate of
the will in the State of the forum, establishes the view of Judge
Story, as an obiter dictum, that a foreign executor p„reign admin-
may maintain a suit in his own right, but not in his istratar muv

-' ^ _ sue, ]f he does

representative capacity.^ In North Carolina one who so in his iiuu-
paid over the money left by a deceased resident of
Georgia, who died while on a visit in North Carolina, to an ad-
ministrator in Georgia, was held not liable as executor de son fort
to a Georgia creditor, but the question of liability to a creditor in
North Carolina was expressly reserved.'^ On the other hand, it is
held directly and unqualifiedly that payment to a for- payment to
eign executor or administrator is void, and no defence ist'rafor nut"'°
to the demand of an administrator duly appointed in |"^o,ne%^|"a(i.
the State of the debtor's domicil.^ On principle, it miuistrator.
would seem to result from the limitation of the validity of letters
testamentary and of administration to the State or country grant-
ing them, that foreign executors and administrators can bind the
estate of a decedent to the extent only to which the law under au-
thority of which they act is recognized by the comity of the State
in which the property may be found ; and such comity may be ex-
pressed by act of its legislature, or the decisions of its courts.^

Lewis, supra ; Vroora v. Van Home, 10 ^ 4 Mas. 16, 32. See § 162.

Pai. 549, 557 ; Schulz i-. Piilver, 11 Wend. * Nisbet i-. Stewart, 2 Dev. & Bat. 24.

361 ; Trecothick v. Austin, 4 Mas. 16, 33 ; 5 Bartlett v. Hyde, 3 Mo, 490 ; Mc-

Stevens v. Gaylord, 11 Mass. 256; Nisbet Cord v. Tliompson, 92 Ind. 565; Stone v.

V. Stewart, 2 Uev. & B. 24 ; Parsons Scripture, 4 Lans. 186, reviewing the

1: Lyman, 20 N. Y. 103, 108. Some of New York cases, supra, and holding that

these decisions contain mere dicta or in- the power of an administrator appointed

timations on the point under considera- in tlie domicil of tlie debtor is exclusive

tion, and are referred to in the text. of tliat of any foreign executor or ad-

1 Williams v. Storrs, supra; Vroom v. ministrator; Young i-. O'Neal, 3 Sneed,
Van Home, supra ; Schulz i'. Pulver, 11 55, holding that the payment might be
Wend. 301 ; Citizens' Bank v. Sharp, 53 good if made in the State under which
Md. 521; Wilkins v. Ellett, 108 U. S. the foreign administrator holds his ap-
256, 259 ; Luce v. Railroad, 63 N. H. 588, pointment.

591. 6 Story, Confl. L. §§ 514, 515 a; Westl.

2 Parsons v. Lyman, 20 N. Y. 103, 113. Pr. Int. L. § 296, citing Whyte v. Rose,

866 DOMICILIAR AND ANCILLARY JURISDICTION. § 162

Hence a voluntary payment to a foreign executor or adminis-
trator, unless authorized by such comity, is void, and no defence
against the claim of an administrator of the State where the
debtor or property is found ; but will be good where it does not
conflict with such administration.^

§ 162. Extra-territorial Validity of title once vested. — Where

the legal title to the intestate's or testator's chattels has been

fully vested in the executor or administrator, it is ob-

Title onc6 <ic- •

quired follows vious that lic may remove them, or follow them into a
eveiyw ere. foreign jurisdiction without forfeiting or losing this
ownership, for " the title to personal property duly acquired by
the lex loci rei sitce will be deemed valid and be respected as a law-
ful and perfect title in every other country." ^ Hence he and his
assignee or vendee may sue for and recover them in a foreign
jurisdiction without a grant of new administration there.^ Upon
Test is whether ^^^^^ principle, a foreign executor or administrator
the suit can be may maintain an action on a judgment recovered

brought in the ^ . inn

individual agamst the debtor m another State, tor such suit need
capaci 3 . ^^^ j^^ brought in the rejjresentative capacity of the

plaintiff,^ as well as on a contract made by the defendant with
the foreign executor or administrator personally ; ^ and it is not a

3 Q. B. (Ad. & E. N. s.)493; Reynolds latter case it was held that a slave es-

V. McMullen, 55 Mich. 568, 575. caped from another State, not being

1 Denny v. Faulkner, 22 Kans. 89, 96, property in Massachusetts, could not be
citing several cases above referred to. administered upon there ; but that if the
See cases under §§ 160, 161 ; and Klein owner's title had vested in the adminis-
V. French, 57 Miss. 662, 668 ; McNamara trator in the State of the owner's domicil,
V. McNamara, 62 Ga. 200; Luce v. Rail- the latter or his agent might, under the
road, 63 N. H. 588. law of Congress, seize and remove the

2 Story, Confl. L. §516; ante, §159; slave without administration in Massa-
Collins r. Bankhead, 1 Strobh. 25. The chusetts.

same principle holds good respecting a * Indeed, a new administrator appoint-

liability, which follows the person of the ed in the State of the new forum, not

debtor; hence a legacy charged upon being privy to the judgment, could not

real estate devised, may be enforced maintain such action : Talmage f. Chapel,

against the devisee (although he be also 16 Mass. 71. See Cherry v. Spight, 28

executor), if he accepted the devise, in Te.x. 503; Biddle «. Wilkins, 1 Pet. 686;

any foreign State to which he may re- Barton v. Higgins, 41 Md. 539; Hall v.

move : Brown v. Knapp, 79 N. Y. 136, Harrison, 21 Mo. 227 ; Rucks v. Taylor,

143. 49 Miss. 552, 560; Lewis u. Adams, 70

3 Kilpatrick v. Bush, 23 Miss. 199 ; Cal. 403.

Purple V. Whithed, 49 Vt. 187 ; Craw- & Lawrence v. Lawrence, 3 Barb. Ch.

ford V. Graves, 15 La. An. 243; Wingate 71; Barrett v. Barrett, 8 Me. 346; Trot-

V. Wheat, 6 La. An. 238; Beckham v. terr. White, 10 Sm & M. 607 ; Mo wry e-.

Wittkowski, 64 N. C 464; Common- Adams, 14 Mass. 327, .329; Williams y.

wealth V. Griffith, 2 Pick. 11. In the Moore, 9 Pick. 432, 434.

§ 162 EXTRA-TERRITORIAL VALIDITY OF TITLE. 367

fatal objection in such cases that the plaintiff described himself as
executor or administrator, this being a profjer descriptio personce.
So an executor may maintain an action for lands devised to him
in another State, without qualifying in such State as executor,
because in such case he may sue as devisee,^ and the executor or
administrator holding a note indorsed in blank or payable to
bearer may sue thereon, as indorsee or owner ;2 and a fortiori as
payee, where the note is given or payable to him in person, for in
such case the full legal title is in the personal representative, and
the addition of his official capacity mere description of the per-
son.^ So an administrator, to whom a patent was reissued on an
invention of his intestate, may maintain an action for the infringe-
ment thereof in a State in which he has obtained no letters,
because the legal title to such patent is in the administrator as
trustee.^ For the same reason, the assignee of a chose in action
assigned by a foreign executor or administrator may maintain an
action on the chose transferred, although the assignor could not
bring such suit himself,^ on the ground that the disability of the
foreign executor or administrator to sue does not attach to the
subject of the action, but to the person of the plaintiff. But this

1 Lewis I'. McFarland,9 Cr. 151. But in the matter in controversy: Bunlyne

this principle would not hold gooil in the v. Mackey, 7 Mo. 374.

case of a legatee or heir of personal * Goodyearr. Hullihen, 3 Fisher's Pat.

property, who must derive his title Cas. 251, citing Woodworth v. Hall, 1

through the executor or administrator, Woodb. & Min. 248, 254, and Smith v.

and he derives his authority as such from Mercer, 3 Pa. L. J. 529, 531.

the lex loci rei sitce : Partnership Estate ^ Campbell v. Brown, 64 Iowa, 425,

of Ames & Co., 52 Mo. 290. citing authorities pro and cm; Harper v.

■^ Barrett iK Barrett, supra ; Robin- Butler, 2 Pet. 239 ; Peterson v. Chemical

son V. Crandall, 9 Wend. 425 ; Klein v. Bank, 32 N. Y. 21 ; Smith v. Tiffany, 16

French, 57 Miss. 602, 071 ; Knapp v. Hun, 552 ; Leake v. Gilchrist, 2 Dev. L.

Lee, 42 Mich. 41. 73 ; Maekay r. Church, 15 R. I. 121 ; Equi-

8 Rector v. Langham, 1 Mo. 568 ; La- table Life Assur. r. Vogel, 76 Ala. 441,
compte V. Seurgent, 7 Mo. 351; Smith v. 447. So it was held in Missouri, that an
Monks, 55 Mo. 106. So where an admin- executrix, who was also residuary legatee,
istratri.x insured the intestate's propert}', having fully administered in Kentucky,
situate in the State of tiie domicil, in a may bring an action in her own right
company doing business in another State, against a debtor of the testator resident
in which administration is also had, the of Missouri : Morton v. Hatch, 54 Mo.
money due on the loss of the property 408. And the assignee of stock by a for-
was held payable to the administratrix eign executor may compel the transfer
at the place of domicil : Abbott l: Miller, tliercof in the courts of the State where
10 Mo. 141. But when he sues in his the corporation does business : Middle-
representative capacity, alleging title in brook v. Merchants' Bank, 3 Abb. App.
his testator or intestate, he cannot re- Dec. 295, affirming same case in 41 Barb,
cover by virtue of his individual interest 481 ; 18 Abb. Pr. 109 ; 27 How. Pr. 474;

868 DOMICILIAR AND ANCILLARY JURISDICTION. § 163

is true only in cases where the title to the chose has fully at-
tached, and may be asserted without trenching upon the authority
of the forum rei sitce ; where, for instance, the property of an
executor or administrator is wrongfully removed into another
State,^ or where sucli property is removed after due administra-
tion thereon. In such case the title of the owner is not affected
by any question of administration, and is as full as tliat of any
owner sui juris. In general, however, simple contract debts
are bona notahilia in the State where the debtor resides, and
neither an administrator appointed in a foreign State, nor the
assignee of such, can control or release them.^ So the balance
remitted by a foreign executor to his agent in another State, with
directions to pay it to a residuary legatee, cannot be claimed by an
administrator appointed in such State.^

§ 163. Statutory Authority of Foreign Executors and Administra-
tors. — Statutory provisions of many of tlie States enable foreign
executors and administrators, under such conditions

Authority , " . . , . , . . ,

conferred by and restrictions as may be imposed, to assign, trans-
fer, collect, and sue for the property of their testators
and intestates found within the jurisdiction of such States.* It
follows from this authority of foreign executors and administra-
tors, that the statute of limitation runs against them just as
though they had been appointed in such States.^ And where the

Luce V. Railroad, G3 N. H. 588; Graham son, 2 N. H. 291; Moore v. Jordan, 36

V. Oviatt, 58 Cal. 428. Kans. 271, 274.

1 Moore v. Fields, 42 Pa. St. 467, 472. ^ Because it was money had and re-

2 Dial V. Gary, 14 S. C 573 ; Morton ceived by the agent to the use of the
V. Hatcli, supra, in wliidi the distinction residuary legatee, who was entitled to
between the condition of the title before recover tiie same : Wlieelock v. Pierce,
and after completion of the administra- 6 Cush. 288.

tion is empliasized ; Stearns v. Barnham, * Eells v. Holder, 2 McCrary, 622 ;
5 Me. 261 ; McCarty v. Hall, 13 Mo. 480 ; Bell v. Nicliols. .^.8 Ala. 678 ; Cloud v.
Partner.sliip Estate of Henry Ames & Co., Golightly, 5 Ala. 654; Glassell v. Wil-
52 Mo. 290. See also Barnes r. Brashear, son, 4 Wash. 59; Newton v. Cocke, 10
2 B. Mon. 380, where it is held that the Ark. 169 ; South Western Railroad v.
assignment of a note by the executor of Paulk, 24 Ga. 356 ; Turner i'. Linam, 55
a deceased testator properly appointed Ga. 253; Kansas Pacific Railroad y. Cut-
authorizes the assignee to bring suit upon ter, 16 Kans. 568; Sheldon v. Rice, 30
it in any other State, and that tiie admin- Mich. 296 ; Price v. Morris, 5 McLean, 4 ;
istrator of the estate in the place of the Deringer y. Deringer, 5 Houst. 416; such
domicil, who obtained possession of a provisions do not exclude the grant of let-
bond which was in possession of the in- ters by the local courts, but are cnmula-
testate at the time of his death in anotlier tive : Epping v. Robinson, 21 Fla. 36, 51.
State, was authorized to collect such ^ Manly v. Turnipseed, 37 Ala. 522;
bond : pp. 883 et seg. ; Tliompson v. Wil- Bell v. Nichols, supra.

§ 163 AUTHORITY OF FOREIGN EXECUTORS. 369

statute authorizes them to sue and be sued, in like manner as a
non-resident may be sued,^ an attachment against such will divest
them of all interest in the property attached.^ In Pennsylvania a
distinction formerly existed between executors appointed in a sister
State and those of foreign countries, and it was held that this law
was intended to prevent the withdrawal from the jurisdiction of
Pennsylvania of the estates of non-residents, to the prejudice of
those interested in the distribution, and to apply to administrators
as well as executors •,^ but now any foreign executor may transfer
stock of a company in Pennsylvania."* In some of the States the
foreign executor or administrator is permitted to act, but must
first qualify according to the laws of such State,^ or file his letters
testamentary or of administration in the county where he brings
suit.^ Where a foreign executor or administrator is entitled to
bring suit on condition of obtaining new letters, as in Nebraska,
he stands in the same relation to the estate which an executor
sustains at common law before probate of the will ; he mav com-
mence an action before obtaining letters, and take judgment, if he
show by subsequent averment that he was duly qualified.'' So the
authority of a foreign executrix to defend a suit in Kentucky is
not extinguished by her marriage ; the statute of Kentucky has
no bearing upon the authority of a non-resident representative,
which is governed by the foreign law.^ A foreign executor selling

1 As in Kansas, Gen. St. ch. 37, §203. Nicole v. Mnmford, Kirby, 270; Hobart

•^ Cady ('. Bard, 21 Kans. 667, 668. v. Turnpike Company, 15 Conn. 145 ;

3 Alfonso's Appeal, 70 Pa. St. 347. Alisiip v. Allsup, 10 Yerg. 283; Curie

* Williams v. Pennsylvania Railroad, v. Moor, 1 Dana, 445; Winter v. Win-

9 Phil. 298, referring to the statute of ter, Walker (Miss.), 211; Vermilya v.

1871, Pamph. L. 44, and holding that it Beatty, 6 Barb. 429. These condhions

is not incumbent upon tiie company to are in effect a requirement to obtain new

ascertain whether the will authorizes such letters.

transfer, but tiie power in the executor ^ Mansfield v. Turpin, 32 Ga. 260 ;

will be presumed. The earlier statutes Navlor v. Moody, 2 Blackf. 247. And in

on this subject were regarded with dis- Illinois it is held that, where the tran

trust and apprehension by the courts, script of the letters so filed shows tlmt

" The autliority of an administrator," they were granted in a foreign State b\

says Gibson, C. J., of the Supreme Court the clerk, this will be deemed a ministe-

of Pennsylvania, " under letters granted rial act, and collateral inquiry mav bo

in a sister State, to meddle with the as- made whether the conditions necessary

sets here, is an anomaly produced hy an tn ijive jurisdiction existed : Illinois Cen-

une.xanipled spirit of comity in the courts tral Railroad v. Cragin, 71 111. 177. And

of this State, which will probably be at- in Iowa the foreign e.xecutor must also

tended, in this respect, with perplexity give bond before he can sue: Karrick v.

and confusion " : Brodie v. Brickley, 2 Pratt, 4 Greene (Iowa), 144.
Kawle, 431, 437. ' Swatzel r. Arnr.ld. 1 Woolw. 383.

& Perkins v. Williams, 2 Root, 462 ; » Moss v. Rowland, 3 Bush, 505.

VOL. I. — 24

370 DOMICILIAR AND ANCILLARY JURISDICTION. § 164

land in Indiana is governed by the same rules, terms, and condi-
tions as a domestic executor, except that he is not liable to give
bond, if he have given a sufficient bond in the State in which he
received his appointment.^ In Florida foreign executors and ad-
ministrators are authorized by the statute to bring suits, but not
to defend them.^ Letters granted in New York have been held
to enable a suit to be brought in the District of Columbia,-^ and in
Minnesota a foreign administrator may be admitted to defend a
suit pending against the decedent at his death.* Where a testator
in Ireland named a person in America as trustee, with power and
discretion to collect and transmit his estate in America to his ex-
ecutors in Ireland, the person so named was held to be a limited
executor, and bound to execute the trust in the mode prescribed
in the will.^

§ 164. Liabilities of Foreign Administrators. — The principle
that executors and administrators are not liable to actions as
such in States where they have obtained no letters is not per-
mitted to protect them against the consequences of their own
Equity will wroug or default. Thus, where an executor or ad-
ag'ainst an ad- miuistrator rcmovcs the property of the estate in his
bringi^ng un- charge, without having completed the administration,

administered f^Q another State, and fails to obtain new letters of ad-
property into '

a State with- ministration there, a court of equity will grant relief

out obtaining j ./ o

letters. to any person whose interest is thereby jeoparded,

on the ground that, where a trust fund is in danger of being
wasted or misapplied, the court of chancery, on the applica-
tion of those interested, will interfere to protect the fund from
loss.^ The exercise of this authority is in no way inconsistent
with the general principle announced as governing the powers
and liabilities of executors and administrators, who, as such,
derive their powers from, and are amenable only to, the forum of
the State under whose laws they hold their office. They are in
such proceeding treated, not in their official capacity, which is co-
extensive onlj'^ with the State in which they received their appoint-
ment, but as persons who, by withdrawing themselves from the

1 Rapp V. Matthias, 35 Ind. .332. * Brown v. Brown, 35 Minn. 191.

2 Gordon v. Clark, 10 Fla. 179, 196 ; ^ Hunter v. Bryson, 5 G. & J. 483.
Sloan V. Sloan, 21 Fla. 589. o Calhoun v. King, 5 Ala. 528, 525;

3 Blydenburgh v. Lowry, 4 Or. C. C. Beeler v. Dunn, 3 Head, 87, 90; Dillard
368 ; if certified according to 2 St. at v. Harris, 2 Tenn. Ch. 196, 206.

Large, 755.

§ 164 LIABILITIES OF FOREIGN ADMINISTRATORS. 371

jurisdiction of the court having power over them, are unlavvfiilly
in possession of the property which is to be protected, or adjudged
to its lawful owner. " This is not a suit against the administra-
tor for a debt due from the estate, but it is an assertion of title to
the property itself, which, being found in this State, will give the
court jurisdiction." 1 So an executor may be compelled by a court
of equity, in a State to which he may have removed, to disclose
with what funds he has purchased property, the character of the
funds, and whether he holds the property as trustee, and for what
uses and trusts.^ In Connecticut it is held that an executor
bringing unadministered assets of his testator's estate into a for-
eign State is there liable to creditors as executor de jure? And
executors who have been made parties to a suit in a foreign State
at their own request will not be heard to deny, in a subsequent
suit on such judgment in the State of the domicil, the jurisdiction
of such foreign court.* And wdiere an executor obtains letters of
administration in another State also, he is liable there for assets
obtained in the foreign State before issue of letters to him.^

In Georgia, an administrator, appointed in another State, hav-
ing converted the assets of the estate and removed to Georgia,
was not only held personally liable to the heirs, but also the
sureties on his administration bond, who had likewise removed to
Georgia.^

1 Ormond, J., in Calhoun v. King, this case it is held that the executor, as

supra. To the same effect, Williamson such, cannot be called to account before

r. Branch Bank, 7 Ala. 906; Julian v. a foreign court.

Reynolds, 8 Ala. 680 ; Montalvan v. 3 Marcy v. Marcy, 32 Coim. 308.

Clover, 32 Barb. 190 ; Patton v. Overton, * Upon the ground of estoppel, and

8 Humph. 192; Tunstall v. Pollard, 11 also on the principle that where one sues

Leigh, 1 ; Colbert v. Daniel, 32 Ala. 314 ; as executor, or, being sued, answers as

McNamara v. Dwyer, 7 Pai. 239; Allsup such, lie is liable as executor ch son tort :

(.'. Allsup, 10 Yerg. 283 ; Bryan e\ McGee, Davis v. Connelly, 4 B. Mon. 136, 139

2 Wash. C. C. 337 ; Powell v. Stratton, et seq.

11 Grat. 792; Manion v. Titsworth, 18 ^ Parsons i>. Lyman, 4 Bradf. 268; 20

B Mon. 582, 597, approved in Baker v. N. Y. 103, 108. But where a debtor makes

SmitJi, 3 Met. (Ky.) 264, holding tiiat the voluntary payment to a foreign executor,

accountability of the administrator must who accounts therefor in sucti foreign

be determined by the law of the State State, and subsequently takes out letters

where he qualified; Spraddling ;'. Pipkin, in the debtor's State, the latter cannot

15 Mo. 118, holding that in such case the then, as a creditor, claim to have him

remedy is not detinue by an administrator surcharged in his State with the debt so

de bonis nnn appointed here, but by bill in paid : Gray's Appeal, 116 Pa. St. 256.

equity ; Whittaker v. Whittaker, 10 Lea, ^ Johnson v. Jackson, 56 Ga. 326, 328.

1)3, 97. Warner, C. J., in delivering the opinion,

•^ Clopton V. Booker, 27 Ark. 482. In puts this doctrine on the ground that the

872 DOMICILIAR AND ANCILLARY JURISDICTION. § 165

It may be stated, however, as a general proposition^ that the
liability of an administrator for property fraudulently, or without
having been fully administered, brought from the State in which
he received his appointment to another State, is to the creditors
and distributees alone, and does not authorize the grant of letters
in the latter State. ^

§ 165. Probate Jurisdiction afifected by Change of Government. —
A question of some interest in connection with the status of for-
Vaiidityof ©ign cxccutors and administrators arose out of the
byTstate'in Gxcrcise of probatc jurisdiction by the courts under
rebellion. ^lie governments existing in some of the States dur-

ing the late rebellion, and the subsequent rehabilitation of the
government of the United States. The probate of wills and
the appointment of executors and administrators by probate
courts holding authority under and commissions from the gov-
ernment of the State of Alabama while a member of the Confed-
eration, were after the war, in the State of Alabama, held to be
the acts of a foreign jurisdiction. " It is true," says Peck, C. J.,
of the Supreme Court, delivering the opinion in Bibb v. Avery,
" there seems to be an apparent incongruity in this view of tlie
case, arising from the fact that the rebel State government had
the same name, and was in possession of the same geographical
territory, as the legitimate government of the State of Alabama
before and since the rebellion, and the people were the same
people ; but this apparent incongruity disappears when we look to
principles and not to names. For we know that the rebel State
of Alabama, not rightfully, but in fact, was in all its essentials,
its sovereignty, dominion, and government, as utterly foreign to
the United States, as the government of Canada or of San Do-
mingo; consequently, the judgments of its courts and judicial acts
can be treated as having no greater legal effect than the judg-
ments and judicial acts of a recognized foreign government." ^

sovereignty and jurisdiction of the State same manner as if they were sued in tlie

extend to all persons while within its lim- courts of that State or country. " And

its, whether as citizens, denizens, or tern- that," he says, " is the comity of states as

porary sojourners, including executors recognized by the . . . Code." It is to be

and administrators as well as other per- noticed, however, that the facts recited

sons, no exception being made in favor in the opinion bring the case fully within

of sureties on their bonds ; the nature and the general rule as stated in the text,
extent of their liability being determined i McCabe v. Lewis, 76 Mo. 296, 304.

by the laws of the country or State from 2 45 ^ja. 691, 693 et srq. It was accord-

which they derive their authority, in the ingly held in this case, that executors

§ 166 PROCEDUnE GOVERNED BY THE FORUM. 373

In Arkansas it was held that letters of administration issued by
the clerk of the probate court, holding a commission from the
Governor of Arkansas under the Confederate Constitution of 1861,
were void, and conferred no authority in 1867, because the clerk
was not, at the time of granting the letters, in March, 1864, an
officer of the government of the State of Arkansas.^ But an
action commenced by an executor appointed during the war may
be continued by such executor in his own name under authority
of new letters granted after the war by the proper probate court
of the existing government.^

A similar question was presented in consequence of the cession
of a part of their territories by the States of Virginia and Mary-
land to the government of the United States to form the District
of Columbia, which led to the decision that letters of administra-
tion granted in Maryland before the cession of the territory have
no validity in the district ceded after the separation, and that the
administrator must obtain new letters there.^ But an adminis-
trator who had been appointed in Virginia before the separation
could not, in a suit against him in the District of Columbia after
the separation, sustain the plea of " never administrator." * And
in Kentucky it was held that the probate of a will in Virginia
before the separation of Kentucky from its territory was not a
foreign probate, but that the will so proved was admissible in evi-
dence as a will proved in Kentucky after the separation.^

§ 166. Procedure governed by the Law of the Forum. — Although
the law of the domicil of the decedent governs the devolution of
personal property to heirs and legatees, yet it follows jj,,,^^ „f ^^^^
from the exclusive authority of each nation over the ministration,

•^ priority of

property and persons within its iurisdiction, that the debts, and

^ ^ - ^ ■' ' method of

mode of administration, including the method of prov- provins them,
ing debts, their right to priority of payment, and the by theVaw of
marshalling of assets for this purpose, is governed ^^e forum.

lioUling letters testamentary issuetl "by cumstances of the case, the new letters so

a probate court of the rcbul State govern- issued must be regarded, not as ancillary,

inent of Alabama " before the judge of but as original.

said court had taken the oath of amnesty ^ Page v. Cook, 26 Ark. 122.

and of office required by the Governor's - Gilmer v. Purgason, 50 Ala. 370.

proclamation of July 20, 1805, were re- ^ Fen wick i^ Sears, 1 Cranch, 259.

quired to obtain new letters, and give new * Courtney v. Hunter, 1 Cr. C. C.

bonds and security, before they could 265.

maintain an action in the courts of that ^ Morgan i'. Gaines, 3 A. K. Marsh.

State ; but that, under the peculiar cir- 613; Gray v. Patton, 2 B. Monr. 12.

374

DOMICILIAR AND ANCILLARY JURISDICTION.

§166

altogether by the law of the country in which the executor or
administrator acts, entirely independent of that in the domicil of
the decedent, or in any other State. ^ This principle is recognized
in the Federal as well as in the State courts. Thus, a creditor
obtaining a judgment in a District Court of the United States was
held not entitled to an execution thereon against the administra-
tor of an intestate's estate declared insolvent by the probate court,
although the judgment had been obtained before the estate was
declared insolvent, on the ground that the jurisdiction of the
probate court had attached to the assets.^ That an executor or
administrator is not liable in the State where he received his
appointment for assets received in another State, whether he
obtained additional letters there or not, has already been shown.^
The cases holding a contrary doctrine,^ in so far as they are not
based upon the principle that the assets were wrongfully removed
from the State or country having jurisdiction for the purpose or
with the effect of defeating such jurisdiction, seem to be incon-
sistent with the general doctrine on this subject, and are said by
Judge Story to be very difficult to be supported.^

1 Story, Confl. L. §§ 524, 525 ; Smith
V. Union Bank of Georgetown, 5 Pet. 518,
520 : " Every sovereign has his own code
of administration, varying to infinity as
to the order of paying debts, and almost
without an exception asserting the riglit
to be himself first paid out of tiie assets.
And tlie obligation in the administrator
to conform to such laws is very gener-
ally enforced, not only by a bond, but by
an oath, both of whicli must rest for their
efficiency on tlie laws of the State which
requires them." Kennedy v. Kennedy,
8 Ala. 391 ; McGehee v. Polk, 24 Ga. 406 ;
Hooker v. Olmstead, 6 Pick. 481 ; St. Jurjo
J'. Dunscomb, 2 Bradf. 105 ; Isham v.
Gibbons, 1 Bradf. 69 ; Willing v. Perot,
5 Rawie, 264; Goodall v. Marshall, 11
N. H. 88; Dixon v. Ramsay, 3 Or. 319;
Trecothick v. Austin, 4 Mas. 16.

- " They are in gremio legis," says
Grier, J. " But we wish it to be under-
stood that we do not express any o]iinion
as to the right of State legislation to
compel foreign creditors in all cases to
seek their remedy against the estates of
decedents m the State courts alone, to
tlie exclusion of the jurisdiction of the

courts of the United States " : Williams
V. Benedict, 8 How. 107, 112. In later
cases, it was held that a foreign creditor
may establish his debt in the courts of the
United States against the representatives
of a decedent, notwithstanding tlie local
laws relative to the administration and
settlement of insolvent estates, and that
the court will interpose to arrest the dis-
tribution of a))i/ surplus among the heirs,
reserving, however, the question whether
or what steps may be taken to secure
equality of such creditors in the distribu-
tion of the assets independently of the
administration in the probate courts :
Green v. Creighton, 23 How. (U. S.) 90,
107 et seq. : Union Bank of Tennessee v.
Jolly, 18 How. 503.

3 A)itp, § 160, and authorities.

4 Swearingen v. Pendleton, 4 S. & R.
889, 392, and Evans v. Tatem, 9 S. & R.
252, 259, both overruled in Magraw v.
Irwin, 87 Pa. St. 139, 142; Bryan v.
McGee, 2 Wash. C. C. 337 ; Campbell v.
Tousey, 7 Cow. 64.

s Story, Confl. L. § 514 a, citing with
approval Fay v. Haven, 3 Met. (Mass.)
109 ; Selectmen v. Boylston, 2 Mass. 384 ;

1G7

PAYMENT OF DEBTS TO NON-RESIDENTS.

375

§ 167. Payment of Debts and Distribution to Non-residents. —
From these principles it results that the administration of the
assets of a deceased person is conducted according to j)^.^,,^ ^^^^^^
the laws of the State in which they may be found, and J^-'^,J/,''".f J',^j
apnlied first to the payment of the expenses of admin- expenses ot

' ' ' "^ . administration

istration,^ and such debts as may be proved against are lir.^t paid

-,., .-,. ., 1-fji 1 out (if tlie funds

the estate by creditors residing there ; and it there be

legatees or heirs there also, their claims will be deter-

in the liands of

the adniinistra-

_ tor in the State

mined according to the law of the decedent's domicil, of tiie f«rum.
and distributed to them. The residue may then be Residue is then
remitted from the ancillary to the domiciliary execu- !i'^,',li"i£r^ '"^
tor or administrator.^ But it is not obligatory upon administrator,
courts to transfer the assets to the domicil for distribution ; in
their judicial discretion, to be guided by the circum- or distributed
stances of each particular case, they may be thus l*^;^'thout such
remitted,^ or ordered to be distributed by the ancil- transmission.
lary administrator to the parties in interest seeking their remedy
there.'^

Goodwin v. Jones, 3 Mass. 614 ; Davis v.
Estey, 8 Pick. 475 ; Dawes v. Head, 3
Pick. 128 ; Doolittle v. Lewis, 7 Jolin. Cli.
45; McRae v. McRae, 11 La. 571; and
quoting largely from the opinions in 2 and
3 Mass. and 7 John., su/na.

1 In Georgia it is held that the j'ear's
support of the widow of an intestate is
by statute declared to be a part of the
necessary expenses of administration, but
that tlie amount thereof is to be ascer-
tained by the law of the domicil of the
intestate at the time of his death, and not
by tlie law of the forum before which the
administration is pending : Mitchell v.
Word, 64 Ga. 208, 218. A dissenting
opinion by Jackson, J., held that the ex-
penses of administration are regulated by
the law of the forum : p. 219.

2 Harvey v. Richards, 1 Mas. 381, 413;
Spraddling v. Pipkin, 15 Mo. 118; Parker,
C. J., in Dawes v. Head, 3 Pick. 128, 144 ;
Dawes v. Boylston, 9 Mass. 337 ; Morde-
eai V. Boylan, 6 Jones Eq. 365, holding
tliat it was the duty of the ancillary ex-
ecutor to distribute the legacies to the
resident legatees pro rata, if there is not
a sufficiency of assets in his hands to pay
them in full ; Richards r. Dutch, 8 Mass.
506; Fay v. Haven, 3 Met. (Mass.) 109;

Stevens v. Gaylord, 11 Mass. 256 ; Chil-
dress V. Bennett, 10 Ala. 751 ; Perkins v.
Stone, 18 Conn. 270; Adams v. Adams,
11 B. Mon. 77; Stokely's Estate, 19 Pa.
St. 476, 482 ; Gibson v. Dowell, 42 Ark.
164 ; Moore !•. Jordan, 36 Kans. 271, 275.

3 Gravillon v. Richard, 13 La. 293.

* Cassily v. Meyer, 4 Md. 1, 7 et seq. ;
Williams v. Williams, 5 Md 467 ; Moii-
rain v. Poydras, 6 La. An. 151 ; Gilchrist
r. Cannon, 1 Coldw. 581 ; Porter v. Hey-
dock, 6 Vt. 374 ; Fretwell r. McLemore,
52 Ala. 124 ; In re Hughes, 95 N. Y. 55 ;
Young ('. Wittenmyre, 22 III. App. 496;
Nelson and Curtis, JJ., in i\Iackey i\
Coxe, 18 How. (U. S.) 100, 105; Carmi-
chael V. Ray, 5 Ired. Eq. 365, holding
that the administrator of the domicil can
maintain no action against an ancillary
administrator for a surplus in his hands
after paying debts ; Churchill v. Boyden,
17 Vt. 319; Adlum's Estate, 6 Phila.
347; Parker's Appeal, 61 Pa. St. 478;
Wright V. Phillips, 5(1 Ala. 69, 82 ; Des-
pard V. Churchill, 53 N. Y. 192, 200;
Trimble v. Dzieduzyiki, 57 How. Pr. 208,
21.3. In Brown v. Brown, 1 Barb. Ch.
189, 218, the Chancellor suggests that,
"as a question of exiiediency, certainly,
those who have claims upon an estate

376 DOMICILIAR AND ANCILLARY JURISDICTION. § 167

Where tlie estate administered on in more than one State or
country is fully solvent, the rule referred to is of easy application,
and there seems to be no occasion to doubt the correctness of the
principle. "For," says Parker, C. J., of the Supreme Judicial Court
of Massachusetts, " it would be but an idle show of courtesy to
order the proceeds of an estate to be sent to a foreign country,
the province of Bengal, for instance, and oblige our citizens to go
or send there for their debts, when no possible prejudice could
arise to the estate, or those interested in it, by causing them to
be paid here ; ^ and possibly the same remark may be applicable
to legacies payable to legatees living here, unless the circum-
stances of the estate should require the funds to be sent abroad." ^
Difficulty of But with reference to effects collected by an ancillary
tuis rule" at- administrator of an insolvent estate the question is

tending insol- , . i i ?»

vent estates. morc difficult. "We canuot thmk, however, says
the same learned judge, " that in any civilized country advantage
ought to be taken of the accidental circumstance of property
being found within its territory, which may lae reduced to posses-
sion b^ the aid of its courts and laws, to sequester the whole for
the use of its own subjects or citizens, where it shall be known
that all the estate and eftects of the deceased are insufficient to
pay his just debts. . . . Creditors of all countries have the same
ri^j-ht as our citizens to prove their claims and share in the distri-
bution." ^ But to send the effects of an insolvent estate to the
domiciliar administrator, to be there apportioned among all the

ought to be compelled to resort to the that the funds be sent to the domicil for

courts (if tlie country where the decedent distribution."

was domiciled, and where the personal i Creditors having the same domicil

representatives of his estate were ap- with the deceased will not be allowed to

pointed ; especially where the claimants prove their claims against the fund of the

are not creditors, but stand in the char- ancillary administration, but must resort

acters of legatees or distributees of the to that of the domicil: Barry's Appeal,

decedent." ^See Graveley v. Graveley, 25 88 Pa. St. 131, 133 , Churchill i: Boyden,

S.C.I, 21, holding that, as a general rule, 17 Vt. 319. And when permitted by

legatees go to the administration of the statute to do so, and the estate is insol-

domicil, but that "courts of the ancillary vent in both States, they will not be al-

jurisdiction have the right to order the lowed to prove up their claims against the

payment of a legacy or the distribution ancillary administration, when they have

of funds to residuary legatees, or under already received a larger percentage than

the statute of the domicil, whenever it the creditors of the latter : Hays v. Cecil,

appears as matter of fact that there are 16 Lea, 160.

funds of the estate in the hands of the - Dawes o. Head, 3 Pick. 128, 144 et

ancillary jurisdiction ; unless for some seq. ; In re Hughes, 95 N. Y. ^h.^

purpose the equities of the parties require ^ Dawes v. Head, 3 Pick. 143 et seq.

§ 167 PAYMENT OF DEBTS TO NON-RESIDENTS. 377

creditors according to the laws of the State of the doinicil, would
work equal injustice and greater inconvenience to the creditors in
the State of the ancillary administration, " whose debts might
not be large enough to bear the expense of proving and collecting
them abroad ; and in countries where there is no provision for
equal distribution, the pursuit of them might be wholly fruitless.
As in Great Britain, our citizens, whose debts would generally be
upon simple contracts, would be postponed to creditors by judg-
ment, bond, etc., and even to other debts upon simple contract
which might be preferred by the executor or administrator. It
would seem too great a stretch of courtesy to require the effects
to be sent home, and our citizens to pursue them under such dis-
advantages." ^ To avoid the injustice and inconvenience attendant
upon either course, Chief Justice Parker suggested the rule, now
adopted by courts in some States and in some enacted by statute,^
to retain the funds in the State of the ancillary ad- Funds retained
ministration for a pro rata distribution according to p,^TrnZ^-m &\\
the laws thereof among its citizens, having regard to all ^Ji^jfif'there"
the assets in the hands of the principal as well as of the "lay ^e assets.
auxiliary administrator, and also to all of the debts which by the
laws of either country are payable out of the decedent's estate,
without regard to any preference which may be given to one
species of debt over another, considering the funds in each State
as applicable, first, to the payment of the just proportion due to
its citizens, and, if there be any residue, that should be remitted
to the principal administrator, to be dealt with according to the
laws of his country.-^ The learned judge, in his exhaustive review
of the subject under consideration, points out some difficulties
attending the practical application of this rule, and suggests how
they may be met; but even the comprehensive powers of a court
of chancery, to which he refers the solution of all difficulties
which probate courts are impotent to surmount, would seem in-
adequate to meet all complications that might arise, unless the

1 Ibid. 146. Where a foreign creditor 508 ; Vermont: Prentiss v. Van Ness, 31
asks for a dividend of a decedent's estate, Vt. 0.5, 100.

he must take it subject to tlie priorities ' Dawes v. Head, 3 Pick. 128, 146 et

established by the law of the forum: seq.; Davis y. Estey, 8 Pick. 475; Harvey

Miller's Estate, 3 Rawle, 312,320; Holmes v. Richards, 1 Mas. 381, 421 ; Churchill v.

V. Remsen, 20 John. 229, 205. Boyden, 17 Vt. 319; Lawrence v. Elmen-

2 So in Missouri: Rev. St. 1879, §§ 268 dorf, 5 Barb. 73; Hays v. Cecil, 16 Lea,
-281 ; Massachusetts : Gen. St. 1860, p. 160.

378 DOMICILIAR AND ANCILLARY JURISDICTION. § 168

spirit of comity which he ascribes to the courts should also lead
our legislatures to come to their aid by proper statutory enact-
ments.^

Non-resident creditors of an insolvent estate may, in some
States, prove their claims against the ancillary administration,
and subject the real estate of the intestate to their payment, with-
out showing that the personal property of the estate in the State
of the domicil has been exhausted.'-^

§ 168. Real Estate governed by the Lex Rei Sitae. — It is a rule
conditioned by imperative necessity, that immovable property
Probate and should be governed, especially in respect of its trans-
wliTmuTtcon- mission, by the law of the country in which it is situ-
on'hJstate'hT ^tcd.^ For this reason the execution and probate of
which devised ^ ^j^ must conform strictly to the law of the State in

property is ...

situated. whicli land is therein devised,* and this law is also to

govern " as to the capacity of the testator " and " the extent of

his power to dispose of the property." ^ So the de-

DcscGnt fllso

governed by sccnt and heirship of real estate are exclusively gov-
erned by the law of the country within which it is
actually situate. No person can take, except those who are recog-

1 An illustration of some of the dif- payment in full before any of the funds

fieulties attending the application of this are applied to the payment of the next

rule, which is enacted by statute in class. It so happened that the largest

Missouri, came within the personal ex- debt was proved during the second year

perience of the writer. Debts to a con- of administration, and was therefore

siderable amount were proved against placed in the sixth class ; and altliough

the ancillary administrator in Missouri by reason of its magnitude it secured in

of an intestate domiciled in Tennessee, the adjustment between the creditors of

in excess of the assets under administra- the two States a sufficient amount for the

tion in Missouri. The estate in the dom- payment in full of the Missouri creditors

iciliar jurisdiction was also represented of the first four classes, and nearly in

as insolvent. To determine the rate of full of the fifth class, yet the sixth class

payment to which Missouri creditors were creditor received nothing,

entitled, it was necessary to ascertain ^ Rosenthal v. Renick, 44 111. 202,

the amount of assets in the hands of 207.

the domiciliar administrator, as well ^ See Whart. Confl. L. § 560 , Story,

as the amount of debts proved there, Confl. L. § 48-3, Westl. Pr. Int. L. § 14G ;

which the ancillary administrator was McCormick v Sullivant, 10 Wheat. IV'I,

unable to report for a number of years, 202; United States j;. Fox, 104 U. S. 315,

during all of which time the Missouri 320.

creditors were deprived of the money * As to the probate and validity of

rightfully belonging to them. Again, foreign wills, see post, §226; Kerr v.

under the law of Missouri, the demands Moon, 9 Wheat. 565, 572.

against estates of deceased persons are ^ Story, Confl. L. § 474 ; Applegate v.

divided into six classes, the first five of Smith, 31 Mo, 166, 169 ; Whart. Confl. L.

which must be proved during tlie first § 575 ; Washburn v. Van Steenwyk, 32

year, and each of which is entitled to Minn. 386, 347.

§ 169 ALIMONY OF WIDOW AND CHILDREN. 379

nized as legitimate heirs by the laws of that country ; and they
take in tiie proportions and in the order which these laws pre-
scribe.i All the authorities, both in England and America, so
far as they go, recognize the principle in its fullest import, that
real estate, or immovable property, is exclusively subject to the
laws of the country within whose territory it is situate.^ The
reason of the rule includes leasehold and chattel in- i„(,]uji„g
terests in land,^ servitudes and easements, and other 1*^:'^ '"•>'i*.

■ ' and clialtel

charges on lands, as mortgages and rents, and trust infr^^ts -en-

'^ o <= erallv, survi-

estates ; all of these are deemed to be, in the sense oi tude's, and
the law, immovables, and governed by the lex rei sitce.'^
And as to what constitutes immovable or real property resort
must also be had to the lex loci rei sitoe.^

In Mississippi the statute provides that not only real estate,
but " all personal property situated in this State, shall descend and
be distributed according to the laws of this State." ^ j^^ Mississippi
Under this statute it is held that monev in a bank in aH estate

passes under

the State of Mississippi, and a note secured by real the law of

• 1 1 1 •(> ,1 1 ■, Jn ^ that State.

estate there, are not included, it the deposit certincate
and book and the note are found at the foreign domicil of the
intestate, who has no creditors, heirs, or property in this State,
and the domiciliar court orders distribution;'^ but choses in action
held by an agent in this State for an owner domiciled in another
State, taken in the course of business of lending money in this
State, must be distributed under its laws.^

§ 169. Provisional Alimony of Wido-w and Minor Children. —
It appears from what has been stated in an earlier chapter,^ that
a non-resident widow is in some States allowed a certain portion
of the estate of her deceased husband to protect her and her
minor children from want and privation,^^ while this is denied to

1 Story, Confl. L. § 483. the owner : Despard v. Churchill, 53 N. Y.

'^ Ihid , § 428, and aiitliorities under 192, 198 et seq.

notes (2) and (a); and see collection of * Story, Confl. L. § 447; Knox r. Jones,

authorities by Mr. Justice Miller, in Brine 47 N. Y. 389, 395.

V. Insurance Co., 96 U. S. 627, 635 et seq. 5 Chapman v. Robertson, 6 Pai. 627,

3 Story, Confl. L. § 447, note (a), cit- 630.

ing Freke v. Carbery, L. R. 16 Eq. 461 ; In 6 Code, 1880, § 1270.

Goods of Gentili, Ir. R. 9 Eq. 541. But 7 Speed v. Kelly, 59 Miss. 47, 50.

in New York a leasehold has been held ^ jahier v. Rascoe, 62 Miss. 690, 703.

to be personal property, and as such, as ^ Ante, § 89.

to its transmission by last will, controlled w New York, Georgia, and Louisiana

by the law which governed the person of are there mentioned.

380 DOMICILIAR AND ANCILLARY JURISDICTION. § 169

non-residents in others.^ It seems, on principle, that the statutes
made for the protection of the family against the suffering and
destitution threatening them on the decease of their natural pro-
tector should be construed so as to accomplish their purpose.
Hence the widow should be entitled to avail herself of such a law
if in force in the place of her residence, although her husband
was domiciled in another State.^ But while the law of the dece-
dent's domicil must govern as to the distribution, descent, or tes-
tamentary disposition of personal property to the widow or minor
children, it seems clear that the law of the forum must determine
the relief against destitution and distress of resident families.^

1 So in Alabama, Missouri, Massa- ^ piatt's Appeal, 80 Pa. St. 501 ; dis-
chusetts, North Carolina, and Pennsyl- senting opinion of Jackson, J., in Mitchell
vania. v. Word, 64 Ga. 208, 219 ; Whart. Confl.

2 Whart. Confl. L. § 189. L. §§ 189, 791.

PART SECOND.

OF THE OFFICE OF EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS.

CHAPTER XVIIL

NATURE OF THE TITLE VESTING IN EXECUTORS AND
ADMINISTRATORS.

§ 170. Conduit of the Inheritance. — Under the ancient Roman
law the suus hceres succeeded to the inheritance immediately
upon the death of the ancestor, without any act of his Heirs liable for
own;i and he, as well as the hceres necessarius,^ was uE'the'^^'^*^
legally bound by all the debts of the deceased, neither Roman law.
of them having the right to renounce the inheritance.^ A differ-
ent doctrine prevails in England, and generally in the ^.^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^

United States. The damnosa hcereditas of debts, rest- debts to the ex-
tent of assets in

ing under the Roman law upon heirs, whether a testato England and

jVniGricft

or ah intestato, is by our system limited to the assets.

The real estate descends to the heirs and devisees, subject to the

power of the executor or administrator to convert the same into

1 Sandar's Inst. Just. 365 ; citing Dig. the lieirsliip if liis debts were suspected
xxxviii. 16. 14. to exceed tlie vai ae of the estate ; but a

2 A slave instituted heir of his master slave could not refuse to take upon him-
by testament, and called hcvres necessarius self the office, so that, if instituted heir,
because, whether he wished it or not, he the goods would be sold, not in the name
became instantly free by the death of the of the deceased debtor, but in that of the
testator, and thereby the necessary heir : emancipated slave : lb. 103.

Sand. Just. 309. The practice of enfran- » By later changes in the law this

ciiising slaves owed its origin to tlie great hardship was removed It is provided in

stigma which the sale of a deceased per- Justinian's Institutes that heirs may enter

son's effects for the payment of his debts upon their inheritance and not be liable

cast upon his memory. Since under a for debts beyond the value of the estate,

Eoraan testament the instituted heir as- by claiming what commentators call the

sumed all the liabilities of tlie testator, it beneficium inventarii: Sand. Just. 315, 316,

was not likely that any one would accept citing Gal. ii. 163, c. vi. 30. 22.

882 EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS. § 171

personalty for the payment of the decedent's debts ; the real or
personal property set apart for the widow and minor children goes
to them absolutely, and the personal property goes to the executor
or administrator to be distributed, after payment of debts, to
legatees or next of kin.^ It will now be proper to inquire into
the nature and extent of the authority conferred upon the officers
employed by the law to give effect to the will of a decedent in
respect of his property ,2 and whose function it is to personate
the deceased in all matters touching the posthumous disposition
of his affairs.^

§ 171. Distinction between Executors and Administrators. — The
functions, powers, liabilities, rights, and duties of executors are
in most respects identical with those of administrators. The
legislature of Iowa explained by statute that " the term ' executor '
includes an administrator, where the subject matter applies to an
administrator";* and that the word " executor," as used in the
title concerning estates of decedents, is intended to be applied-^
the persons who administer upon the estate of one deceased,
whether appointed by the will or otherwise.^ " But however great
the similarity between the two offices may be, there are some
essential distinctions which cannot be ignored or abolished even
by legislation, without a change in the law of administration so
radical as to be improbable, at least for many years to come,^

The decisive difference between them arises out of the method
of their appointment : executors represent their testators by vir-
Distinction be- ^uc of the act of the tcstator himself, while the au-
anradmhiis-"*^^ thority of the administrator is derived exclusively
trators. from the appointment by some competent court. "An

1 Mr. Wharton, in his able treatise on and exempted personalty go to you' " :

the Conflict of Laws, states tlie doctrine Confl. L. § 552.

thus : " The law sa3's, ' We recognize ^ Ante, § 10.

you as in your own persons tlie successors ^ A7ite, § 136.

of your deceased ancestor. But, in order * Code, 1886, § 45, par. 21.

to prevent conflict and promote speed, we ^ Laws, 1860, § 2333.

appoint a public officer who is to see that ^ The author of the Iowa Digest com-

the claims of third parties are properly plains that this "peculiarity" was copied

settled, at the period when this new devo- into the Eevision of 1860 and the Code

lution of the estate commences. This of 1873, and says that " this statutory

officer, on the principle of universal sue- innovation in the language of the law is

cession, represents your ancestor until without any perceived benefit, and at-

his debts are paid and the plan of distri- tended with some inconveniences " 1

bution settled. But at once, on the prin- Withrow & Styles, Dig. 1874, p. 610.
ciple of singula)- succession, the real estate

§ 172 WHEN THE TITLE VESTS. 383

executor can derive his ofTicc from a testamentary appointment
only";^ the administrator, on the other hand, derives his autJKjr-
itv wholly from the probate court ; he has none until letters of
administration are granted.^ From this distinction important
questions frequently arise with regard to the time when the au-
thority or liability of the one or other originated, which will be
more fully considered hereafter.^

An important distinction exists also in respect of the power to
liold, manage, and alienate the property of the deceased : the
authority of the administrator is commensurate with the provis-
ions of the law on the subject, as existing and recognized in the
forum of his appointment ; but the will of the testator is in itself
a law to the executor, which may enlarge or circumscribe the
authority or discretion which an administrator would have, and
which, to the extent in which it is not repugnant to the law of the
State, he must strictly observe.* f -

§ 172. When the Title vests in the Executor, and when in the
Administrator. — An executor is a person appointed by a testator
to carry out the directions and requests in his will, .

•' , , At common law

and to dispose of the property according to his testa- title of execu-
mentary provisions after his decease.^ As his interest testator's
in the estate of the deceased is derived from the will, '^^^^'
it vests, according to the common law, from the moment of tlie
testator's death.^ The will becomes operative, including the ap-
pointment of the executor, not by the probate thereof, nor by the
act of the executor in qualifying, which are said to be mere cere-
monies of authentication, but by the death of the testator." On
the other hand, an administrator is one to whom the goods and

1 Wms. Ex. [239], citing Wentw. Ex. * Thus, if a trust be created in a will
p. 3: "Hence it followetli necessarily, and no trustee named, it is incumbent
that a will is the only bed where an exec- upon the executor (or upon any person
utor can be begotten or conceived ; for who may become by law intrusted with
where no will is there can be no executor; the execution of the will) to carry out
and this is so conspicuous, and evident the trust : Saunderson r. Stearns, G Mass.
to every low capacity, that it needs no 37, 39 ; Dorr v. Wainwright, 13 Pick. 328,
proof or illustration." Hartnett v. Wan- 331 ; Groton v. Ruggles, 17 Me. 137 ;
dell, GO N. Y. 346, 350. Scott v. West, 63 Wis. 629, 558, and

2 Wms. Ex. [630]. If the court ap- authorities cited.

pointing had no jurisdiction, the acts of ^ Whart. Law Lex., " Executor."

the administrator are void, and may be ^ Wms. Ex. [G29].

collaterally impeached: Unknown Heirs ' Wankford iv Wankford, 1 Salk. 209;

V. Baker, 23 111. 484 Graysbrook v. Fox, 1 Plowd. R. 275,

3 Post, §§ 185, 186, 187. 277 a.

384 EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS. § I'J'S

effects of a person dying intestate, or without appointing an ex-
andinthead- ccutor who survives and accepts the office, are com-
frourgia"! niitted by the probate court.i Deriving his authority
of letters. wholly froni his appointment by the court his title to

the property of the deceased vests in him only from the time of
the grant.2

In respect of executors, however, the common law has been
materially modified in many of the States, and the doctrine that
Common law their powcrs are conferred directly by the will is
as\7execlfors ^ostly repudiated. " The fact that one is named in
in most States, ^j^g ^r{\i as executor docs not, as at common law,
make him executor in fact, but only gives him the right to be-
come executor upon complying with the conditions required by
law." 3 " At death, a man's property really passes into the iiaiids
of the law for administration, as much when he dies testate as
when he dies intestate ; except that, in the former case, he fixes
the law of its distribution after payment of his debts, and usually
appoints the persons who are to execute his will. But even this
appointment is only provisional, and requires to be approved by
the law before it is complete ; and therefore the title to the office
of executor is derived rather from the law than the will." * Most
States announce this doctrine, among which may be mentioned
Alabama,^ Arkansas,^ Georgia,' Kentucky ,8 Louisiana,^ Maine,^"
Massachusetts," Missouri,!^ ^^w Hampshire,!^ New York,!^ Pcnn-

I Whart. Law Lex., " Administra- ^^ Tappan v. Tappan, 30 N. H. 50, 69.
tor." But in a subsequent case, Shirley v.

-' Wms. Ex. [630] ; Woolley r. Clark, Healds, U N. H. 407, 410, the common

5 B. & Aid. 744, 745; Rand v. Hubbard, law rule is relied on, and authorities cited

4 Met. (Mass.) 252, 256. by the Supreme Court of New Hampshire

3 Bliss, J , in Stagg v. Green, 47 Mo. in support of its validity. Neitlier of tiie

500, 501. cases is binding upon the question under

* Shoenberger v. Lancaster, 28 Pa. consideration further than tiiat in tlie

St. 459, 466. former it is held that an executor has no

5 Gardner w. Gantt, 19 Ala. 6G6; Wood authority to maintain an action before
V. Cosby, 76 Ala 57. probate of the will, and in the hitter tliat

6 Diamond v. Sliell, 15 Ark. 26. it is his duty to propound tiie will for
^ Echols V. Barrett, 6 Ga. 443. probate, unless he refuse the trust, and he

8 Carter v. Carter, 10 B. Mon. 327, 330. may appeal from the decree of the probate

9 Succession of Vogel, 20 La. An. 81. court disallowing, rejecting, or refusing
i» McKeen v. Frost, 46 Me. 239; but probate thereof, basing the reason for

see Hathorn v. Eaton, 70 Me. 219. sucli right to appeal upon his title to the

II Dublin V. Chadbourn, 16 Mass. 4.33, personal estate of the deceased under the
441 ; Rand v. Hubbard, 4 Met. (Mass.) will, according to the common law rule.
252,2.57. "Bellinger v. Ford, 21 Barb. 311,

1^ Stagg V. Green, supra. 315.

§ 173 TITLE RELATING TO DECEDENT'S DEATH. 385

sylvania,^ Rhode Island,- South Carolina, Tennessee,'^ Vermont,'*
and Virginia.^

§ 173. Relation of the Appointment to the Time of the Testator's
or Intestate's Death. — For particular purposes the letters of ad-
ministration relate back to the time of the death of the , , .

Letters of ad-

intcstate,'^ and vest the property in the administrator ministration
from that time," attaching to property coming from a tiie intestate's
foreign jurisdiction as soon as it comes into that of '''*'''
the domicil.^ On this principle, an administrator may maintain
trespass for injuries to the goods of the intestate committed after
his death and before the appointment ; ^ or trover for property so
wrongfully detained ; ^'^ or on a contract made with the defendant
before appointment ; ^^ or assumpsit for money paid to defendant's
order.^2 And on the same principle, the heirs have no power,
before the appointment of an administrator, to bind the personal
estate by any agreement.^^ " This doctrine of relation is a fiction
of law to prevent injustice, and the occurrence of injuries where
otherwise there would be no remedy ; and would not be applied
in cases where the rights of innocent parties intervened ; " ^"^ nor
" to recognize, validate, and bind the estate by the unauthorized
acts which have been done to the prejudice of the estate, by any
one, while the title was in abeyance ; " ^^ nor to give effect to
the statute of limitation, which does not run during the period
intervening between the death of the intestate and the grant of
letters.i*^ The principle is applicable, a fortiori, to executors

1 Shoenberger v. Lancaster Savings ^ Brackett v. Hoitt, 20 N. H. 257, 259.

Institution, supra. i" Manwell v. Brisks, 17 Vt. 176, 181 ;

^ Gaskill V. Gaskill, 7 R. I. 478. Hatch v. Proctor, 102 Mass. 351, 353.

3 Martin v. Peck, 2 Yerg. 298. " Brown v. Lewis, 9 R. I. 497, 500,

* Trask v. Donogliue, 1 Aik. 370. citing English cases; Hatch v. Proctor,

5 Monroe v. James, 4 Munf. 194. stipra; Leber v. Kauffelt, 5 W. & S. 440,

f' Wins. Ex. [031], citing numerous 445 (an action on a bond of indemnity to

English authorities; Alvord 1-. Marsli, 12 the intestate, wliere the administrator

Alien, 003, G04 ; McVaiigliters v. Elder, paid the claim constituting the breach

2 Brev. 307, 313; Miller (;. Reigne, 2 Hill, before appointment).

(S. C.) 592, 594; Bullock v. Rogers, 16 i^ ciark v. Pishon, 31 Me. 503.

Vt. 294, 296. 13 Stahl v. Brown, 72 Iowa, 720.

" Lawrence v. Wright, 23 Pick. 128, " i^gr Napton, J., in Wilson v. Wilson,

129; Gilkey v. Hamilton, 22 Mich. 283, 54 Mo. 213, 216.

286. But the title to real estate does not i^ Per Cooley, J., in Gilkey v. Hamil-

vest in the administrator until there be ton, supm ; Wiswell v. Wiswell, 35 Minn.

a decree to that effect : Lane v. Thompson, 371 ; Cook v. Cook, 24 S. C. 204.

43 N. H. 320, 325. 16 Benjamin r. DeGroot, 1 Denio, 151 ;

8 Wellsr. Miller, 45111. 382, 387, citing Polk v. Allen, 19 Mo. 467; post, §§ 401,

Collins ('. Bankhead, 1 Strohh. 25. 402, under payment of debts.
VOL. I. — 25

386 EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS. § 174

and letters [yi all of tliG Statos in wliicli tliov are required to

testaninntavv

toiiufinu;" give bond before induction into office, or where, for
death. any reason, the common law rule, according- to wliich

they derive their authority from the testator, and not from the
court, is modified by statute.^ Mr. Redfield apprehends that by
reason of the doctrine of relation, by which the estate vests in the
administrator from the death of the intestate, the distinction
between executors and administrators as to the time of the vest-
ing of the title has become of no practical importance.^

§ 174. Title of Executors and Administrators in auter Droit. —
The interest which an executor or administrator has in the estate
^. , ^ of the deceased is in auter droit merely : he is tiie

Title of exec- ''

ut(irs and ad- minister or dispenser of the goods of the dead.^ Since

ministrators is . • r ^^

in the right the property IS not his own, it loUows that he may
maintain an action therefor in auter droits although
he himself be disabled from snmg propria jure /"^ and any one
claiming the same under a title from him in his private or per-
sonal capacity must show that he has ceased to hold it in a
. , , representative capacity.^ If the executor or adminis-

Assets are not * .

liable for the trator bccomc bankrupt, having property in possession

ci6fc)ts of GXGC"

utors or admin- of liis tcstator or intcstatc distinguishable from his
own, it is not liable to the bankrupt's creditors, though
it should be money ; nor can the property so distinguishable be
seized in execution of a judgment against the executor or admin-
nor subject to istrator in his own right.^ Although the goods held
tes^trmentarv^ '^^ ^^ cxccutor pass, as thcv do at common law, in
disposition," some of the States, to his executor, yet he cannot in
his will dispose of any of the goods so held to a legatee, for he
holds them in auter droit only, and cannot bequeath anything but
nor to the wliat lie has to his own use.' And similarly, where

m.'jritai rights ^^iQ common law rulc still exists by w^hich marriage

(it executrix s •' '^

husband. operates as an unqualified gift to the husband of all

1 Schoul. Ex. & Adm. § 194, and Mo. 431, 434, overruling former Missouri

authorities ; lb. § 238. cases, in wliic-li it had been held that the

- 3 Redf. on Wills, 127. executor or administrator is, for every

3 Wentw. Ex. 192 ; Weeks v. Gibbs, purpose, the owner of the money of the

9 Mass. 74, 75; Lewis v. Lyons, 13 III. decedent which had come to his hands.
117, 121 ; Carter v. National Bank, 71 o Branch Bank v. Wade, 13 Ala. 427 ;

Me. 448. Marvel v. Babbitt, 143 Mass. 226.

* Wms. Ex. [636]. "> Wms. Ex. [6431, citing Bransby v.

5 3 Redf. on Wills, 130, pi. 2 ; Weeks Grantham, Plowd. 625, and Godoiph., pt.

V. Gibbs, supra ; Leasing v. Vertrees, 32 2, c. 17, s. 3.

§175

POWER OF ALIENATION.

387

tlio wife's goods and i>ersonal chattels, yet it will make no gift to
liim of the goods and chattels which belong to the wife in auter
droit as execntrix or administratrix.' Tiie possession of personal
property acquired as an adniinisti-ator cannot be united to and
perfect an equitable title which lie holds in his own right, so as to
defeat an action by the party having the legal estate.'-^ But where
a chose in action has been assigned, and the assignee become
adininisti-ator of the assignor's estate after his death, he may
recover as administrator to his own use, and without accountin<r
to the estate.-^

§ 175. Power of Alienation.- — But an executor or administrator
has at common law power to dispose of and alien the assets of
the decedent ; * he has absolute power over them for ^

■ Common law

this purpose, and they cannot be followed by the cred- right to dispose

p ji 1 1 K i 1 1 of the a?sfts.

itors ot the deceased.^ And he may convert them to
his own use, thus making himself chargeable for the amount, and
subjecting them thus converted to the same incidents and liabili-
ties, in all respects, as if they had never belonged to the estate of
the deceased.^ Thus, under the common law doctrine Rirrhttoap-
of retainer, if the testator or intestate died indebted P'""!""'"!'' f f<^'s

' under doctrine

to the executor or administrator, or where the latter, of retainer.

' Co. Lit. 351 a ; Tlinnipson n. Pincliell,
11 Mod. 177, by Powell, J. Tims, if hus-
band and wife recover judgment for a
tlebt due to the wife as e.xecutri.x, and tlie
wife dies, the husband sliall not have a
scire fdcias upon the judgment, but the
succeeding executor or administrator :
Beamond i\ Long, Cro. Car. 208, 227 ;
s. c. W. Jones, 248. But the husband is
entitled to administer in liis vvife's right
for his own safet}', lest she misapply the
funds, in whicb case be would be liable ;
and incident to tins right he has the
power of disposition over the personal
estate vested in his wife as executrix or
administratrix : Wms. Ex. [644).

■^ Gamble v. Gamble, 11 Ala. 966.

^ Dawes v. Boylston, 0 Mass. oo7, 343.

* The subject of how the assets of an
estate may be transferred is discussed,
also, post, § 331.

5 Harper v. Butler, 2 Pet. 239; " The
title which is vested in the executor
carries with it the jus disponoidi which
generally inheres in the ownership of
property " : Petersen v. Chemical Bank,

32 N. Y. 21. 45, per Denio, C. J. ; "A
bare act of sale of the assets by the ex-
ecutor is a sufficient indemnity to the
purchaser, if there be no collusicm " :
Sutherland r. Brush, 7 John. Ch. 17, 21,
per Kent, Ch. ; Hunter v. Lawrence, 11
Gratt. Ill, 1.33; Field v. Schieffelin, 7
John. Ch. 150, 154; Herfell v. Bogert,
9 Pai. 52, 57; Clark v. Blackington, 110
Mass. 3(59, 374 pt spq. ; Gray v. Arniistead,
6 Ired. Eq 74, 77 ; Bradsliaw v. Simpson,
6 Ired. Eq. 243, 246 ; Crooker v. Jewell,
31 Me. 30(!, 813 ; Carter v. National Bank,
71 Me. 448; Ladd r. Wiggm, 35 N. H.
421, 430 ; Overfield v. Bullitt, 1 Mo. 749 ;
Beattie v. Abercrombie, 18 Ala. 9, 18;
Hadley v. Kendrick, 10 Lea, 525 ; Mar-
shall Coimty V. Ilanna, 57 Iowa, 372, 375 ;
Kogers v. Zook, 86 Ind. 2)57, 242.

« 3 Kedf. on Wills, 130, pi. 1 ; Schoul.
Ex. & Adm. § 219 ; Mead v. Byington, 10
Vt. IIG, 122; Beecheri'. Buckingiiam, 18
Conn. 110, 120; Neale v. Ilagtlirop, 3
Bland Ch. 551, 5G3; Lappin u. Mumford,
14 Kans. 9, 15.

388 EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS. 5 176

not having ready money of the decedent, or for any other good
reason, shall pay a debt of the decedent with his own money, he
may elect to take any specific chattel as compensation, and, if it
be not more than adequate, it shall by such election become his
own. And it has been held that, if thb debt due him by the tes-
tator amount to the full value of all the effects in the executor's
hands, there is a complete transmutation of the property in favor
of the executor by the mere act and operation of law.^ But we
shall see later on, that the doctrine of retainer is abolished, and
the rights and duties of executors and administrators with respect
to the sale of the assets very considerably modified in most of
the American States.'-^

§ 176. other Methods of Conversion. — There are other methods
and ways also in which the property which goes to the executor
niirht in outer ov administrator in auter droit may become his in his
fo ric'hn?r'*^*^ ^^^ right. Ready money left by the decedent becomes
2)roprio. j-jjg jjg soon as it comes into his hands, and he is re-

sponsible to the estate for its value ; for when it is intermixed
with his own money, it cannot be distinguished therefrom so as
to enable courts to treat it as the specific property of the estate.^
So the executor or administrator may, as well as any other per-
son, buy goods of the decedent sold under a fieri facias, and when
he does so, the property which was vested in him as personal
representative becomes his in jure projorio.^ Where, in the set-
tlement of an estate, the distributees refused to accept a note and
mortgage which the administrator had taken for money of the
estate loaned, and he paid their distributive shares in cash and
other securities, the administrator thereby becomes the absolute
owner of such note and mortgage.^ If the executor or adminis-
trator among the goods of the deceased find and take some that
were not his, and tlie owner recover damages for them in trespass
or trover, and in all similar cases, the goods become the property
of the trespasser, for he has paid for them.*^ He may make an

1 Wms. Ex. [646] et seq., with English as to doctrine of retainer, post, § 377

authorities. So in tlie case of a lease of et seq.

the testator devolved on the executor, ^ Post, §§ 377, 378 ; see also, as to the

such profits only as exceed the yearly sale of the personal property, §§ 329 e< sp^.

value shall be assets ; it therefore fol- ^ Wms. Ex. [646| ; 3 Redf. on Wills.

lows that, if the executor pay the rent 130, pi. 2 a.

out of his own purse, the profits to the * Wms. Ex.

same amount shall be his : Wentw. Ex. ^ Blakely v. Carter, 70 Wis. 540.

c. 7, p. 200, 14th ed.; Toller, 239. See, ^ Wras. Ex. 1648].

§ 177 PROPERTY IN AUTER DROIT AND IN JURE PROPlilO. 389

under-lease of a term of years uf the deceased, rendering rent to
himself, his executors, etc. ; and although he has the term wholly
in right of the testator or intestate, yet, having power to dispose
of the whole, by making a lease of a part he appropriates that to
himself and divides it from the rest, and thus has the rent in his
own right ; and if he dies, the rent will be payable to his personal
representatives and not to the administrator de bonis non of the
original decedent.^ So an executor who is also a legatee may by
assenting to his own legacy vest the thing bequeathed in himself
as legatee, and such assent may be express or imf)lied ;^ and an
administrator who is also a distributee may acquire a legal title
in his own right to goods of the deceased, by appropriating them
to himself as his own share.^ So where an executrix used the
goods of her testator as her own, and afterwards married, and
then treated them as the property of her husband, it was held
that she could not be allowed to object to their being taken in
execution for her husband's debt.^ And after a lapse of six or
seven years equity will not restrain by injunction a creditor of an
executor from taking in execution property of the testator which
is assets in equity.^ But Lord Tentcrden held that the use of the
goods of an intestate by the administrator for three months Avas
not sufficient to raise the presumption that they were the admin-
istrator's property.^ The possession and retention of a bequest
by a legatee for some considerable time, without objection by the
executor, will be conclusive that there had been an assents

§ 177. Property in Auter Droit distinguished from Property in Jure
Proprio. — Both English and American text writers call attention
to the difficulty of ascertaining when ownership in the pij^puif^. „£
character of executor or administrator ceases, and distinijuishinff

. when property

ownership independent of that character commences.^ is held in autlr
Thus it was formerly held, as Williams points out,^ injure proprio
that in respect to land no merger can take place of ^^ ^o'"'""" i''^^-

1 Boyd V. Sloan, 2 Bailey, 311, 312 ; 5 Ray v. Ray, Coop. Ch. Cas. 2G4.

3 Redf. on Wills, 131, pi. 2 a. 6 Gaskell r. Marshall, 1 Mood. & Rob.

2 Chester v. Greer, 5 Humph. 26; but 132, in which the judge, upon Quick r.
such assent will not be presumed in the Staines, supra, being cited, observed th.nt
absence of acts and declarations conducing tlie marriage in that case made all tlie
to show an assent : Murpliree v. Singleton, difference.

37 Ala. 412, 416. Post, § 453, on execu- ' Hall v. Hall, 27 Miss. 458, 400; see

tor's assent. post, § 453, on executor's assent.

3 Parke, B., in Elliott i-. Kemp, 7 M. ^ Wms. Ex. [643J ; 3 Redf. on Wills.
& W. 306, 31.3. 129.

4 Quick V. Staines, 1 Bos. & Pull. 293. » Wms. Ex. [610] et seq.

390 EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS. § 177

the estate held by a man as executor in that which he hold:^ in
his own right;! )j„t a distinguished author 2 urges this distinction,
viz. that when either of the two estates is an accession to the
other by act of law, there will not be any merger, but that where
the accession is hy act, of the party, the lesser estate will merge.
Although opposed to the views of earlier lawyers,-^ this distinction
seems to be supported by the current of authorities.'* It is also
to be observed that a person originally entitled to a term or to
an estate of freehold as executor or administrator may in process
of time become the owner in l)is own right. Thus, an executor
who is also residuary legatee, having jierformed the purposes of
the will, holds the estate as legatee ; so where he pays money of
his own to the value of the term in discharge of the testator's
debts, and with an intention of appropriating the term to his own
use in lieu of the money, he holds in his own right ; and so does
an administrator who is entitled to the whole beneficial ownership
of the intestate's property, or procures a discharge from those
who are to share that property with him, and all the debts of the
intestate are paid. Under these and the like circumstances the
executor or administrator will have the estate in his own right,
and when he has the estate in his own right it will be subject to
mero-er.' In America, however, the difficulties attend-

Thi'^ difficulty » . ^ ,, , ^ • i • i

siishtd- in ing the ascertainment of the character m which prop-
Anienca. ^^^^ .^ ^^^^^ ^^ Gxccutors and administrators, whether

in aider droit or in jure proprio, are greatly diminished by statu-
tory provisions requiring the distribution of assets to be made
under order of the probate court, or at least to be reported in the
annual or final settlements made in court, xind since the owner-
ship is in the first place always in auter droit, it is incumbent
upon any one who would attach a right to the assets derived from
or through the executor or administrator personally, to show that
the original title has been changed, and that he holds the property
jure propria, which may be done by proving a sale, conversion, or
merger in any of the methods by which a personal representative
may divest the title of his testator or intestate.

1 2 Bla. Comni. 177 ; Jones v. Davies, clearer," says the latter, " than that a
5 H. & N. 76(5. term which is taken nlieno jure is not

2 Preston on Conveyancing, vol. iii. merger] in a reversion acquired sito jure."
p. 27:i et seq. (3d ed., 1829). * Wnis. Ex. |641|.

3 Lord Holt, in Gage i\ Acton, 1 Salk. & Wnis. Ex. 1642| ; 3 Preston on Conv.
3-2.5, 326. and Lord Kenyon, in Webb v. 310, 311.

Russell, 3 T. R. 393, 401. "Nothing is

§ 177 PROPERTY IN AUTER DROIT AND IN JURE PROPRIO. 391

All executor or administrator having assets, being also the
guardian of a legatee or distributee, may transfer the distributive
share to himself as guardian ; but to do so, and thus Traasfer of
hx his liability m the new capacity, some distinct act j,, ..ue Japacity
or declaration is necessary.^ Nor can there be a Sj; l;;;;;;','!;^
transfer of a more naked liability, as, for instance, the capacity,
debt owing to the estate by an insolvent fiduciary .^ So, if a trustee
must give bond, an executor who is also made trustee will remain
liable as executor until he has given bond as trustee ; ^ and if a
legacy is given to one qua executor, he remains liable as exec-
utor, although he take credit therefor as legatee^ So a special
administrator is lial)lc for money belonging to the estate received
by him as agent of a previous administratot/^ And an adminis-
trator who is also guardian, who has completed the administra-
tion and therefore has no further use for assets, is presumed to
hold the property as guardian ; ^ and, in general, where a man
holds money in several capacities, the law will attach to him lia-
bility in that capacity in which of right it ought to be held ; ^ as
where a man in his own person unites, by operation of law, the
character of debtor and creditor.^ See on this point the subject
of debts by the executor or administrator to the deceased.^

1 Smith V. Gregory, 2G Gratt. 248, 257; 7 Kirby v. StatP, 51 Md. 383, 392, cit-
Miller y. Congdon, 14 Gray, 114. ing many Maryland cases; State v.

2 Gilmer v. Baker, 24 W. Va. 72, 92. Clieston, 51 Md. 352, 876 ; Citizens' Bank

3 Prior V. Talbot, 10 Cush. 1 ; Dorr v. v. Sliarp, 53 Md. 521, 527.
Wainwright, 13 Pick. 328, 331 ; Probate s Schnell v. Schroder, Bail. Eq. .384
Court V. Hazard, 13 11. I. 1, 2 ; Hall o. Knicks r. Powell, 2 Strobh. Eq. 196, 206
Cusliing, 9 Pick. 395, 409. Griffin i'. Bonhani, 9 Rich. Eq. 71, 77

* Probate Court v. Angel!, 14 R. I. Jacobs v. Woodside, 6 S. C. 490 ; Todd v.

495, 499. Davenport, 22 S. C. 147 ; Smith v. Greg-

5 Gottsberger v. Taylor, 19 N. Y. 150. ory, 26 GraU. 248, 260.

6 United States v. May, 4 Mackey, 4, 7. « Pust, § 311.

392 SPECIAL AND QUALIFIED ADMINISTRATORS. § 178

CHAPTER XIX.

OP SPECIAL AND QUALIFIED ADMINISTRATORS.

§ 178. Administrators cum Testamento annexo. — It has been
shown that the chief distinction between an executor and an
Distinction be- administrator lies in the source of their appointment,
irjadminis-"' ^ud in the fact that the one disposes of the estate
trator cum accordinsT to the directions of the testator, while the

testamento "

annexo. other is governed in this respect by the geijeral law.^

The distinction is still fainter in cases where a will exists, and,
from any cause, there is no executor. In such case the probate
court designates a person to carry out, or execute, the will, which
is then annexed to and becomes part of his letters ; from which
circumstance he is known as administrator (not executor, because
not nominated by the testator) cum testamento annexo, or admin-
istrator with the will annexed. Since it is his duty to dispose of
the property of the testator in accordance with the provisions of
the will, it is obvious that his powers can differ but slightly from
those of an executor. Indeed, the difference sometimes insisted
upon — that an administrator cum testamento annexo cannot exe-
cute such powers conferred by the testator upon the executor as
may be beyond the ordinary functions of an executor — is not in
reality a difference between the administrator and executor at all,
because powers beyond the ordinary functions of executors are to
that extent a testamentary trust, and vest in him as such trustee,
not because he is executor, but in addition to and independent of
his office as such.^

Since all the duties of an executor, pertaining to his office as
such, devolve to the administrator with the will annexed,^ the

1 Ante, § 171. v. Hester, 2 Ired. Eq. 830, 339 ; Jackson

2 Shaw V. McCameron, 11 S. & R 252, v. Jeffries, 1 A. K. Marsh. 88 ; King v.
255. Talbert, .36 Miss. 367, 373 ; Olwine's Ap-

3 Blake v. Dexter, 12 Cush. 559, 569 ; peal, 4 W. & S. 492 ; Lucas v. Price, 4
Rnttrifk v. King, 7 Met. (Mass.) 20 ; VVil- Ala. 679, 683.

son's Estate, 2 Pa. St. 325, 329; Hester

§ 179 ADMINISTRATORS DK BONIS NON. 393

latter possesses, oenerally, the same powers, is bound „ , .

•^ ' ' Powers, duties

by the same duties, and sultject to the same liabilities and liabilities
as the former,! whether appointed originally, or upon u,rc. t.a'.fre'n-
thc death, removal, or resignation of the exeeutor;- ITot^ an""'^^^^
but the powers and duties not necessarily connected ^^'''^"""■•
with the functions of an executor devolve upon the administrator
with the will annexed only when it appears clearly from the will
that the testator so intended ;3 as where, for instance, he directed
an act to be done at all events, without leaving any discretion to
the executor.*

The power of the administrator with the will annexed is not,
generally, limited to the administration of the estate ,, , ,

,. 1 r 1 -nil Power of ad-

disposed of by the will, although it has in some cases ministrator
been held so,^ but extends to the whole of the de- t'^o aiUs^sets of'^
cedent's estate,*^ unless the testator has otherwise Itute.''^
directed.'

The power to sell lands granted to executors who refuse to
qualify, or are removed or die, is in most States regulated by
statute, and will be further considered in connection with the sub-
ject of the management of real estate.^

§ 179. Administrators de Bonis non. — Upon the death, removal,
or resignation of a sole executor or administrator, or of all of
several joint executors or administrators, before the Admini...trator
estate has been fully administered, it becomes neces- mifiisters'the'^'
sary to appoint a successor, to the end that the admin- ?'**'^'* remain-

.... , inn/-, '"« unadmm-

istration may be completed.^ Such an officer is known istered.

1 Kidwell V. Brummagim, 82 Cal. 436, annexo should also take a grant of admin-
439, citing Jackson v. Ferris, 15 Jolin. ;J40, istration et ceterorum.

347; Bowers v. Emerson, 14 Barb. 652; « Ex parte Brown, 2 Bradf. 22 ; Lan-

Farwell r. Jacobs, 4 Mass. G34, 636. ders v. Stone, 45 Ind. 404

2 Ex parte Brown, 2 Bradf. 22. " 3 Redf. on Wills, 9G, pi. 2, citing

3 Ingle V. Jones, 9 Wall. 486, 498 ; Hays v. Jackson, 6 Mass. 149, in which
Knight V. Loomis, 30 Me. 204 ; Conklin Parsons, C. J., says that the correct
I'. Egerton, 21 Wend. 430; Tainter v. practice in America is that executors ad-
Clark, 13 Met. 220, 226; Wills r. Cowper, minister undivided estate ex offirio, with-
2 Oh. 312, 316; Moody r. Vandyke, 4 out a letter of administration. " The same
Bin. 31 ; Dunning v. Ocean Bank, 61 doctrine is held in Landers r. Stone 45
N. Y. 497, 501. I,,,]. 404, 407 ; Venable v. Mitchell,' 29

* King V. Talbert, 36 Miss. 367, 373. Ga. 566.

5 Harper v. Smith, 9 Ga. 461 ; Ash- « Post, § 339 et seq.

burn V. Ashhurn, 16 Ga. 213, 216; Dean 9 Scott v. Fox, 14 Md .388, 394. See

V. Biggers, 27 Ga. 73, 75. These Geor- ;-o,./, § 851, on the succession' of admin-

gia cases hold that, where it becomes ne- istrators.
cessary, the administrator cum testamento

394 SPECIAL AND QUALIFIED ADMINISTilATORS. § 179

as administrator de bonis non (^administratis), — administrator of
the unadministcred effects ; or, if he succeed an executor or an
administrator cum testamento annexo, he is known as administra-
tor de bonis non cum testamento annexo, — administrator with the
Distinction in will anucxed of the unadministcred goods. At com-
commoiHaw ^^^o\\ law thcrc is a distinction in this respect between
utors^and'^d- Gxccutors and administrators, growing out of the doc-
ininii>tiators. trine that an executor's executor succeeds to the estate
of the deceased executor's testator, but not the deceased execu-
tor's administrator, nor does a deceased administrator's executor
or administrator succeed to the estate of the original intestate.^
This distinction disappears, of course, with the rule from which
it springs, and now exists in very few of the American States ;2
where it is not recognized, the necessity for the appointment of an
administrator de bonis non is the same, whether it was an execu-
tor or administrator who left the estate unadministered.*^

An estate is not fully administered so long as anything remains
to be done to vest the title of the decedent's estate in the benefi-
Unadmiiiis- ciary, whether creditor, next of kin, legatee, or devisee,
teied estate. whicli no ouc but an executor or administrator can
lawfully do ; such as paying a legacy, or distributing the effects
or assets,'* although the assets had been reduced to money ,^ pay-
ing debts,^ or the like. But it has been held that an adminis-
trator de bonis non cannot be appointed for the sole purpose of
making a conveyance which the original administrator ought to
have made.''

The administration de bonis non may be granted after any
length of time;^ but lapse of time and other circumstances may

1 See, as to the authority of a de- uted : Brattle v. Converse, 1 Root, 174;

ceased executor's executor to the estate Brattle v. Gustin, 1 Koot, 425 ; Bancroft

of the original testator, ;)os?, § 350. r. Andrews, 6 Cush. 49.3, 494; State v,

- .3 Redf. on Wills, 74, pi. 17 ; post, Farmer, 54 Mo. 4;:!9, 445 ; or jirosecuting

§ 350. a claim instituted by tiie removed exec-

•5 Taylor v. Brooks, 4 Dev. & B. L. utor : Hayward r. Place, 4 Dern. 487.
189, 143 ; Carroll v. Connet, 2 J. J. Marsh. ' Grayson v. Weddle. 63 I.Io. 523, 539 ;

195, 205. Long v. Joplin Mining Co., 68 Mo. 422,

* Alexander v. Stewart, 8 G. & J. 427.
226, 244 ; Hendricks r. Snodgrass, Walk. ^ Bancroft v. Andrews, 6 Cush. 493,

(Miss.) 86; Scott v. Crews, 72 Mo 261, 495, citing Kempton v. Swift. 2 Met.

264; University v. Hughes, 90 N. C. 537. (Mass.) 70, in which the second admin-

5 Donaldson v. liaborg, 26 Md. 312, istration was granted more than thirty
326; De Valengin v. Duffy, 14 Pet. 282, years after the tirst: Holmes, Petitioner,
291. 33 Me. 677.

6 Although the estate was all distrib-

§ 180 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATORS. 395

raise a presumption tliat all debts a";ainst an estate ^.

' ' . " Time within

arc barred or j)aid, and tliat the reniainin<^ assets which an ad-

II J ii 1 • • 1-1 ii 1 • • i. i.- niiiiistrator

belong- to the heirs, in which case the administration r/. 6. «. may
cannot be reopened by the api)ointment of an adminis- "^ 'M'i>'""tet .
trator de bonis tton.^ If nothing remains to be done to com-
plete administration, the grant of letters de bonis non is merely
nugatory."'^

Since there can be but one valid administration in the same
State of the same succession at the same time, the appointment
of an administrator de bonis non before the death, Vacancy in the
removal, or resignation of the executor or original iKli!Ir"aamil°i"-
administrator is obviouslv a nullity ;3 and this ap- {'•='•"'•"'•*•«•

•' ' I call be ap-

plies with the same force to the case of several joint pointed.

executors or administrators, so long as one of them remains
in office, because the grant of administration is an entirety, and
the authority survives to the last one.* But the mere informal-
ity of omitting the words de bonis non in the aj)pointment of an
administrator to succeed a general administrator who had died,^
or of omitting to enter the order removing the administrator,
when the facts necessary to sustain such order are recited in con-
nection with the grant of administration de bonis non, does not
render such appointment void.*^ See on this subject the chap-
ter on the privity between executors and administrators of the
same estate.''

§ 180. Public Administrators. — The public administrator, or
administrator general, is an officer authorized by the statutes of
several of the States to administer the estates of per-

1. .. ., ,. -Ill When public

sons dying mtestate without relatives entitled to ad- admini-trator
minister,^ or where those entitled refuse to do so. In dmrire of
some of the States this officer is elected by the people, ^*"*^'^*-
and holds office for a number of years ; ^ in others he is appointed

1 Murpliy V. Menard, 14 Tex. 62, G7. ■* Lewis v. Brooks, 0 Yerjr. 167 ; State

2 Wilfoxon ('. Reese, 63 Md. 542, 545. v. Green, 65 Mo. 5"J8, 530, citint; State v.

3 Munroe v. People, 102 III. 406, 409; Kucker, 59 Mo. 24. See post, §346.
Ranibo v. Wyatt, -32 Ala. SW, 3G5 ; Mat- & Moselin v. Martin. 37 Ala. 216, 219;
thews V. Doiithitt, 27 Ala. 273 ; Watkins Steen v. Bennett, 24 Vt. 303 ; Bailey v.
V. Adams, 32 Miss. 333, 335; Petigru c. Scott, 13 Wis. 618.

Fergvison, 6 Rich. Eq. 378; Grande r. 6 Ragland c. Kinp, 37 Ala. 80 ; Russell

Ciiaves, 15 Tex. 550; Hamilton's Estate, r. Erwin, 41 Ala. 292.

34 Cal. 464 ; Creatli v. Brent, 3 Dana, ' Post, § 351 et seq.

129. And in Indiana can only be granted ^ Abh. L. Diet. " Administer."

in case of vacancy before final settlement : ^ In California, Missouri, Nevada, and

Croxton v. Renner, 103 Ind. 223. New York.

396 SPECIAL AND QUALIFIED ADMINISTRATORS. § 180

by the governor,^ or by the court having probate jurisdiction,^ and
in North Carolina by the clerk of the Supreme Court. In Ala-
bama such officer is appointed for the county of Mobile only;^ but
the probate court may compel the sheriff or coroner to administer,
and on application of a creditor the probate judge refusing to
make such an order may himself be compelled by mandamus to do
so.* So, in Arkansas^ and Virginia,^ sheriffs are ex officio public
administrators, and the authority of probate courts to order the
sheriff to take charge of an estate without reciting the reason
therefor is unquestioned.^ In Georgia the ordinary may compel
the clerk of the Superior Court to perform the duties of admin-
istrator, if no one else can be found to apply for letters.^ When
administration is committed to any such officer, he is liable on his
official bond for its faithful performance ; ^ in Arkansas it is held
that the sureties on the sheriff's bond are liable, although a special
administration bond was given in each estate taken charge of as
public administrator ; ^^ but it is ruled differently in other States.^^
In Georgia the ordinary may order an estate to be administered
by the clerk without bond, if no one can be found who will give
bond. ^2 The authority of these officers as administrators does not
usually cease with their official terra, but continues until the estate
is fully administered ; ^^ but in South Carolina the authority of a
commissioner in equity suing out letters of administration on a
derelict estate is held to cease with his office as commissioner,
and his successor must sue out letters de bonis non}^

In most States the authority of the public administrator, or

1 Colorado, Illinois, Maine, and Massa- low or reject claims against the estate
chusetts. of a decedent until he has assumed the

2 Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, charge of the assets, or been ordered to
and Wisconsin. assume the administration by the pro-

3 It is there held that an order by the bate court : Williamson v. Turbush, 31
probate court committing an estate to Ark. 531), 541.

the cliarge of the general administrator ^ Johnston v. Tatum, 20 Ga. 775.

is not void for the omission to recite the ^ Scarce v. Page, 12 B. Mon. 311 ;

due appointment of the general admin- Cocke v. Finley, 29 Miss. 127.

istrator: Russell v. Ervvin, 41 Ala. 292. ^^ Tlie court so concluded " with much

* Brennan v. Harris, 20 Ala. 185. The hesitation " : State v. Watts, 23 Ark. 304,

grant of letters of administration to the 309.

sheriff or coronor virtute officii expires n McNeil v. Smith, 55 Ga. 313.

with his term : Landford v. Dunklin, 71 12 Code, 1882, § 2496.

Ala. 594, 609. is Beale i'. Hall, 22 Ga. 431 ; Russell v.

6 Dig. 1884, §§ 224-2.31. Erwin, 41 Ala. 292; Rogers v. Hoberlein,

6 Hutcheson^-. Priddy, 12 Gratt. 8.5,87. 11 Gal. 120; Warren v. Carter, 92 Mo.

7 State V. Watts, 23 Ark. 304, 312. 288.

But the sheriff has no authority to al- " Levi v. Huggins, 14 Rich. 166.

§ 180 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATORS. 397

administrator general, depends upon aj)pointmcnt by,^ or letters
obtained from, the probate court,- upon the application of some
party interested ;^ and in some States it is made his duty to take
into custody and protect against loss and waste any estate not
otlierwise administered, until thci-c may be a regular appointment
of some person having preference under the law.* In Missouri ^
and New York,*^ however, the public administrator takes charge of
estates under circumstances pointed out by the statute, without
order of the probate court or surrogate ; but he may be ordered
to take charge of other estates in their discretion.

In Missouri the public administrator is required to file notice
in the probate court whenever he takes charge of an estate ; but
the validity of his administration does not depend upon giving
such notice," nor can his authority be questioned collaterally.^
The probate court may direct him to take charge of an estate for
any good cause, " to prevent its being injured, wasted, purloined,
or lost";^ the partnership estate of a deceased partner forms no
exception. ^0 But it is held that he has no authority to bring suit
against a foreign insurance company, doing business in Missouri,
upon a policy of insurance not made, nor to be executed, in Mis-
souri, upon the life of a citizen of another State, who neither
resided, died, nor left property in Missouri ;^^ nor to maintain an
action for assets of an estate which he has unlawfully taken
charge of.^^ His action in taking charge of an estate without the

1 A dire(!tion to the slieriff to take tration ; and the certificate of the probate

charge of the estate of " Robert W." judge that he is public administrator is

does not autliorize him to take charge of not competent proof; it must be sliown

the estate of " Henry W." : Woodyard by a copy of the record of appointment

V. Threlkeld, 1 A. K. Marsh. 10; Morse as public administrator: Littleton v.

V. Griffith, 25 La. An 213 ; Wilson v. Christy, 11 Mo. 390, 393.

Dibble, 10 Fla. 782, 784, citing Davis v. » This statute authorizes the public

Simler, 14 Fla. 438. administrator to take charge of any es-

- Thomas v. Adnms, 10 III. 319; Es- tate under order of the probate court

tate of Hamilton, 34 Cal 464. upon which no administration has pre-

3 Unknown Heirs v. Baker, 23 111. viously been granted: CaHahan v. Gris-

484 ; Succession of Miller, 27 La. An. 574. wold, 9 Mo. 784.

* Beckett v. Selover, 7 Cal. 215. i^ Headlee v. Cloud, 51 Mo. 301.

5 Rev. St. 1879, § 306. " Insurance Company v. Lewis, 97

6 3 Banks & Bro., pp. 2309, 2319. U. S. 682.

' Adams v. Larrimore, 51 Mo. 130, 131. i- Lewis v. McCabe, 73 Mo. 307. The
8 Wetzell V. Waters, 18 Mo. 39G. But principle annoimced in this case was re-
proof of the filing of the notice by a pudiated by two of the judges, who in
person not shown to be public adminis- their dissenting opinion call attention to
trator is not sufficient to show that such the case of Wetzell v. Waters, IS Mo.
person is legally in charge of the adminis- 396 (cited ubi supra), with the doctrine

398 SPECIAL AND QUALIFIED ADMINISTRATORS. § 180

order of the probate court is not final, but may be annulled by
the probate court, if in its opinion the facts did not warrant the
administration by the public administrator.^ A Michigan case
intimates that the validity of the acts of a public administrator
having an estate in charge without appointment by the probate
court, is collaterally assailable.^

In New York there is a distinction between the powers of the
public administrators in the city of New York, and of those of
the interior counties. In New York City the public administrator
is made the head of a bureau in the law department, and is to be
appointed by the corporation counsel.^ He takes charge " in right
of his office " of the estates of persons dying intestate within the
State or elsewhere having property in the city or county of New
York, or when such property shall arrive there after the death of
such person, or having effects at the quarantine of said city.*
Outside of the city of New York, the several county treasurers
are bound, virtute officii., to accept appointment as administrators
made by the surrogates, to give bond, (fcc.^ The effects of foreign-
ers dying intestate are taken charge of by the commissioners of
emigration of the city of New York until such time as their au-
thority may be superseded by letters regularly granted ; these
commissioners may also appropriate to the use of any minor child
its distributive share of the estate in their charge.^

The circumstances under which a public administrator is au-
thorized to take charge of an estate depend, of course, wholly
upon the respective statutes. It has already been mentioned, that
in some of the States it is his duty to take charge of estates, in
certain contingencies, without order or letters from the probate
court;" and also, that where he has such authority but does not

of which it conflicts. It seems to militate ^ Per Cooley, C. J., in Reynolds v.

against the case of Headlee v. Cloud also, McMullen, 55 Mich. 568, 673. The

in which it is announced that the public autliority relied on (Illinois Railroad

administrator cannot be divested of an Co. v. Cragin, 71 111. 177) holds letters

administration in a collateral proceeding?, granted by a clerk, and not approved

but only on application to the probate by the court, to be impeachable collat-

court : 51 Mo. 302. eraily.

1 McCabe v. Lewis, 76 Mo. 296, 301, 3 Laws, 1873, eh. 335, § 38.

reversing Court of Appeals. Two of * 3 Banks & Bro., p. 2309.

the judges dissent from this principle, ^ lb., p. 2319 et seq.

holding, with the Court of Appeals, that ® Ex parte Commissioners of Emigra-

the probate court iiad no power to con- tion, 1 Bradf. 259.

trol the public administrator's discretion " Supra, p 397.
in taking charge of estates.

§ 180 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATORS. 399

exercise it, he may bo compelled to do so by order of the probate
court.^ So also, although the public administrator assume the
charge of an estate without order or authority from the probate
court, exercising- in this respect a co-ordinate jurisdiction, yet the
validity of his act in so doing may be questioned in the probate
court, and his authority annulled if found unwarranted by the cir-
cnmstances.2 ^i^^] similarly the authority of the public adminis-
trator may be revoked, even where he was appointed by decree of
the probate court, if such decree was improvidently granted.-^

The exercise of the discretion of probate courts, under the stat-
utes on this subject, in granting letters of administration to pub-
lic administrators, or ordering them to take charge of when probate
the estates of deceased persons, is not always with- re"t the'^pubnc
out difliculty. It has been held that the right of the ^;;;XSge
public adniinistrator to letters is confined to cases of of an estate,
intestacy ; in estates of testates the court may exercise its dis-
cretion.^ Where, the next of kin being disqualified, the grant of
letters to the public administrator, or to another person, is discre-
tional, neither the expressed desire of the intestate, nor the unan-
imous recommendation of the next of kin have any legal effect to
narrow such discretion ; ^ but if there is a contest between a cred-
itor and the public administrator, other creditors will be heard,
and the public administrator may be appointed at their request.^
He cannot, however, be appointed provisionally until the contest
for the administration is determined, if he is himself one of the
applicants.'^ It was held, at one time, that the claim of the public
administrator was superior to that of blood relatives who are not
entitled to distribution ; ^ but this decision was overruled in later
cases,^ and it is now held that the claim of one next of kin,
although not entitled to distrilnition, is superior to that of the
public administrator.^"^ And whore, in case of disqualification of
the next of kin, the public administrator is entitled, the applica-

1 Supra, p. 307. 5 Estate of Morgan, 53 Cal. 243 ;

2 Donaldson v. Lewi?, 7 Mo. App. 403, Estate of Kelly, 57 Cal. 81.
405 ; and the judgment of the probate '' Doak's Estate, 40 Cal. 57-3.

court in such case may be appealed from : ' Succession of Miller, 27 La. An. 574.

lb., p. 406. See also cases cited sujira, ^ Public Administrator v. Peters, 1

p. 397, note 12, and p. 3U8, note 1. Bradf. 100.

3 Varnell v. Loague, 9 Lea, 158, 161 ; » Lathrop v. Smith, 35 Barb. 04 ; 24
Proctor V. Wanmaker, 1 Barb. Ch. 302, N. Y. 417, 420.

308, citing English cases. ^^ Butler v. Perrott, 1 Dem. 9.

* Nunan's Estate, Myr. 238.

400 SPECIAL AND QUALIFIED ADMINISTRATORS. § 181

tion of one nearer of kin than any person residing in the United
States will not ])revail against the public administrator's right.^
So the public administrator has preference over the guardian to
one next of kin;'-^ and, at tlie surrogate's discretion,^ over a trust
company authorized by statute to administer;* and in California
is preferred to one who is creditor of the intestate and the nom-
inee of a non-resident heir.^ In Illinois the creditor of a non-
resident intestate is preferred to the public administrator.^ In
Louisiana the public administrator as such is not entitled to ad-
minister as dative testamentary executor where the testamentary
executor has died, and there are heirs present in the State ; '' nor
to a grant of letters where there are heirs in the State ; ^ and the
temporary absence from the State of the widow or heirs does not
authorize the appointment of the public administrator.^ His right
to be appointed exists only where there is a vacancy in the admin-
istration ; he has no authority in law to provoke the removal of
an executor or administrator.^^

§ 181. Administrators Pendente Lite. ~ The authority of testa-
mentary courts to grant administration pendente lite — during
Powers of ad- a Controversy concerning the right to the adminis-
pendente lite, tration — sccms to have always been admitted; and
since the case of Walker v. Woolaston,^^ the power of the court to
grant administration p)endente lite in cases touching an executor-
ship also has been settled. ^^ The safety of the estate requires that
some person be charged with the duty and armed with the neces-
sary authority to protect and preserve it until the termination

1 Public Administrator v. Watts, 1 Pai. public administrator is entitled to admin-
.347, 382 ; Matter of Blank, 2 Redf. 44.3, ister : Sutton v. Public Admr., 4 Dem. -33.
445 ; Murphy's Estate, Myr. 185. See also In re Garber, 74 Cal. 338.

2 Speckles v. Public Administrator, 1 ^ Rosenthal v. Prussing, 108 111. 128.
Dem. 475 (under a special act of New 7 If a public administrator, who is also
York) ; and over an illegitimate claimant an heir, is appointed under such circum-
whose riglit to distribution is not clearly stances, it will be assumed that he was
proved : Ferrie v. Public Administrator, appointed as one of the heirs : Succession
3 Bradf. 249. of Bougere, -30 La. An. 422.

3 Goddard's Estate, 94 N. Y. 544, 552. 8 Succession of Henry, 31 La. An. 555.
* Because an individual is preferable ^ Succession of Longuefosse, 34 La.

to a corporation : Goddard v. Public An. 583. To same effect. Succession of

Administrator, 1 Dem. 480, 483. Smith, 3 So. R. (La.) 539.

5 Estate of Hyde, 64 Cal. 228. One i*^ Succession of Burnside, 34 La. An.

who is the only next of kin, but disquali- 728.

fied because a non-resident alien, cannot " 2 P. Wms. 576, decided in K. B., on

by power of attorney authorize another error from C. P., Trin. T., 1731.

to act as administrator. In such case the ^^ Wms. Ex. [495].

181

ADMINISTRATORS PENDENTE LITE.

401

of the contest touching the administration or executorship shall
place it in the charge of the permanent administrator or execu-
tor;* hence they are also known as administrators ad colligendum,
and the general duties of such an administrator have been de-
scribed as being simply to represent the estate during the pen-
dency of the litigation and to see that no detriment comes to the
goods or effects of the estate,^ and administrators pendente lite
compared to receivers in chancery .^ Their authority ceases, of
course, upon the termination of the contest,^ and they must then
surrender the estate into the hands of the rightful representative.^
But until such termination of their office they may maintain
suits for debts due the deceased, and bring ejectment for lease-
hold estates against the heirs, next of kin, or any other person
who may be in possession.*^ Whatever they may lawfully do is
binding upon the estate, and the authority of the subsequently
appointed rightful administrator or executor is confined to so
much of the estate as may remain unadministered.^ In the ab-
sence of statutory authority, they have no power other than may
be necessary to collect the effects, not even to invest or distribute
them ; 8 nor to pay legacies,^ or debts,^*^ but if they were paid ho7ia
fide^ they will be allowed.i* But the powers of administrators

1 Walker v. Dougherty, 14 Ga. 653
656 ; Sarle v. Court of Probate, 7 R. I
270, 274 ; Gresharn v. Pyron, 17 Ga. 263^
265; Crozier v. Goodwin, 1 Lea, 368
Lawrence v. Parsons, 27 How. Pr. 26
Succession of De Flechier, 1 La. An. 20
Flora V. Mennice, 12 Ala. 836; Salter-
white V. Carson, 3 Ired. L. 549, 553
Robinson's Estate, 12 Phil. 14.

2 3Redf. on Wills, 108, pi. 2, 8.
8 Schoul. Ex. & Adm. § 134.

* If it is desired to have the adminis-
trator pendente lite act as general adminis-
trator after the contest is decided, he must
receive a new appointment as general
administrator, Coleiv Wooden, 18 N.J. L.
15, 19, citing Piggot's Case, 5 Rep. 29.
See also Munnikhuysen v. Magraw, 57
Md. 172, 195.

° Ellmaker's Estate, 4 Watts, 34, 36,
citing Commonwealth v. Mateer, 16 S. &
R. 416, and Adair v. Shaw, 1 Sch. & Lef.
243, 254 ; State v. Craddock, 7 Ilarr. &
John. 40 ; Ro Bards v. Lamb, 89 Mo. 303,
311, holding that notice of settlement by
VOL. I. — 26

the administrntor pendente lite with the
regular executor need not be given. If
there be an appeal, the suit is not at an end
until the appeal is determined : Brown v.
Ryder, 42 N. J. Eq. 356; post, ch. lix., on
appeals.

6 Matter of Colvin, 3Md. Ch. 278, 295.
In Libby v. Cobb, 70 Me. 471, such an
administrator was allowed, under the cir-
cumstances, to redeem his intestate's land
from a mortgage.

^ Patton's Appeal, 31 Pa. St. 465.

8 3 Redf. 108, pi. 3, citing Gallivan v.
Evans, 1 Ball & Beatty, 191 ; Kaminer
V. Hope, 9 S. C. 253, 258. In a second
appeal of the same case, 18 S. C. 561,
674, it is held that the administrator ;;cn-
dente lite may bring actions to recover
debts due his intestate's estate.

9 Wms. Ex. [499].

1" Mclver, J., in Kaminer v. Hope, 18
S. C. 5G1, 576, citing Stevenson v. Wilcox,
16 S. C. 432.

11 lb., citing Adair v. Shaw, 1 Sch. Sc,
Lef. 243, 254.

402 SPECIAL AND QUALIFIED ADMINISTRATORS. § 181

pendente lite are enlarged by the English probate act,^ to include
;ill the rights and powers of a general administrator except the
right of distributing the residue,^ and the tendency in America is
in the same direction.^

Administrators pendente lite are officers of the court, and not
the mere nominees or agents of the parties on whose recommen-
dation they are selected ; ^ hence they must give bond, although
administration be granted jointly to the nominees of the two liti-
gating parties.^ It is said by Judge Redfield, that the nominee of
neither party should, as a general rule, be appointed,*^ but that
such may be done out of regard to special fitness;' andi,a fortiori^
where both parties agree.^ In England, the probate court will
refuse to appoint an administrator pendente lite when the contest
does not affect the rights of the executors;^ in Missouri, on the
contrary, the statute is construed as making it obligatory upon
the probate court to appoint some person administrator pendente
lite other than the person charged with the execution of the will,
whether this be an executor or an administrator cum testamento
annexo, whenever a contest of the will exists.^^ In Tennessee, an
administrator pendente lite appointed by a chancery court is held
to possess all the powers of a general administrator, and no other
administration can be granted to succeed him, unless upon his
resignation or removal.^^

Letters of general administration granted pending the contest
of a will are null and void, and cannot be supported as a grant
of administration pendente lite ;^^ nor can there be a valid grant
of administration pendente lite after a general administrator has
fully settled the estate.^^

1 20 & 21 Vict. c. 77, § 70. 9 Mortimer v. Paull, L. R. 2 P. & D.

■^ Tichborne v. Tichborne, L. R. 2 P. 85. So in New York, otlier tilings being

& D. 41. equal, it is said that considerations of

3 Benson iJ. Wolf , 43 N. J. L. 78 ; In re economy would demand that the one
Duncan,3Redf. 153; Cadmany. Richards, named as executor in a disputed will,
13 Neb. 383. should be appointed: Haas v. Childs, 4

4 Wms. Ex. [498] ; Stanley v. Bernes, Dem. 137.

1 Hagg. 221. 1'^ Lamb v. Helm, 56 Mo. 420, 4-30,

5 Stanley v. Bernes, supra; Matter of citing and approving Rogers v. Dively,
Colvin, 3 Md. Ch. 278, 297. 51 Mo. 193.

6 3 Redf. on Wills, 109, pi. 6. An in- n Todd v. Wright, 12 Heisk. 442,
different person should be selected : 447.

Mootrie v. Hunt, 4 Bradf. 173. ^^ giade v. Washburn, 3 Ired. L. 557,

"> Young V. Brown, 1 Hagg. 53. 562.

8 Schoul. Ex. & Adm. § 134, note (3) ; is pisk v. Norvel, 9 Tex. 13, 17.
Wms. Ex. [497], note (i).

§ 182 ADMINISTRATORS DURANTE MINORE iETATE. 403

As to the privity between administrators pendente lite and
general administrators, there will be occasion to treat here-
after.i

§ 182. Administrators durante Minore ^tate. — The different
classes of administration which have been the subject of discus-
sion in the preceding sections of this chapter are as Distinction
essential, and tlierefore as common, in this country as m'i',)jst'r"tor8
in England, The functions accorded to each corre- e^^stntiai to

° the adrninis-

spond to some peculiar condition of the estate, or of tration, and

sucti iis (irc

the parties interested therein, and are clearly distin- necessary un-
guishable on essential grounds ; but in their aggregate pecui*^ar toUie
they arc indispensable to the full administration of '^"™'"''" i^^-
the property of deceased persons, which may require their exer-
cise in the one or other form. In addition to these classes of
administration, there are others known to the common law, and
of importance in England, which are not so important in America,
because the theory of administration differs in the two countries
in some important particulars, chief among which is the time
during which the authority of personal representatives continues.
In England the administration extends, in general, to the whole
personal estate of the deceased, and terminates only with the life
of the grantee ; while the authority of limited administrators is
confined to a particular extent of time, or to a specified subject
matter.2 At the common law, too, executors, and at one period
of time administrators, possessed an interest in the residuum of
the estates in their charge which has rarely or never been recog-
nized in the United States.^ It is the policy in this country,
declared and emphasized by the statutes of the several States,
echoed by the courts, and warmly approved by the people, to reduce
the time allowed executors and administrators to close up their
administrations to the briefest period compatible with justice to
creditors. In consequence of this policy, the more speedy settle-
ment of estates has greatly reduced tlie ratio of cases giving rise
to questions involving the necessity of special administrators ;
and the right to administer is itself of far less importance under
American statutes than it was at common law. Hence American
the American policy is to discourage grants of limited co,mf''rspedai
in favor of full administration, whether original or de administrators.

1 See post, § 354. 3 gee ante, p. 403 ; post, % 352.

2 Wms. Ex [479].

404 SPECIAL AND QUALIFIED ADMINISTRATOES. § 183

bonis non, in testate or intestate estates.^ Nevertheless, it some-
times happens that special administrators are necessary to the
accomplishment of justice, and limited administrations are pro-
vided for by the statutes of many States, or recognized as existing
at common law.

Thus it may happen that a person nominated sole executor, or
he to whom the right of administration has devolved under the
statute, may be within age at the time of the testator's or intes-
tate's death. In such case a peculiar administration was grant-
able at common law, known as durante minore cetate, — during the
minority of the executor or administrator entitled to the adminis-
tration ; 2 and the like provisions exist in the American States,-^
distinguishing, in some instances, between the rights of executors
and those of administrators.* The grant in such cases is usually
to the guardian of the minor ;5 but the selection is entirely within
the sound discretion of the court.^

Administrators during minority are said to possess all the au-
thority, for the time being, of general administrators,'^ whatever
may have been the prevailing opinion in earlier times ;^ their acts
are binding upon the estate, and when their office has expired by
reason of the majority of the executor or administrator in his
own right, they are liable to creditors for devastavit,^ but only
to the executor or administrator for the assets ; and if he has
duly administered and turned over the surplus, he may show
this under the plea of plene administravit ^^ in defence of a suit
by creditors.

§ 183. Administrators durante Absentia. — For a reason similar
to that which requires the grant of administration durante minore

1 Schoul. Ex. & Adm. § 135 ; 3 Redf. New York : Blanck v. Morrison, 4 Dem.

on "Wills, 113, pi. 5. 297.

'i Wms. Ex. [479]; Wallis v. Wallis, *' Pitcher y. Armat, 5 How. (Miss.) 288,

1 Winst. 78; Bell, J., in Taylor v. Bar- 289; Wms. [480], citing Briers y. Goddard,

ron, 35 N. H. 484, 493 ; Collins v. Spear, Hob. 250; Thomas v. Butler, Ventr. 217,

Walk. (Miss.) 310. 219; West v. WiUby, 3 Phillim. 374, 379.

3 3 Redf. on Wills, 104, pi. 1. ^ 3 Redf. 106, pi. 4 ; Schoul. Ex. § 132.

* E. g. in Missouri, where administra- ^ Wms. Ex. [488] et seq., citing na-
tion durante minore cetate will be granted merous autliorities.

in case of a minor executor, but the law ^ Wms. Ex. [492], citing Bull, N. P.

is silent as to minor administrators : Rev. 145; Palmer v. Litherland, Latch, 160;

St. 1879, § 14. Packman's Case, 6 Co. 19 ; Chandler v.

5 3 Redf. on Wills, 104, pi. 2, citing Thompson, Hob. 265 6, 266; Lawson v.

Brotherton v. Hellier, 2 Cas. Temp. Lee, Crofts, 1 Sid. 57.

131; In re Sartoris, 1 Curt. 910; Wms. " Anon., 1 Frem. 150; Brooking v.

Ex. [481], and authorities. By statute in Jennings, 1 Mod. 174.

§ 184 TEMPORARY AND LIMITED ADMINISTRATORS. 405

cttate, administrators arc sometimes appointed to take Administrator
charge of estates during the temporary absence from u*j,|fi'^t*j,e'j.e[urn
tlic State of the executor or next of kin entitled to the "^ ^^ absent

executor or

administration.^ At common law this class of admin- administrator,
istrators can be appointed only before probate of the will, or
before the grant of original letters of administration ;2 although
in England the spiritual courts were enabled by statute to grant
special administration where the executor to whom probate had
been granted had absented himself from the jurisdiction of the
English courts.-^ Such authority is not vested in American pro-
bate courts.* The usual course in this country is to
treat prolonged absence from the State, by an executor administrator
or administrator who has made no provision to be rep- pointed if ^^
resented, as a cause for his removal and the appoint- °cuTo"r'*m^ad-
ment of an administrator de bonis non ; and even in ministrator

absent himself.

the case of absence before probate or grant of general
administration, it is more usual, in the absence of statutory pro-
visions directing a different course, to disregard the absent execu-
tor or next of kin and appoint a general administrator at once.'

In those of the States in which non-residents are competent to
act as executors and administrators, the grant may, of course, be
to such non-resident, or to his attorney or nominee ; but such
grants do not constitute administrators durante absentia, whose
office is temporary, ceasing upon the return of the executor or
administrator originally entitled.^

§ 184. Other temporary and limited Administrators. — Several
other instances of temporary or special administrations may be
mentioned, a list of which is furnished in Williams's treatise on
Executors and Administrators ;'^ Schouler mentions them under
the head of " Special Administrations for limited and special

1 Ritchie v. McAuslin, 1 Hayw. 220; * Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 21, citing

Willing V. Perot, 5 Rawle, 264. the manuscript opinion of the Court of

- Wins. Ex. [502], citing 3 Bac. Abr. Appeals of South Carolina in Ford v.

oG, tit. Executors, G; Clare v. Hedges (3 Travis, deciding the grant of adininistra-

W.&M.), cited in 1 Lutw. 342; Lord Holt, tion after probate of a will to be void,

in Slater y. May, 2 Ld. Raym. 1071, saying although the executor is absent,
that this administration stood upon the ^ 3 Redf. on Wills, 111, pi. 2 ; Schoul.

same reason as an administration durante Ex. § 133. See ante, § 182.
minore atate, viz. that there siiould be a ^ Schoul. Ex. § 133, citing Rainsford

person to manage the estate of the testator v. Taynton, 7 Ves. 460, 466.
till the person appointed by him is able. '' Wms. [513].

3 By statute 38 Geo. III. c. 87 (usually
called Simeon's Act).

406 SPECIAL AND QUALIFIED ADMINISTRATOES. § 184

Purposes," ^ and Redfield says of them that, as a general thing,
*' these limited administrations seldom or never obtain in the
American practice, the probate courts preferring, for the conven-
ience and security of all concerned, to have the administration of
the settlement of estates as simple as practicable." ^

It seems necessary, however, to briefly refer to the nature of
tliese peculiar administrations as recognized at common law and
in some of the States, to avoid expense and complication, and
accomplish the protection of estates under peculiar and unusual
circumstances.

Temporary administration becomes necessary if the executor
appointed is directed to take charge of the estate at a time men-
Temporary tioned by the testator, and the latter die before the
appohuecUf time so mentioned; 3 in such case the ofhce of the
befwe a^ '^'^ administrator appointed until the efflux of such time
certain time. ^yj^ correspond cxactly to that of an administrator
durante minore cetate. So where it is known that there is a will,
which cannot at the time be produced for probate, limited admin-
istration may be necessary until its production ; ^ or where the
executor fails to appear, until such time as he comes and proves
the will,^ or till a lost will be found ; ^ or during incapacity of
executor or next of kin entitled to administration.'^

There may be, also, a grant of administration limited to certain
specific effects of the deceased, while the general administration
may be committed to a different person ; ^ a testator may appoint
different executors as to different parts of his estate in the same
country ;^ and where an executor has not qualified to execute a
will disposing of part of the estate only, special administration
may be granted as to so much of the estate as does not pass by
the will.io But such grants are said to be entirely exceptional,
and should not be made unless a very strong reason be given."

1 Schoul. Ex. § 135. My. & K. 3, 4; Goods of Joseph, 1 Curt.

2 3 Redf. on Wills, 113, pi. 5. 907 ; Goods of Southmead, 3 Curt. 28.

8 Wins. Ex. [249,250]. « McNairy v. Bell, 6 Yerg. 302, 304;

* Goods of Metcalfe, 1 Add. 343. Jordan v. Polk, 1 Sneed, 430, 434 ; Goods

5 Wras. Ex. [515], citing 1 Gibs. Cod. of Biou, 3 Curt. 739.

574 ; see also Howell v. Metcalfe, 2 Add. ^ Dorsey, J., in Hunter v. Bryson, 5

348, 350. Gill & J. 483, 488.

6 Goods of Campbell, 2 Hagg. 555. ^^ Dean v. Biggers, 27 Ga. 73, 75.

7 Hills V. Mills, 1 Salk. 36 ; Toller, 99 ; " Wms. Ex. [520] ; Goods of Watts,
Anon., 1 Cas. Temp. Lee, 625; Goods of 1 Sw. & Tr. 538; Goods of Somerset,
Phillips, 2 Add. 336, note (b) ; Goods of L. R. 1 P. & D. 350.

Milnes, 3 Add. 55; Ex parte Evelyn, 2

§ 184 TEMPORARY AND LIMITED ADMINISTRATORS. 407

Special administrators, known as administrators ad litem, are
sometimes appointed for the sole purpose of defending or prose-
cuting particular suits instituted by or against a person who may
die while such suit is pending ; ^ or where a pressing necessity is
shown for carrying on proceedings in chancery, and there is no
general personal representative ; '^ or where the interest of the
general administrator or executor conflicts with tliat of the estate.^
It has been held that probate courts have inherent power to grant
limited administration, within their discretion, whenever it is
necessary for tlie purposes of justice ; * but such administrators
possess no powers except such as are specially granted by the
probate judge at the time of his appointment, and should not be
kept in office longer than may be necessary for the appointment
of a general administration.^

In Texas the testator may direct that no other action shall be
had, in the court having testamentary jurisdiction, in relation to
the settlement of his estate, than the probating and recording of
the will, return of an inventory, appraisement, and list of claims
of his estate; the executor of such a will is known as an "inde-
pendent executor," ^ and the management of the estate thereunder
is recognized as administrationJ

1 Wade V. Bridges, 24 Ark. 569, 572 ; 8 Rgv. St. Mo. 1879, § 207.
Lotlirop's Case, 33 N. J. Eq. 246. See * Martin v. Dry Dock Co., 92 N. Y.
Wolffe V. Eberlein, 74 Ala. 99, 107. 70 ; Per Gray, J., in McArthur v. Scott,

2 VVms. Ex. [522], citing Goods of the 113 U. S. 340, 399.

Elector of Hesse, 1 Hagg. 93 ; Harris v. ^ Dull v. Drake, 63 Tex. 205, 207.

Milburn, 2 Hagg. 62; Maclean v. Daw- » 1 Sayers, Tex. Civ. St. § 1942;

son, 1 Sw. & Tr. 425; Hawarden i'. Dun- Holmes v. Johns, 56 Tex. 41, 51 ; Dwyer

lop, 2 Sw. & Tr. 614 ; Woolley v. Gordon, v. Kalteyer, 68 Tex. 554, 563.
3 Phillim. 314 ; Goods of Dodgson, 1 Sw. & ^ Todd v. Willis, 66 Tex. 704.

Tr. 259 ; Ex parte Lyon, 60 Ala. 650, 653 ;
McArthur v. Scott, 113 U. S. 340, 399.

TITLE THIRD.

OF THE DEVOLUTION TO THE LEGAL REPRE-
SENTATIVES.

PART FIRST.
OF THE ESTATE WITHOUT OFFICIAL REPRESENTATION.

CHAPTER XX.

WHAT MAY BE DONE BEFORE PROBATE OR GRANT OP LETTERS.

§ 185. To whom the Real and to whom the Personal Property
descends. — Upon the death of an owner of property his real
estate descends, at common law, to his heirs or devi-
scendstoheir sccs, siibject, under a series of English statutes, to be
converted into assets for the payment of the owner's
debts, if the personalty be insufficient for that purpose. This lia-
bility, however, does not deflect the course of descent : the per-
sonal representative possesses only the naked power to sell or
lease the real estate, if it become necessary, to pay debts, and
until this power is executed, by order of the court having juris-
diction, the title and its defence, the possession, rents, and profits,
belong to the heirs and devisees.^ The title of the heir or devisee
vests instantly upon the death of the ancestor or testator ; and
when the executor or administrator sells, the sale does not relate
back to the death of the deceased, but takes effect from the time
when made.2 The law is substantially the same in all but six or

1 See post, § 337 et seq., and § 463 et 2 Boynton v. Peterborough R. R. Co.,
seq. 4 Cush. 467, 469.

§ 185 TO WHOM THE PROPERTY DESCENDS. 409

seven of the American States, which have abolished the artificial
common law rule distinp:uishino;, in this respect,

, , , -, ? -, . , Exception in

between real and personal estate, and subject both some of the
classes of property alike to the title of personal repre-
sentatives for the purpose of administration. These exceptions
will be more conveniently noted in connection with the subject of
the liability of real estate for the debts of its deceased owner.^

The personal estate of a decedent, however, passes, as at com-
mon law, so in all the States, with the exception, in personal prop-
some particulars, of Louisiana, to the executor or trti,^!fe^r^^^^^^^^^
administrator.2 This doctrine is so universally ad- representatives.
mitted, that it would be useless to cite any of the numerous
authorities so holding.^

We have already seen, however, that as to the time when the
personal estate vests in the representatives there is, at common
law, a broad distinction between executors and admin- personal estate
istrators.^ It results from the English doctrine as- tw^attestaiOT^'s
cribing the executor's authority to the will itself, of ^^^^^'^
which the probate is but the authenticated evidence,^ that the
property of the deceased vests in the executor from the moment
of the testator's death ; ^ while the administrator, in administra-
whose sole source of authority is the appointment by on/is°.'Jp™ift-
the probate court, can have no power to act before '"^°^-
the grant of letters," although it is said that, when appointed,
his title relates back to the death of the intestate or „ . ,

But title and

testator,** as the probate, when produced, is also said piobate both
to have relation to the testator's death.^ Upon these thifeof death'^of
principles, it is said that "the executor, before he *^« '^^'=*^^^^'i-
proves the .will in the probate court, may do almost all the acts
which are incidental to his office, except only some of those which

1 Post, ch. 1. ; see § 337 et seg., where " Letters testamentary are merely the evi-
a list of the States is given, and § 276. dence establishing that the executor has

2 " By the laws of this realm," says been duly qualified to act " : Succession
Swinburne (pt. 6, § 3, pi. 5), " as the heir of Vogel, 20 La. An. 81, 82.

hatii not to deal with the goods and chat- 6 Wms. Ex. [203], citing Hensloe's

tels of the deceased, no more hatli the Case, 9 Co. 36, 38 a ; Comber's Case, 1 P.

executor to do with the lands, tenements, Wms. 766, 767 ; Smith v. Milles, 1 T. R.

and hereditaments." 475, 480 ; Woolley v. Clark, 5 B. & Aid.

3 A comprehensive list of them is 744; and see Hathorn v. Eaton, 70 Me. 219.
appended by Perkins to his American ' Rand v. Hubbard, 4 Met. (Mass.)
edition of Wms. on Ex. [650], note (d'^). 262, 256.

* ^nte, §§ 171, 172. 8 Drury v. Natick, 10 Allen, 169, 174.

6 Ex parte Fuller, 2 Sto. 327, 332; » See ajite, § 172.

410

WHAT MAY BE DONE BEFORE PEOBATE.

§186

In England relate to suits." ^ He may even commence an action
acrSore'pro- l^eforc the probate, and it was enough that he had ob-
bateof thewiii. taincd letters testamentary and made prof ert of them
at the time of the declaration.^

§ 186. Authority of Executors before Grant of Letters Testamen-
tary. — In most of the American States executors are required to
In America qualify by giving bond and taking the oath of office ;
qualify before Until they havc complied with these conditions they
he can act ; jjg^yg j^q legal powcr to act,^ cxccpt to dcccntly bury
the deceased and to do what may be necessary to preserve the
estate.* Where the statute authorizes the executor to act without
bond, the grant of letters testamentary by the probate court is the
source of his authority, which does not depend for its validity upon
and cannot the manual issuance of the letters.^ Hence the sale

give title to
real estate of
the testator
before grant
of letters, nor
assent to a
legacy; but
may demand
bond, and
appeal from re-
fusal to grant
probate.

or transfer of property by an executor who has not
qualified is void,^ and his assent to a specific legacy
does not pass the legal title to the thing bequeathed.^
But a person nominated as executor has sufficient in-
terest in the estate to demand that one acting as exec-
utor under a former will of the same testator shall give
bond pending the proceeding to establish the later
will,^ and to appeal from the refusal to grant probate;^ and it has
also been held that a foreign executor may, without probate or
grant of letters in the forum of the debtor, make demand for the
payment of a promissory note to his testator, so as to charge
the indorser.i^

^ Wms. Ex. [302]. An executor can
maintain a suit only by virtue of his
letters testamentary : Dixon v. Ramsay,
3 Cr. 319, 323.

2 Thomas v. Cameron, 16 Wend. 579,
580, citing Com. Dig. Administration, B,
9; Bac. Abr. Ex'rs and Adm'rs, E, p. 1,
14; Humbert v. Wurster, 22 Hun, 405,
406; Seabrook v. Freeman, 3 McC. 371.
In Maine he may bring an action of tres-
pass, before probate : Hathorn v. Eaton,
70 Me. 219.

3 Gardner v. Gantt, 19 Ala. 666, 670,
citing earlier Alabama cases ; Wood v.
Cosby, 76 Ala. 557 ; Diamond v. Shell,
15 Ark. 26 ; Echols v. Barrett, 6 Ga. 443,
446 ; Mitchell v. Rice, 6 J. J. Marsh. 623,
627 ; McKeen v. Frost, 46 Me. 239, 248 ;
Stagg V. Green, 47 Mo. 600; Fay v.

Reager, 2 Sneed, 200, 203 ; Kittredge v.
Folsom, 8 N. H. 98, 111 ; Wood v. Sparks,
1 Dev. & B. 389, 396 ; Trask v. Donoghue,
1 Aik. 370, 373.

* McDearmon v. Maxfield, 38 Ark. 631,
636 ; Killebrew v. Murphy, 3 Heisk. 546,
553 ; Luscomb v. Ballard, 5 Gray, 403, 400.
As to the acts rendering one liable as
executor de son tort, see post, §§ 189-191.

° Ludlow V. Flournoy, 34 Ark. 451, 461.

6 Monroe v. James, 4 Munf. 194, 200 ;
Humbert v. Wurster, 22 Hun, 405 ; Car-
ter V. Carter, 10 B. Mon. 327, 330 ; Gay
V. Minot, 3 Cush. 352.

7 Martin v. Peck, 2 Yerg. 298.

^ Cunningham v. Souza, 1 Redf. 462.
9 Shirley v. Healds, 34 N. H. 407, 410.
10 Rand v. Hubbard, 4 Met. (Mass.)
252, 258.

§ 187 AUTHORITY OF ADMINISTKATOliS. 411

In Oregon the sale of property by executors who had not quali-
fied was held good, on the ground that the legal estate was vested
in them merely for the purpose of sale and conveyance ; ^ and in
South Carolina the common law doctrine seems to be still recog-
nized, according to which the executor may, before probate, pos-
sess himself of the property of the testator, pay debts and legacies,
give releases, maintain trespass, trover, or detinue for goods of
the estate in his possession, and sell, give away, or otherwise dis-
pose of the property of the testator.^ Similarly in Maine.^

§ 187. Authority of Administrators before Grant of Letters. — It
is, of course, inaccurate to predicate any authority of an adminis-
trator who is shown by the statement not to be an administrator ;
the phrase is employed to designate those persons who, having a
legal preference or exclusive right to the appointment as admin-
istrator, act for the protection and in the interest of the estate
in anticipation of such appointment. The principle upon which
the acts of an executor are validated upon subsequent probate
of the will or grant of letters testamentary is extended to admin-
istrators, and has been enlarged upon in an earlier chapter treat-
ing of the nature of the title of executors and administrators.^
The decisive test to ascertain whether the acts done . . , .

Acts before

before appointment are legalized or ratified by the appointment
subsequent grant of administration is whether such valid after ap-
acts would have been valid had he been the rightful kgaiiTed by ^
administrator ; 5 the consequences both to the person grant of*''''^
acting and to the estate must be the same as if he ^^"^'■*-
had been legally in charge of the estate.^ The doctrine is stated

1 Hogan V. Wyman, 2 Greg. 302, 304. 3 Hathorn v. Eaton, 70 Me. 219, 220.

2 Magwood V. Legge, Harp. 116, 119. * Ante, ch. xviii. §§ 172, 173, and
It is held in this case that any act which authorities there cited.

would constitute him executor cle son tort, 5 Outlaw r. Farmer, 71 N. C. 31, 35;
as taking possession of the goods and con- Bellinger r. Ford, 21 Barb. 311, 314, and
verting them to his own use, or disposing authorities cited there ; Gilkey v. Haniil-
of them to another, etc., is evidence of the ton, 22 Mich. 283, 280 ; Haselden v. White-
executor's acceptance of the trust: p. 119; sides, 2 Strobh. 353; McClure v. People,
but in a later case it is said that, when 19 111. App. 105.

executors are appointed to sell and con- c Tucker v. Whaley, 11 R. I. 543,

vey lands, a neglect to qualify is prima holding a person who bought hay to feed

/«c-/e evidence of a refusal to act, and will the stock of a decedent, and who was

validate a sale made by the acting exec- afterward appointed administrator, liable

utors : Uldrick v. Simpson, 1 S. C. 283, as administrator personally. An action

280. It is so held in Tennessee : Drane commenced by an administrator before

I'. Bayliss, 1 Humph. 174 ; Robertson v. his appointment must necessarily fail :

Gaines, 2 Humph. 367, 381. Gatfield v. Hanson, 57 How. Pr. 3-31.

412 WHAT MAY BE DONE BEFORE PROBATE. § 187

to be, that the title to the personal property of a decedent is in
abeyance until his executor qualifies, or an administrator is ap-
pointed, when it vests in him by relation from the time of the
death.i It has already been pointed out, that this doctrine is a
fiction of the law to prevent injustice and injuries to estates, and
will never be resorted to where it might unjustly affect the rights
of innocent parties intervening, or to recognize or validate un-
authorized acts in prejudice of the estate.^ The status of an exec-
utor or administrator acting before grant of probate or letters is
very similar to that of an executor de son tort, and it will become
necessary again to allude to the principle upon which their acts,
though unauthorized at the time of commission, become valid and
binding upon the estate by the grant of letters to them.^

1 Per Smith, J., in McDearmon v. 2 Ante, § 173, and authorities.

Maxfield, 38 Ark. 631, 636, citing i. a. 3 See post, eh. xxl. § 188 et seq.

Rattoon v. Overacker, 8 John. 126 ; Priest
V. Watkins, 2 Hill, (N. Y.) 225.

§188 DEFINITION. 41i

CHAPTER XXL

OF EXECUTORS DE SON TORT.

§ 188. Definition. — The common law doctrine ascribing to an
executor authority to act without first qualifying, or going through
any ceremony of authentication or induction into office whatever
which might serve as notice to the public of his official character,
has given rise in the English law to what Mr. Schouler terms
" an official name to an unofficial character ; styling as executor
de son tort — executor in his own wrong — whoever should offi-
ciously intermeddle with the personal property or affairs of a
deceased person, having received no appointment thereto." ^ The
theory of holding an intermeddler liable in the charac- Theory of the
ter which he has himself voluntarily assumed, is not ecutor"^e*soK^"
unjust to him, and may be necessary to the protection '<"■'•
of the interests of creditors, heirs, and legatees of the deceased
person, not only because strangers may naturally conclude that
the person so acting has a will which he has not yet proved, ^ but
for the substantial reason that, by holding him liable in the as-
sumed character, the remedy of parties injured is, at least at com-
mon law, much simplified, and circuity of action avoided. The
harshness of the doctrine, which is complained of by American
writers, is not apparent from the common law standpoint ; and in
some of the States unauthorized intermeddling with the estate of
a deceased person is more severely punished than at common
law.^ However inapt the term and incongruous the gjijj recognized
doctrine may be in America,* it is certainly an essen- i" "^''st states.

1 Schoul. Ex. § 184. common law, coextensive with the value

2 " And in all actions by creditors of the property converted ; in Xew Hamp-
against such an officious intruder, he shall shire it is double such value; in some
be named an executor, generally ; for the other States a penalty is superadded to
most obvious conclusion which strangers the liability.

can form from his conduct is, tiiat he hath •• See post, § 198, where the States are

a will of the deceased, wherein he is mentioned in which the doctrine is not

named executor, but hath not yet taken in force. Mr. Schouler (supra) says :

probate thereof": 2 Bla. Comm. 507, "This designation is inapt, since it applies

citing 5 Kep. 31 ; 12 Mod. 471. the term ' executor ' as well to intestate as

8 The liability of an executor is, at to testate estates, and signifies, moreover,

414

EXECUTORS DE SON TORT.

§188

tial element of the law of administration in most of the American
States, being recognized as in full force in Alabama,^ Connecticut,^
Delaware,^ District of Columbia,* Georgia,^ Illinois,*^ Indiana,'^
lowa,^ Kentucky,^ Louisiana,^'^ Maine,^^ Maryland,^^ Massachu-
setts,^^ Michigan,^* Mississippi,^^ Missouri,!^ New Hampshire,^^
New Jersey ,^^ New York,^^ Pennsylvania,^^ North Carolina,^^ South
Carolina,^^ Tennessee,^^ and Virginia.^* It is therefore important
Unauthorized to define the acts of intermeddling which make one
whh'property liable in sucli Statcs, as executor — or, as is some-
of deceased timcs Cparticularlv in Iowa) said, administrator —

persons creates ^^ •' --^ '

liability. c^g sOTl toH.

The general definition, as given by Swinburne, Godolphin,
and Wentworth, is in these words : " He who takes upon him-
self the office of executor by intrusion, not being so constituted by
the deceased, nor, for want of such constitution, substituted by
the court to administer." ^5 Mr. Williams says : " If one wlio is
neither executor nor administrator intermeddles with the goods of
the deceased, or does any other act characteristic of the office of
executor, he thereby makes himself what is called in the law an
executor of his own wrong, or, more usually, an executor de son

that the person who intended his services
had no legal authority in any sense."
Mr. Redfield (3 Redf. on Wills, p. 21,
note 6) says : " The American courts have
sometimes held such persons Uable to an
action at the suit of creditors of the estate.
But there has always been manifested a
marked disposition here to narrow the
range of such responsibility, and virtually
to expunge the term from the law. It is,
in itself, a subject resting upon no just
basis of correlative rights and responsi-
bilities, but operates chiefly in the nature
of a penalty for intermeddling with the
estates of deceased persons. We have
devoted no space to the topic, in this
work, because it is so nearly obsolete in
the American courts that it would seem
unjust to the profession to tax them with
the expense of what is only speculatively
useful, when so much which is practically
so has to be omitted."

1 Simonton v. McLane, 25 Ala. 353.

2 Bennett v. Ives. 30 Conn. 329.

3 Wilson V. Hudson, 4 Harr. 168.

4 Peters i;.Breckenridge, 2 Cr.C.C. 518.

5 Barron v. Burney, 38 Ga. 201.

6 McClure v. People, 19 III. App. 105,
107.

■^ Brown v. Sullivan, 22 Ind. 359.
^ Elder v. Littler, 15 Iowa, 65.
9 Brown v. Durbin, 5 J.J. Marsh. 170.
1° Succession of Mouton, 3 La. An. 561.

11 White V. Mann, 26 Me. 361.

12 Neale v. Hagthorp, 3 Bland Ch. 551,
565; Baumgartner v. Haas, 68 Md. 32.

I'J Mitchel ('. Lunt, 4 Mass. 654.

n Damouth v. Klock, 29 Mich. 289.

15 Hunt V. Drane, 32 Miss. 243 ; Ellis
V. McGee, 63 Miss. 168.

!*> Foster v. Nowlin, 4 Mo. 18 ; but see
Rozelle v. Harmon, 29 Mo. App. 569, 582.

1' Emery v. Berry, 28 N. H. 473.

18 Parker v. Thompson, 30 N. J. L. 311.

19 ScoviUe V. Post, 3 Edw. 20-3. But in
this State the office of executor c?e son tort is
now abolished by statute : 2 Rev. St. 440,
§ 17 ; Banks & Bro., 7th ed., p. 2395, § 17.

2J Crunkleton t). Wilson, 1 Browne, 361.

21 Bailey v. Miller, 5 Ired. L. 444.

22 Hubble V. Fogartie, 3 Rich. 413.

23 Mitchell V. Kirk, 3 Sneed, 319.
21 Hansford v. Elliott, 9 Leigh, 79.
25 Schoul. Ex. § 184, note (1).

§189

ACTS WHICH CllEATE THE LIABILITY.

415

tort" ^ In New Hampshire, where the statute makes an intermed-
dler liable in double the value of the property intermeddled with,
the rule is laid down, that "all aets which assume any particular
control over the property, without legal right shown, will make a
person executor in his own wrong, as against creditors. Any act
which evinces a legal control, by possession, direction, or other-
wise, will, unexplained, make him liable." ^

§ 189. Acts which create the Liability. — Very slight circum-
stances of intermeddling with the goods of a deceased person will
make one liable as executor de son tort. Mr. Williams alludes to
some ancient cases in which the milking of a cow by Milking a cow;
the widow, taking a dog, a bedstead,^ a Bible,* were taking a dog, a

' ^ '=" . bedstead, a

held sufficient, as indicia of being the representative of Bible;

the deceased.^ Killing the cattle,^ using, selling, or killing cattle,

" ' . . using, selling,

giving away the goods," or taking them in satisfaction or giving away

the goods*

of a debt or legacy,^ will render one liable as executor , , . ' , .

* •' ' taking goods m

de son tort. The wife of the deceased taking more ap- satisfaction of a

, . • 1 1 n ... fiebt or legacy ;

parel than she is entitled to,^ or continuing in posses- taking- apparel-
sion of his goods and using them as her own,!*^ and a widow retain-
daughter carrying on the business with them,^^ is lia- imfoLn^d;^ °

1 Wms. Ex. [257].

2 Emery v. Berry, 28 N. H. 473, 483,
citing, as sustaining the position an-
nounced, 2 Bac. Abr. 387 ; 5 Coke, 33 b ;
Edwards v. Harben, 2 T. R. 587, 597;
Padget V. Priest, 2 T. R. 97 ; Campbell v.
Tousey, 7 Cow. 64 ; White v. Mann. 26
Me. 361 ; Wilson v. Hudson, 4 Harr. 168;
Hubble V. Fogartie, SRich. 413 ; 1 Saund.
265, note.

2 Robbin's case, Noy, 69.

* Toller, 38.

6 Schouler deems it absurd that the
milking of a cow by the widow of the
deceased should expose her to the lia-
bility of executrix de son tort, not on
account of the trivial nature of the trans-
action, but because milking was in the
interest of the estate, — as conducing to
the health of the cow, and saving a per-
ishable commodity for account of a rep-
resentative subsequently appointed. It
is probable, however, that the milking
was not in the interest, but to the depri-
vation, of the estate, because acts of kind-
ness and charity never subjected any

one, even in the times of Godolphin,
Dyer, and Wentworth, who report the
above cases, to the hazard of executor-
ship de son tort. And the trivial acts
complained of were probably looked
upon as an indication of the wrong, —
the straw moved by the wind, — not as
the wrong itself, unless tl:e articles men-
tioned were of more than ordinary value.

•5 Godolphin, pt. 2, c. 8, s. 4.

' Gilchrist, J , in Leach v. Pillsbury,
15 N. H. 187, 139, citing Read's Case, 5
Coke, 34, and Mountford v. Gibson, 4 East,
441. See Baumgartner ;•. Haas, 68 Md. 32.

8 Ewing, J., in Stephens v. Rarnett, 7
Dnna,257, 262, citing Bethel r. Stanhope,
1 Cro. Eliz. 810. See also Bacon c. Parker,
12 Conn. 212, 216.

9 Wms. Ex. [258], citing Stokes v.
Porter, Dyer, 166 ft; 1 Roll. Abr. 918;
Wentw., c. 14, p. 325, 14th ed. ; Godolph.,
pt. 2, c. 8, s. 1 ; Swinb., pt. 4, s. 23.

1'^ Madison v. Shnckley, 41 Iowa, 451 ;
Hawkins v. Johnson, 4 Blackf. 21, 22.

" Hooper v. Summersett, Wightw. 16,
as cited by Wms. Ex. [2-59].

416 EXECUTORS DE SON TORT. § 190

husband retain- ]j[q as executrix de son tort ; ^ and so, it seems, is a

ing goods of ,„.,,.,.,

wife. husband who retains possession oi his deceased wile s

property, which she held jointly with the next of kin of her for-

Not in respect mer husband.^ Although there can be no exccutor-

'*"'^' . ship <ie son tort\f\t\\ respect to lands, because inter-

nor of teiTn in ^ * ^

reversion; fercnce therewith is a wrong to the heir or devisee,^ nor

of a term of years in reversion, because it is incapable of entry .^

Entry upon the land leased to the decedent and pos-

but entrv upon • i • ^

leasehold in scssiou claiming the particular estate constitutes a tort
createTthe cxccutor of a term for years.''^ So the heirs of a mort-
labi ity. gagee who had not taken possession were held liable

as executors de son tort for entering to foreclose, and taking the
rents and profits, to the extent of the rents received.^

Demanding and receiving the debts of the deceased,''' or making
acquittances for them, is such intermeddling as to create the lia-
bility of executor de son tort ; or even paving the de-

Collecting *' i . " -ii a r

debts due to Cedent's debts, or the fees for proving his will,^ out of
the estate ; ^ likewise, if a man sue as executor, or to
an action brought against him as such pleads in that character.i*^

§ 190. Status of the Person, and other Circumstances fixing the
Liability. — Mr. Williams cites an English case in which it was
Master and ^^^^ that, if a man's servant sells the goods of the de-
servant, or ceased, as well after his death as before, by the direc-

principal and . . ,.,.(..

agent, may tiou of the dcccased given in his lifetime, and pays

both be liable ,, .. ., o •j_j_ii i xi*

as executors the moucy arising thereirom into the hands oi his
de son tort. niastcr, tliis makes the master, as well as the servant,

^ The widow was held not liable in * Wms. [258], citing Kenrick v. Bur-

an action at law for a debt due from the ges, Moore, 126.

estate, although she had possession of ^ Mayor of Norwich v. Johnson, 3

some goods belonging to the estate ; Lev. 35 ; Garth v. Taylor, 1 Freem. 261.

Chandler v. Davidson, 6 Blackf. 367. ^ They were held liable to the mort-

And where a wife in destitute circum- gagor in a bill to redeem, even after the

stances uses the property of the absent time for redemption, if they had been

husband in the support of his family, lawful executors, had expired : Haskins

before any certain news of his death, v. Hawkes, 108 Mass. 379, 381.

she is not liable ; Brown v. Benight, 3 "> Swift w. Martin. 19 Mo. App. 488,

Blackf. 39, 41. See also post, § 191. 489, 492.

2 Phallon V. Honseal, 3 McCord, Ch. 8 Wms. [258], citing Godolph.. pt. 2,

423. c. 8, § 1 ; Swinb., pt. 4, § 23.

" Nass V. Van Swearingen, 7 S. & R. ^ Paying the decedent's debts with

192, 195 ; King v. Lyman, 1 Root, 104 ; one's own money does not make one

Mitchel ?;. Lunt, 4 Mass. 654, 658; Claus- executor de son tort: Carter v. Robbins,

sen r. Lafrenz, 4 G. Greene, 224 ; Morrill 8 Rich. 29.

V. Morrill, 13 Me. 416. w Davis v. Connelly, 4 B. Mon. 136, 140.

§ 190 STATUS OF THE PERSON. 417

executor de son tort} So tlio agent of an executor de son tort,
collecting the assets with a knowledge that they belong to the
testator's estate, and that his principal is not the legal repre-
sentative, may himself be treated as an executor de son tort? It
was held in Missouri, that a person cannot be charged as an exec-
utor of his own wrong, by reason of acts done as the agent or
servant of another;^ but the opinion in emphatic terms dwells on
the innocent character of, the defendant's acts, and is hence con-
sistent with the qualification to this statement confining it to cases
where the agent was not aware of his principal's want of author-
ity. In this sense it is in harmony with the English and other
American cases.*

Creditors of a deceased person, who, knowing that Creditors who

r6C G 1 V G r );l \* -

no administration has been granted, receive payment ment of their
of their claims from the widow, are liable to the ad- the widow"
ministrator subsequently appointed, as executors de shlTil'no/afU
son tort^ Donees and vendees holding property under ">"nstratrix;
fraudulent gifts or sales to them are liable as execu- fraudulent

^ _ donees and

tors de son tort^ to creditors, although they may not vendees.
be to rightful executors or administrators in States in which the
personal representatives are not permitted to avoid the fraudulent
conveyances of their testators or intestates.''

A person acting under void letters of administration has been
described as an executor de son tort ; ^ and likewise an admin-
istrator ad colUqendum. who, in excess of his authoritv tt • , ,

. . . " Void letters no

as special administrator, sells or disposes of any goods, relief against
even though they were otherwise subject to perish,
and although his letters ad colligendum warranted him thereto ;
for the judge himself could not confer such authority.^ Administrator
One who administers upon the estate of a fraudulent assignel^ilabie.

1 Wms. [259], citing Padget v. Priest, Kimball, 15 Me. 116 ; Sturdivant v. Davis,
2 T. R. 97. 9 Ired. L. 365, 367 ; Crunkleton v. Wil-

2 Sharland v. Mildon, 5 Hare, 468 ; son, 1 Browne, 361, .364 ; Clayton v.
Ambler v. Lindsay, L. R. 3 Ch. D. 198, Tucker, 20 Ga. 452, 464 ; Warren v. Hall,
206; Turner v. Child, 1 Dev. L. 331. 6 Dana, 450, 454.

3 Magner v. Ryan, 19 Mo. 196, 199. ^ deaton v. Lewis, 24 Ga. 209; Dor-
* Givens v. Higgins, 4 McCord, 280 ; sey v. Smlthson, 6 Harr. & J. 61, 64 ;

Brown v. Sullivan, 22 Ind. 359; Perkins Hopkins v. Towns, 4 B. Mon. 124; Si-

V. Ladd, 114 Mass. 420, 428. montnn v. McLane, 25 Aln. 3-")3 ; Tucker

5 Mitchell r. Kirk, 3 Sneed, 319, 321, v. Williams, Dudley, (S. C.) 32o!
citing Mountford v. Gibson, 4 East, 441. » Bradley v. Commonwealth, 31 Pa.

•> Gleaton v. Lewis, 24 Ga. 209 ; Gar- St. 522.
ner v. Lyles, 35 Miss. 176, 185; Allen v. » Wms. Ex. [258], citing Anon., Dyer,

VOL. I. — 27

418

EXECUTORS DE SON TORT.

§191

assignee, and takes possession of the goods assigned, may, upon
the death of the assignor, be sued as executor de son tort by the
creditors of the latter ;i but such suit lies against him only in his
representative character, not personally.^

§ 191. Acts of Intermeddling -which do not create the Liability. —
There are many acts which a stranger may perform without in-
curring the hazard of making himself liable as executor de son
tort ; notably, all acts or othces of mere kindness and
charity,^ and looking to the preservation of the prop-
erty.* Mr, Williams mentions such as locking up the
goods for preservation,^ directing the fancral and pay-
ing the expenses thereof out of his own means or out
of the effects of the deceased,^ making an inventory of his property,"
feeding his cattle,^ repairing his houses, or providing necessaries
Widow using for his children.^ Where the property left is not.
her'^by^iaw^not gi^eatcr iu amouut than is allowed by law for the im-
liabie. mediate support of the family, a widow is not liable as

executrix de son tort for so using the assets ;^° and so where the

Acts of charity
and kindness,
and simple
preservation
of tlie ))rop-
erty, create no
liabilit}'.

256 a; Wentw., c. 14, p. 324, 14th ed. ;
Godolph., pt. 2, c. 8, § 1.

1 McMorine v. Storey, 4 Dev. & B.
189, 191 ; Norfleet v. Riddick, 3 Dev. L.
221.

•■i Alfriend v. Daniel, 48 Ga. 154.

3 Graves v. Poage, 17 Mo. 91, 97.
Says Judge Gamble, in this case: "It
is impossible that any person can believe
that it was the defendant's duty to leave
the gold and other effects upon the
ground, or in the tent where Graves died,
exposed to every marauder who might
pass by. The Israelites were taught bet-
ter law when they were commanded in
this language : Thou shalt not see thy
hrotlier's ox or his sheep go astray and
liide thyself from them : thou shalt in
any case bring them to thy brother. And
if thy brother be not nigh unto thee, or
if thou know him not, then thou shalt
bring it unto thine own house, and it shall
be with thee until thy brother seek after
it, and thou shalt restore it to him again.
In like manner shalt thou do with his
ass, and so shalt thou do with his rai-
ment, and with all lost things of thy
brother's."

■1 " Whoever comes into possession of
any portion of the personal property of

an intestate becomes responsible for it
to the administrator when appointed. He
cannot safely deliver it to any one else
than the administrator, or some one who
shows a better right to it than himself.
. . . This mere possession of the personal
property of a decedent, and consequent
duty to preserve and protect it, entitles
the possessor to the ordinary legal rem-
edies against a mere wrongdoer ; that is,
any one who interferes with the prop-
erty without a better right " : Cullen v.
O'Hara, 4 Mich. 132, 136 et seq., with nu-
merous authorities.

5 Wms. Ex. [261] ; Godolph., pt. 2,
c. 8, § 6 ; lb., § 3, where a man but took
a horse of the deceased and tied him in
his own stable ; Wentw. Ex. 325, 14th ed.
See Brown v. Sullivan, 22 Ind. 359.

6 Harrison v. Rowley, 4 Ves. 212, 216,
and numerous writers.

" Godolph., pt. 2, c. 8, § 6.

8 Ibid. § 8.

9 Ibid. § 6.

w Craslin v. Baker, 8 Mo. 437, 441.
This case was decided before the enact-
ment of the statute, similar in effect to
statutes passed in other States, author-
izing the probate court to dispense with
administration in such cases.

§ 192 INTERMEDDLING NOT CREATING LIABILITY. 419

widow supports the family of one absent from home before cei-tain
news of his death ;^ or, being compelled to vacate the premises,
moves the furniture, partly to an auction- room to l)0 sold, and
partly to another house to be used by her, with the intention of
accounting to a proper representative ;2 or where she appropriates
the wearing apparel, of less value than debts which she paid.^
Courts sometimes refuse to hold one lialjle as executor de son
tort who in good faith interferes, paying debts and assisting the
beneficiaries of the estate.*

The purchaser from an executor de son tort does not by his
purchase become executor de son tort himself;*^ and Purchaser

c T r • I • r • 1 ^rom an ex-

the possession of property under a fair clann oi right ecutor r/e ao«
docs not render one liable as such ;^ and in such case self liable.
the bona fides is a question of fact, referable to the jury, and it
is error for the court to decide it.'^

No action can be maintained against any one, as executor de
son tort, who has not interfered with personal property No one liable
of a deceased person.** ihe intermeddling with the himself inter-
goods of a partnership after the death of one of the no^r one inter-
partners does not constitute an executor de son tort, partnership''^
because such person is liable to the surviving part- effects;

^ or nor for setting

ner;^ nor for setting up a claim against goods of the up a claim

-, , f . . . ,, . , ,„ P asrainst the

intestate, and thereby injuring their sale ; ^" nor tor estate.
paying money found upon the person of the deceased to his ad-
ministrator in another State.^^

§ 192. Coexistence of Executor or Administrator de Jure and de
son Tort. — It is sometimes said that at common law the inter-
meddling with the goods of an estate, if probate or letters have

1 Brown v. Benight, 3 Blackf. 39; Edwards, 5 Ala. 31,3(i; Claussen v. La-
Chaniller v. Davidson, 6 Blackf. 367. See frenz, 4 G. Greene, 2-24 ; O'Reilly (-•. Hen-
ante, § 189. dricks, 2 Sm. & M. 388 ; Debesse r. Na-

2 Peters v. Leeder, L. J. 47 Q. B. 573. pier, 1 McCord, lOG ; Alexander r Kelso,

3 Taylor v. Moore, 47 Conn. 278, tlie IBaxt 5; Baumgartneri-. Haas, 08 Md. 32.
reason given being that hy her acts ' "Ward r Bevill, 10 Ala. 197, 202.
the widow did not injure, but benefited, ^ Hence the donee of a voluntary con-
tlie estate. veyance of real and personal property,

■* Portraan i'. Klemisli, 54 Iowa, 198. who disi)o.«ed of the same during the life-

5 Smith V. Porter, 35 Me. 287, 290, time of the donor, is not so liable : Mor-

citing 9 Ad. & El. 365 (probably a mis- rill v. Morrill, 13 Me. 415.

quotation) ; Johnson r. Gaither, Harp. G ; ^ Hunt i\ Drane, 32 Miss. 243; Palm-

Nesbit (,'. Taylor, 1 Rice. 296. er r. Ma.xwell, 11 Nebr. 598.

^ Smith V. Porter, supra, citing Fern- i* Barnard i-. Gregory, 3 Dev. L. 223.

ings V. Jarrat, 1 Esp. 335 ; Densler v. ii Nisbet v. Stewart, 2 Dev. & B. L. 24.

420 EXECUTOES DE SON TORT. § 193

At common been granted, does not constitute the intermeddlcr
!Hing"wiXef-" ^^ executor de son tort^ because creditors may bring
fects in custody their action against the riglitful reiDresentative, and

ot an executoi- " o i ■>

or administra- the intermcddlcr is liable as a trespasser.^ This

tor crCtittis no

liability as ex- statement is to be understood as simply affecting the
^w" °biit*^aTa remedy against one who interferes with the effects or
trespasser. property of an estate in the hands of a legally con-
stituted executor or administrator ; the interference is a trespass,
^ . , and punishable as such.^ But the liability as executor

Existence of ' . •'

a rightful ex- de SOU tort is uot cxcludcd by the fact that there is a

Gcutor clo6s

not exclude lawful representative of the estate. Where a fraudu-
executor'*rfe ^^nt grantee is in possession of property conveyed to
son tort. j^jj^ ^jj derogation of the rights of creditors, or has

become liable by reason of having disposed of such property after
the grantor's death, the rightful executor or administrator can-
not, in many if not most of the States, proceed against the
grantee ; the fraudulent transaction being good as against the
grantor and all claiming through him. In such States the remedy
of the creditors is against such grantee as executor de son tort,
although there be a lawful executor.^ And it is stated by Wil-
liams, that " though there be a lawful executor or administrator,
yet if any other take the goods claiming them as executor, or pays
debts or legacies, or intermeddles as executor, in this case, because
of such express claiming to be executor, he may be charged as
executor of his own wrong, although there were another executor
of right."*

§ 193. Nature of the Liability of Executors de son Tort. — An
Executor de cxecutor de son tort has all the liabilities, though none
toVe' rightful of ^^6 privileges, that belong to the character of exec-
adminTstra- utor.^ He is liable to be sued by the rightful executor

1 Wms. Ex. [261], citing Anon., 1 Salk, Dorsey v. Smitlison, 6 Harr. & J. 61, 60 ;
313 ; Godolph., pt. 2, ch. 8, § 3. See also Chamberlayne v. Temple, 2 Kami. 384,
McMorine v. Storey, 3 Dev. & B. 87; 397; Shields v. Anderson, 3 Leigh, 729;
Bacon r. Parker, 12 Conn. 212, 216; and Osborne v. Moss, 7 Johns 161, 164, citing
remarks, cited by Williams, supra, of Ashby v. Child, Styles, 384. And see
Lord Kenyon, in Hall v. Elliot, Peake authorities cited an<e, § 100, p. 417, notes
M. P. C. 86, 87, and Sir T. Plumer, M. R., 6 and 7.

in Tomlin v. Beck, 1 Turn. & R. 438. i Wms. Ex. [261], citing Read's case,

2 Schoul. Ex. § 197, citing 1 Salk. 313, 5 Co. 34, and other authorities.

supra. 5 Schoul. Ex. § 187, quoting Lord

3 Foster v. Nowlin, 4 Mo. 18,24; How- Cottenham in Carmichael v. Carmichael,
land V. Dews, R. M. Cliarlt. 383, 387 ; 2 Pliiil. Ch. 101.

§ 198 NATURE OF THE LIABILITY. 421

or administrator,^ by a creditor,'-^ or by a legatee ;3 tor rroditor,

' '' •' '^ or legatee;

but not, it seems, to the next of kin, so long as any ^J^^^ {„ „gj.j
debts remain unpaid,^ thougli otherwise where there ali'^Jy^^'^re
are no debts owing.^ It has also been held that the pai^i-
executor de son tort cannot be called to account before the probate
court ; ^ and in some of the States he is not answerable in a
direct action by a creditor for the debt, but must be proceeded
against in an action to account for the property intermeddled
with."

The action by a creditor must name him as executor gener-
ally;^ but his liability is in its nature essentially dis- Action by a
tinct from that of an executor duly appointed : the ^'"e^iito'"-
one is founded on the principle of lawful authority, the other,
whatever may be the form of the action employed, arises out
of a wrong done.^ Hence the executor de son tort cannot plead
the limitation prescribed for actions against executors and ad-
ministrators,^*^ but is liable as executor of an executor for the
debt of the original testator. ^^ If there be also a lawful ex-
ecutor, they may be joined in the suit, or sued severally ; but
a lawful administrator cannot be joined in the suit with an
executor de son tort.^ But if the executor de son tort, who be-

1 Muir V. Trustees, &o., 3 Barb. Ch. ^ ^ee v. Gibbons, 14 S. & R. 105, 110
477, 479 ; Stockton v. Wilson, 3 Fa. 129, et seq. ; Bryant v. Helton, 66 Ga. 477.
130; McCoy v. Payne, 68 Ind. 327, 332, 6 Per Tilgliman, . I., in Peebles' Appeal,
citing Ferguson v. Barnes, 58 Ind. 169 ; 15 S. & R. .39, 41 ; Power's Estate, 14
Shaw V. Hallihan, 46 Vt. 389, 393. Phila. 289. The reason given is that an

2 Elder v. Littler, 15 Iowa, 65 ; Wnis. executor de son tort has never acted un-
[265], citing Webster v. Webster, 10 Ves. der an officer having jurisdiction, but
93; Ambler v. Lindsay, L. R. 3 Ch. D. under usurped authority onl}-.

198, 207 ; Coote r. Whittington, L. R. 16 1 McCoy r. Payne, 68 Ind. 327, 333,

Eq. 534. In Georgia, where a wife as citing Northwestern Conference r. Myers,

e.xecutrix de son tort of her husband's 36 Ind. 375 ; Wilson v. Davis, 37 Ind. 141 ;

estate, having sold all the personalty of Leonard r. Blair, 59 Ind. 510,

the estate and left the county with it, * Brown r. Durbin, 5 J. J. Marsh. 170,

sued on a promissory note made to her 172; Buckminstcr f. Ingham. Brayt. 116 ;

individually, the defendant was allowed Pleasants r. Glasscock, 1 Sni. & M. Ch.

to set off a claim for medical services due 17, 23: Gregory e. Forrester, 1 McCord,

him by the decedent, the plaintiff being Ch. 318, 326; Lee v. Chase, 58 Me. 432,

sole heir of her husband and having no 435.

property of her own wiiich could be ^ Brown r. Leavitt, 26 N. H. 493, 495.

reached: Harwood v. Andrews, 71 Ga. ^^ Brown r. Leavitt, s«/)ra.

784. " Meyrick r. Anderson, 14 Ad. & El.

3 Hansford i\ Elliott, 9 Leigh, 79, 85. (Q. B.) 719, 725.

* Lee r. Wright, 1 Rawle, 149, 150; 12 w'ms. Ex. [266], citing Wentw. 328,
Mnir v. Trustees, &-c., 3 Barb. Ch. 477 ; 14th ed. : Godolph.. pt. 2, c. 8, § 2 ; Com.
Leacli c. Pillsbury, 15 N. H. 137, 139. Dig. Administrator, c. 3.

422 EXECUTORS DE SON TORT. § 194

came such by reason of holding property fraudulently granted
to him by the deceased, is afterward appointed administrator,
the creditor has his election to charge him as executor or as
administrator.^

If the executor de son tort should, to a suit by a creditor, plead

ne unques executor, the issue would, on proof of acts constituting

him executor de son tort, be found against him, and

Jiid<;;inent if ii i ji j ji i • i-rv

i)ieaotMe the judgment thereon would be that the piamtiii re-

^^hrfouncT' cover the debt and costs out of the assets of the tcsta-
against him. ^^^,^ .^. ^j^^ defendant have so much, but if not, then

out of the defendant's own goods.^

Executors </e Exccutors de SOU tort are not allowed to retain

rerain'forTek ^^^ their own debts,^ although of superior degree to
own debts. ^hat of the creditor suing ; * nor is it a defence that
he is legatee.^

§ 194. Extent of their Liability to Creditors. — The liability of

an executor de son tort does not, at common law, extend beyond

the goods which he has administered ; for while he is

ExGCutor cic

son tort uot not allowcd, by his own wrongful act, to acquire any
tile goodr" benefit, yet he is protected, if he pleads properly, for
**'"''"' all acts other than those for his own advantage,

which a rightful executor might do.*^ Thus he may, to an action
by a creditor, plead i^Zewe administravit, or plene ad-
ple^eldmtn- mimstravU prceter, etc., and support this plea by proof
istravU. ^^ payment of all just debts to any other creditor in

equal or superior degree, as in due course of administration ; ' and

1 Stephens v. Barnett, 7 Dana, 257, Co. 30, cited by Chapman, C J., in Carey
262, citing Betliel o. Stanhope, 1 Cro. 810. v. Guillow, 105 Mass. 18, 21 ; Turner v.

2 On the same ground upon which a Child, 1 Dev. L. 331, 333, citing Alexan-
like judgn^ent would go against a right- der v. Lane, Yelv. 137; Kinard v. Young,
ful executor or administrator, if defeated 2 Rich. Eq. 247, 252 ; Partee v. Caughran,
on the plea of ne ?(n7!(es,— because he 9 Yerg. 460; Shields v. Anderson, 3
wilfully pleaded a false plea, — the fact Leigh, 729 ; Brown v. Leavitt, 26 N. H.
of intermeddling being as fully within his 493, 497 ; Baumgartner v. Haas, 68 Md. 32.
knowledge as that of appointment in the ^ Wms. [269], citing Vernon v. Curtis,
knowledge of an executor dejurf. Hub- 2 H. Bl. 18.

bell V. Fogartie, 1 Hill, ( S. C. ) L. 167. 169 ; ^ Wilbourn r. Wilbourn, 48 Miss. 38,

Campbell v. Tousey, 7 Cow. 64, 68 ; 45.

Peters v. Breckenridge, 2 Cr. C. C. 518. ^ Wms. [267], and Perkins's note a,

s " For otherwise," says Williams, citing English and American autliorities.

p. [269], "the creditors of the deceased See Brown v. Walter, 58 Ala 310, 313.

would be running a race to take posses- ^ Glenn v. Smith, 2 Gill & J. 493, 513;

sion of his goods, without taking admin- Sewall, J., in Weeks v. Gibhs, 9 Mass. 74,

istration to him." See Coulter's case, 5 77 ; Olmsted v. Clark, 30 Conn. 108.

§ 194 EXTENT OF THEIR LIABILITY TO CIIEDITORS. 423

he is not cliarg-cable, under such plea, beyond the assets which
came to his hands.i And even after action brought he may apply
the assets in hand to the i)aymcnt of a debt of superior degree,
and plead such payment in bar of the action ;'^ and he may also
give in evidence, under the same plea, that he has delivered the
assets to the rightCul executor or administrator before action
brought.^ An executor de son tort may well plead ne unques exe-
cutor, and also plene administravit, and have verdict on the latter
issue if unsuccessful in the former."* He may deny the authority
of the creditor to sue, as being barred by limitation ; '" and the
creditor must affirmatively show that the goods intermeddled
with were such as the creditors were entitled to have placed in the
hands of an administrator.*^

In America, the liability of executors de son tort is, in many of
the States, fixed by statute, and is generally limited by the
value of the goods intermeddled with ; ^ in Indiana,^ Liability of
Georgia,^ and North Carolina,io a penalty is super- lon7oT£ed
added, and in New Hampshire it is double the value by statutes.
of the property intermeddled with.^i It is self-evident that, if he
undertake to show the application of the assets of the deceased
to the payment of his debts, he will not be protected unless the
payment was made under circumstances which would protect a
rightful administrator ; ^^ hence, if he has paid more than the just
dividend to one or more creditors, he will be liable to others, in

1 Wms. [267], citing Dyer, 156 h, mar- ^ Goff v. Cook, 73 Ind. 351; Kahn r.
gin ; 1 Saund. 265, note 2, to Osborne v. Tinder, 77 Ind. 147.

Rogers ; Hooper v. Summersett, Wightw. "^ Hill v. Henderson, 1-3 Sm. & :\[. 688;

21, per curiam ; Yardley v. Arnold, Carr. Leach v. House, 1 Bai. 42, 43; McKenzie

& M. 434; Truett y. Cummons, 6 111. r. Pendleton, 1 Bush. 164; Cook r. San-

App. 73; McKenzie y. Pendleton, 1 Bush, ders, 15 Rich. 63; Kinard v. Young, 2

1(54. Rich. Eq. 247; Elder v. Littler, 15 Iowa,

2 Oxenham v. Clapp, 2 B. & Ad. 309. 65; Glenn v. Smith, '2 Gill & J. 493, 51-3.

3 Wms. |207], and authorities. But ® Wilson v. Davis, 37 Ind. 141, 145
theappointmentof an administrator since (adding ten per centum to the value of
the institution of the suit, without aver- the property converted).

ment that the assets liave been delivered, ^ Per McCay, J., in Alfriend v. Daniel,

is no defence: McMeekin v. Hynes, 80 48 Ga. 154, 156.

Ky. 343. ^'^ But the provision does not apply to

* Blithe cannot have a separate trial every one who may be e.xecutor Jeso/i ^ort:

of each of the pleas of non assumpsit, ne Currie r. Currie, ViO N. C. 553.

unques executor, and that he never inter- " Bellows v. Goodall, 32 N. H. 97 ;

meddled : Brodnax v. Brown, Dudley, Gen. L. 1881, ch. 195, § 15.

(Ga.) 202, citing English authorities on i- See cases infra, § 195, as to the

pleading. liability of an executor de son tort in a suit

s Brown v. Leavitt, 26 N. H. 493, 497. by the rightful administrator.

424 EXECUTORS DE SON TOUT. § 195

excess of the amount of assets received, in such amount as may
be necessary to make up their just proportion.^

§ 195. Liability to the rightful Executor or Administrator. — The
liability of an executor de son tort at the suit of a rightful execu-
tor or administrator ^ is necessarily different from that to a credi-
tor, for this among perhaps other reasons, that the intermeddling
with the assets of an estate undei' legal administration involves an
element of wrong not included in the intermeddling when there
is no lawful representative; viz, the infringement of the rights of
Executor (fe sow ^hc cxccutor or administrator.^ Hence to an action by
tort cannot ^jjg rightful executor or administrator the executor de

plead plene ad- "

ministravit, son tort cauuot plead in bar the payment of debts, etc.

etc., to an ac-
tion by the to the value of the assets, or that he has given the

tor or admiu- ' goods in Satisfaction of the debts ; ^ and although
istratov; under a plea of the general issue, in an action of tres-

pass or trover by a rightful executor or administrator, the pay-
ments proved to have been made by the executor de son tort
amount to the full value of the goods, yet there must be judgment
for at least nominal damages.^ He may prove, how-

but mav prove , '=' , ...

payments of evcr, uudcr the general issue, in mitigation of dam-
iication of agcs, payments made by him in the rightful course of

amages. administration, because it is no detriment to the ad-

ministrator de jure that such payments were made by the executor
de son tort.^ But, without statutory authority to such effect, he
cannot in an action of trover give in evidence payment of debts
to the value of goods still in his possession, but only such as were

' Gay V. Lemle, 32 Miss. 309, 312 ; entitled to sliow that he had administered

Bennett v. Ives, 30 Conn. 329, 3-35. the assets, but doubts wjietlier it is to be

2 Ante, § 193. understood as overruling the cases allow-

3 In the American States executors ing the defendant to recoup payments in
and administrators are generally allowed due course of administration in mitigation
a compensation in the shape of com- of damages.

missions on the amount of property ^ Chapman, C. J, in Carey v Guillow,

administered, the deprivation of which 105 Mass. 18, 21, citing Whiteliall v.

may constitute an element of wrong to Squire, Carth. 103, 104 ; Mountford v.

them. Gibson, supra; Icely v. Grew, 6 Nev. &

* Wms. [270], and English authorities Man. 467, 469 note (a) ; see also Saam v.

there cited ; Buchanan, C. J., in Glenn v. Saam, 4 Watts, 432 ; Keagan ;'. Long, 21

Smith, 2 Gill & J. 493, 513. Ind. 264, 265; Tobey v. Miller, .54 Me.

5 Anon., 12 Mod. 441; Lord Ellen- 480, 482; Dorsett v. Frith, 25 Ga. 537,

horough, in Mountford v. Gibson, 4 East, 542 (otherwise under the Code : Barron

441, 447 ; Woolley v. Clark, 5 B. & Aid. v. Burney, 38 Ga. 264, 268) ; McConnell v.

744, 746, of which case Mr. Williams says McConnell, 94 III. 295, 298; Hostler v.

that it holds that the defendant was not Scull, 2 Hayw. 179.

§ 196 EFFECT OF THE APPOINTMENT. 425

sold ;^ and such recoupment is only allowed if the assets are sufTi-
cient to pay all the debts of the deceased, because otherwise the
rightful administrator would be precluded from giving preference
to one creditor over another, which is his privilege at common
law, and from retaining for his own debt in priority to other credi-
tors of equal degree ; ^ and where neither the right to prefer nor
that of retainer exists, as in most of the American States, he
would be prevented ^rom paying all of the creditors their just
dividends.^ And he cannot, a fortiori, be allowed for debts volun-
tarily paid in a State where such voluntary payment is not a
proper credit in favor of a rightful executor or administrator.*

An executor de so7i tort who has used the assets of an estate in
the ])ayment of debts, and for the use and benefit of those who
would have been entitled to it in due course of administration,
will be protected in equity against the suit of an administrator
appointed subsequently, because the appointment of an admin-
istrator under such circumstances is a useless and expensive
ceremony.^

§ 196. Effect of the Appointment of an Executor de son Tort upon
his previous tortious Acts. — It has already been mentioned, that
the grant of letters to an executor or administrator relates back,
so as to legalize all previous acts within the authority and scope
of a rightful representative.^ This doctrine is obvi-
ously applicable to the acts of executors de son tort to an exfcutor
who may subsequently obtain a grant of letters; for dateThis'pre-^"
the executor who was not qualified to act, and the ^'''*"* ^'^^^'
person who had not been appointed administrator, were equally
executors de son tort if they intermeddled. The intermediate acts,
which were tortious or unlawful for the want of competent author-
ity before appointment, become, by relation, lawful acts of admin-
istration, for which the actor must account; the liability to
account involves a validity in his acts which is a protection to

1 Hardy v. Thomas, 23 Miss. 544, 546. of the widow and family is a good defence :
citinor Bulier's Nisi Prius, 48 ; Lomax, Ex, Barron v. Biirney, 38 Ga. '204, 208 : Cris-
3'J3, ;S()4. pin ,.. Winldemnn, 57 Iowa, 523, 520.

2 Wms. Ex. [271], citing English au- 5 Brown v. Walter, 58 Ala. 310, 313,
thorities. citing Vanderveer v. Alston, 16 Ala. 494,

3 Neal V. Baker, 2 N. H. 477, 478; wliich contains a review of tlie history
Tohey y. MilliT, 54 Me. 480, 483; Collier of administration at common law and
I. Jones, 86 Ind. 342. nmler English and Alabama statutes, by

* Bryant y. Helton, 60 Ga. 477; but the Chilton, J.
retention of the property for the support « Ante, §§ 173, 184.

426 EXECUTORS DE SON TORT. § 197

those who liave dealt with him.^ So if, pendente lite, an executor
de son tort obtains administration, he may retain for his own
debt; 2 and to scire facias on a judgment against him, or to an
action in assumpsit, plead in bar that he has taken out letters,
and that the estate is insolvent.^ The sale of i>roperty or pay-
ment of a legacy by an executor de son tort becomes valid upon
probate of the will, or subsequent grant of administration,* and is
binding upon the lawful representative.^

It is, however, to be observed, that only such acts of the execu-
tor de son tort are legalized and made valid by the subsequent
Except such as appointment as would have been valid had he been
a'ri.duM'^ '" tlie rightful administrator ; ^ and also that the rights
executor, of inuocent parties intervening must not be affected

by the application of the doctrine of relation.'

There will be occasion to show, hereafter, that one who has
made himself liable as an executor de son tort is not, for that
reason, disqualified to be appointed administrator of the estate.^

§ 197. Validity of the Title acquired by an Alienee from an Ex-
ecutor de son Tort. — It would seem to result from the doctrine
The bim.a fide holding the lawful acts of an executor de son tort to
executorl/e"o« ^c good,^ that the alienation of goods by him for the
«or< takes a payment of debts is good and indefeasible.^^ Mr. Wil-

good title at 1^ •' °

common law. Hams gives as authority the statement of Lord Holt,^^
that a legal act done by an executor de son tort shall bind the
rightful executor and alter the property.^^ This statement is open

1 Per Colt, J., in Hatch v. Prootor, 102 May, 2 Hill, Ch. 22; Filhour v. Gibson,

Mass. 351, 354; Magner v. Ryan, 19 Mo. 4 Ired. Eq. 455, 460; Alvord v. Maisli,

196,200; Priest r.Watkins, 2 Hill, (N.Y.) 12 Allen, 603, 604.

225 ; Clements v. Swain, 2 N. H. 475, 476, 6 Antr, § 187.

and authorities ; Emery v. Berry, 28 N. '^ Napton, J., in Wilson v. Wilson, 54

H. 473, 484; McClure v. People, 19 111. Mo. 213, 216.

App. 105. s Selioul. Ex. § 196, citing Carnoclian

- Wms. [269], citing Pyne v. Woolland, v- Abrahams, T. U. P. Charlt. 196 ; Bing-

2 Ventr. 179, 180; Wifliamson w. Nor- ham y. Crenshaw, 34 Ala. 688.

witch. Sty. 837; Vaughan v. Browne, 2 ^ As announced in Coulter's case, 5

Stra. 1106. Co. 30/), and authorities rmfe, §§ 94, 95.

3 Shillaber v. Wyman, 15 Mass. 322; lO Graysbrook v. Fox, Plowd. 275, 282.

Olmsted v. Clark, 30 Conn. 108 ; Andrew Otherwise where the purchaser is not a

V. Gallison, 15 Mass. 325, note. creditor of the estate, or does not take

* Wilson V. Wilson, 54 Mo. 213, 216; the property in discharge of a debt due

Pinkham v. Grant, 78 Me. 158. him by decedent : Rockwell v. Young, 60

5 Vroom V. Van Home, 10 Pai. 549, Md. 563.

558, citing, as establishing the same prin- ^^ In Parker i>. Kett, 1 Ld. Raj'm. 661 ;

ciple, Whitehall v. Squire, Holt, 45 ; Witt S. C. 12 Mod 471.

V. Elmore, 2 Bail. L. R. 595; Walker v. ^^ The reason giveu is, that creditors

§ 198 APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE IN AMERICA. 427

to the objection that it does not define what constitutes a " good "
or " legal " act by an executor de son tort. Mr. Williams proceeds
to show that only such acts are understood to be valid, as against
the true representative, whicli the true representative himself
would have been bound to perform in the course of due adminis-
tration j^ and that it must have been done by one proved to have
been acting at the time in the character of executor, — not a
mere solitary act of wrong, in the very instance com{)lained of, by
one taking u[)on himself to hand over the goods of the deceased
to a creditor.2 This principle implies that payment of a debt to
an executor de son tort, not acting in the character of one admin-
istering the estate, is no protection against a demand for the same
by the lawful representative.^

It may be remarked in this connection, that, although an execu-
tor de son tort is protected in what he does in good But the execu-
faith in the course of the lawful administration of an acqufresno"'
estate so far as he has assets, yet he acquires no de- n,^','yreim-
mand against the administrator de Jure for any dis- bui-beuieut.
bursements by him in excess of the assets.^

§ 198. Application of the Doctrine in America. — Distinguished
American writers on this subject have expressed their disapproba-
tion of the doctrine of liability as executor de son tort ^j ..

•' No necessity

in strong terms, and intimate that it meets with little for tiie doctrine

are not bound to seek furtlier than liim the executrix de son tori, after she has

who acts as executor. Mr. Williams also taken letters of administration, she is not

cites the judgment of Le Blanc, J., in estopped by her previous act, and relying

Mountford v. Gibson, 4 East, 441, 454, on tiie previous case of Cullen i-. O'Hara,

and of Littledale, J., in Oxenham v. 4 Mich. 132; Woolfork v. Sullivan, 23

Clapp, 1 B. & Ad. 313. Ala. 548, 555, holding that the vendee of

i Buckley v. Barber, 6 Exch. 164, 183. an executrix de sou tort takes all that siie

Acts wiiich would be invalid if done by has, — the possession, — and that he can

a lawful executor, cannot be valid when maintain it against all the world except

done by an executor de son tort : Rock- the rightful administrator in a suit ; Wil-

well r. Young, 60 Md. 563, 5()8. son v. Hudson, 4 Harr. 168, ilenying that

- Wins. [272]; Gilchrist, J , in Picker- the subsequent appointment of the exec-
ing V Coleman, 12 N. H. 148, 151, hold- utrix de son tort as administratrix gave
ing tliat in such case tiie rightful admin- any validity to her former act; IMitchell
istrator may maintain trover against the v. Kirk, 3 Sneed, 319, in wliii^h an admin-
vendee ; Carpenter v. Going, 20 Ala. 587, istratrix recovered from a creditor whom
590, holding that in an action of trover she herself had paid before appointment,
by tlie riglitful administrator the vendee 8 Leg v. Chase, 58 Me. 4-32, 435, citing
cannot prove in mitigation that tlie pur- Hunter v. Wallace, 13 Up. Can. Q. B.
cliase money was used in the payment of 385 ; Bartlett i-. Hyde, 3 Mo. 490.
dehf: : Morton v. Preston, 18 Mich. 60, * De La Guerra v. Packard, 17 Cal.
71, holding that in an action of trover by 182, 192.

428 EXECDTOllS DE SON TORT. § 198

of executor de favor ill American courts.^ There can be no doubt

son tort in

America. that in many of the American States, in which the

common law system of the administration of the estates of de-
ceased persons has been entirely done away with, this doctrine
should disappear with the conditions which called it into being.
There is neither occasion nor room for it in those States which
have vested complete jurisdiction in probate courts to control the
settlement of estates of deceased persons : where the title to the
personal property remains in abeyance until an executor or ad-
ministrator is appointed by the court, and any other person under-
taking to interfere with it is known to be without lawful authority
to do so ; where creditors of the deceased cannot be lawfully sat-
isfied out of the property of the estate until they have proved their
claims in the manner pointed out by the law ; and where an exec-
utor or an administrator can neither prefer a creditor nor retain
for his own debt. It is quite apparent that in such States it would
be irrational to apply the doctrine of executor de son tort to one
who unlawfully appropriates the property left by a deceased per-
son, and thereby renders himself liable as a wrongdoer to the one
upon whom the law casts the title : which, by relation, attaches
to him from the time of the decedent's death. No one's interest
would be subserved: neither that "of the creditor, — for he has a
safer, simpler, and less expensive remedy against a lawful admin-
istrator, and cannot pretend that he looked upon the intermcddler
as rightfully in possession ; nor that of the heir or distributee, —
whose safety is better secured by the appointment of a competent
officer of the court, whose duty it will be to recover all the prop-
erty belonging to the estate and dispose of it according to law ;
nor yet that of the intermcddler himself, whose wrongful act,
instead of subjecting him to intricate complications, the result of
which it is impossible to foresee, will simply lead to the punish-
ment or reparation demanded by the law.

The office of executor de son tort is accordingly abolished in
New York,2 and declared by the courts of Arkansas,^ California,*

1 3 Redf. on Wills, 21, note (6) ; * Bowden v. Pierce, 73 Cal. 459, 463,
Schoul. Ex. §§ 184, 187 ; Horner, Pr. L. affirmed in 15 Pac. R. 64. The author-
§ 115 ; ante, § 188. ities relied on seem, however, to contain

2 Rev. St. p. 440, § 17. Alluded to in mere dicta. See Valencia ;'. Bernal, 26
Field w. Gibson, 20 Hun, 274, 276. Cal. 328, .3.35; Estate of Hamilton, 34

3 Barasien v. Odnm, 17 Ark. 122, 127; Cal. 464. 468 ; Pryor v. Downey, 50 Cal.
Rust V. Witherington, 17 Ark. 129. 388, 400.

§ 198 APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE IN AMERICA. 429

Kansas,! Missouri ,2 Ohio,^ Oregon* and Texas,-^ to be . , .^ . , ,
reputi'nant to the letter and spirit of the law of these isiied in some

^ ^ T , r, , T • • , i • 1 of the States.

States.^ In other States, whose administration laws
present the same or similar features as those above mentioned,
neither the legislature nor courts have abolished the doctrine,
at least not in express terms;' but it is gradually passing out
of notice, for the reason that it meets no practical want.^

In those States, however, in which the common law mode of
administration is still more or less adhered to, — where, for in-
stance, the executor has power to act before qualifying, g^^ gtju rgg„g.
and even before probate of the will, where he may nized m others.
pay debts not proved before a court or without order of the court,
where he is not required to give bond, <tc., — the doctrine of ex-
ecutor de son tort is a natural and essential element of their law.
The objection urged against it by American writers, that it sub-
jects all of the assets in the hands of a wrongdoer to the sat-
isfaction of the claim of the creditor suing, and thus, to that
extent, defeats the just and equal distribution, is equally valid
against the executor or administrator de jure, under the common
law, who, by their preference, or liability to pay the creditors in
the order in which they bring their actions, likewise defeat a " just
and equal distribution " between them.

In Louisiana the common law doctrine of executor de son tort is
not in force ; but by statute one intermeddling with the estate of
a deceased person without lawful authority is liable to both crim-
inal and civil actions ; but there is no civil liability until there has
been conviction in a criminal prosecution.^

1 Fox V. Van Norman, 11 Kans. 214, it in accordance with tlie provisions of
217. tlie statute ; having for these purposes

2 Rozelle v. Harmon, 29 Mo. App. 569, tlie most summary and plenary powers,
578. within the scope of its jurisdiction, con-

3 Benjamin v. Le Baron, 15 Oh. 517; ferred by the constitution and statutes,
Dixon V. Cassell, 5 Oh. 533. administering both law and equity within

* Rutherford v. Thompson, 14 Oreg. this scope, according to the exigoncj' of

236, 239. the rights to be adjudicated upon."

5 Ansley v. Baker, 14 Tex. 607, 610 ; " The States in which the doctrine is
Green v. Rugely, 23 Tex. 539. recognized as still existing are mentioned

6 Hanley, J., in Barasien v. Odum, ante, § 188.

snnra, thus quotes from Walker v. Byers, ^ See remarks of Philips, J., in Ro-
ll Ark. 246, 252, as indicating the scope zelle v. Uarmon, supra. But the case was
of probate jurisdiction : " The Probate referred to the Supreme Court on the de-
Court is intrusted with the custody of mand of Ellison, J . holding it to be in
estates ; and that tribunal proceeds, in conflict with former Missouri cases.
rem, to adjust the rights of all persons ^ Walworth r. Ballard. 12 La. An.
interested in an estate, and disposes of 245; Carl v. Poelnian, 12 La. An. 344.

430 NECESSITY OF OFFICIAL ADMINISTRATION. S 199

CHAPTER XXII.

OF THE NECESSITY OF OFFICIAL ADMINISTRATION.

§199. Why Administration is necessary. — The necessity of
oflicial administration, that is to say, of obtaining a grant of let-
Necessitvof *^^^ testamentary or of administration, as the case
administration j^Q^y ]^q ^jj^j f\■^Q iudicial sanction of payment of debts

arises out of the j ^ j . . . „

vesting of per- and Icgacics out of tlic estate and the distribution of

Sronal estate in . , n ,^ i ii-

the executor, the rcsidue, ariscs out 01 tlie common law doctrme,
Uy of rea'fes-' that the personal property of a decedent descends to
tate for debts, ^j^^ exccutor or administrator, while his real estate
descends to the devisees or heirs, subject, under English and
American statutes, to the payment of his debts and legacies.
This doctrine is recognized substantially in all the States, except
Louisiana, where, under circumstances pointed out by law, the title
to personal as well as real property descends directly to the nat-
ural or instituted heirs. The direct consequence of this princii)le
of the law is, that without due course of administration the claims
of creditors cannot be lawfully satisfied, and neither heirs nor
legatees can obtain a legal title to their legacies or distributive
shares ; and that neither devisees nor heirs can hold the real
estate to which they succeed free from the claims of creditors of
the deceased, against whom limitation does not generally run after
the debtor's death, until there be lawful administration of his
estate.^ Another consequence is, that the payment of debts to the
deceased can be coerced by no one but the lawfully appointed
executor or administrator, even in equity, because there is no
privity between the debtors and any person other than the legal
representative.^ The peculiar status of the executor de son fort,

1 Posi, §401. Even where the statute tingency not happening on wliich they

of limitations is recognized as barring or- are payable until a very recent period,

dinary debts, "there may be debts exist- He had the capacity to incur such debts,

ing against him which do not fall within and it cannot be affirmed with certainty

the bar of the statute of limitations,— that they ilo not exist ": Brickell, C. J.,

defaults as executor, or as administrator, in Costephens v. Dean, (39 Ala. 385, .389.
or in some other fiduciary capacity, or 2 " Tiie general rule in a court of

debts payable on a contingency, the con- equity is, that neither creditors nor dis-

§ 200 CASES HOLDING ADMINISTRATION NECESSARY. 431

which at common law follows the intermeddling with the estate
of a deceased person by one not clothed with official autliority for
that purpose, and which has been considered in a preceding chap-
ter,^ is also a consequence of the devolution of title to personal
property upon the executor or administrator, excluding, imtil
administration be had, even the distributee, legatee, and creditor,
and forcing upon the intcrmeddlcr, in protection of the interest
of creditors and distributees, the character of a quasi executor,
liable as such to those who have any claims against the estate.

§ 200. Cases holding Administration necessary. — The question
whether administration is indispensable or not is of frequent
occurrence, and the decisions arising thereunder are very numer-
ous. In a practical point of view it is never safe, j.. , ,

1 1 , ' It IS unsafe to

except in those cases which will be noticed further p^v debts or

* aibtriljiiteresid-

on,2 to pay the debts of a deceased person and dis- uum without
tribute the residuum among those entitled under the
law, without complying with the statute demanding the appoint-
ment of an executor or administrator, and obtaining the judgment
of the probate court upon the questions arising in the course of
administration. It is held in various cases, respect- ^ , ,,.

' ^ States holding

ively, that neither heirs nor legatees can sue any that neither

* . CI c heirs nor iega-

person in respect of the assets of an estate but the tecs can sue
executor or administrator, nor legally distribute the exiVntor or
estate between themselves, and that payment of a «»f^"""'**''»t"''-
debt due the deceased to any one but a legally constituted exec-
utor or administrator will not protect the debtor against the de-
mand of such representative, in Alabama,^ Arkansas,* California,^
Connecticut,^ Georgia," Kentucky,^ Illinois,^ Indiana,^*^ lowa,^!

tributees, nor legatees, can maintain a ^ Taber v. Pnckwood, 1 Day, 150 ;

bill against debtors of an estate, to sub- Roorbacli v. Lord, 4 Conn. 347, 340.
ject debts tbey may owe to the satis- " Scranton v. Demere, 6 Ga. 92. But

faction of their demands " : Dugger v. after an adverse possession for twenty

Tayloo, GO Ala. 604, 517. years or more, administration will be pre-

1 Ante, cli. xxi. snmed to protect an iimocent purchaser:

2 Post, § 201. Woodfolk V. Beatly, 18 Gn. .520.

3 The decisions in this State are very ^ McCliord v. Fisher, 13 B. Mon. 193,
numerous on this point : see Costephens 195.

V. Dean, 69 Ala. 385, in which some of » Leamon r. McCubbin, 82 111. 263.

them are cited. i ' Carr n. Huette, 73 Ind. 378. citing

* Flash r. Gresham, 86 Ark. 529, 531. (. a. The Northwestern Conference v.

5 Harwood r. Marye, 8 Cal. 580 (hold- Myers, 36 Ind. 375, ami Leonard v. Blair,

ing tliat all property of decedents, both 59 Ind. 510.

real and personal, goes into the possession " Hnynes v. Harris, 33 Iowa, 516;

of the administrator). followed in Baird v. Brooks, 65 Iowa, 40,

432 NECESSITY OF OFFICIAL ADMINISTRATION. § 201

Maryland,^ Massaclmsetts,^ Mississippi,^ Missouri,^ New Hamp-
shire,^ New York,^ North Carolina,' Rhode Island,^ South Caro-
lina,9 Tennessee,^*^ Texas,^^ Wisconsin,!^ and probably in other
States.

§ 201. Exceptions permitted in some States. — The rights of
creditors to the assets of a deceased person is the principal reason
for requiring official administration, and courts, therefore, sanc-
tion the disposition of the property of a decedent without the
appointment of an administrator where it is certain that no debts
Administration are owiug. Thus, upou the death of an infant intes-
heid ii^injii^^^^ tate, administration is held unnecessary, because an
of an infant. infant is presumed not to have incurred any liability ; ^^
but not so in the case of the death of a married woman ;i4 and the
Unless he prcsumption that an infant has incurred no liability is

leaves a widow

or liaijiiities on rcbuttcd wlicrc he was married and leaves a widow,^^
or may be rebutted by proof of existing liabilities ; ^®
and in such case administration is necessary, notwithstanding the
statutory prohibition of administration on the estates of deceased
minors who were under guardianship.

There is a- series of decisions in Alabama, asserting that,
when an estate is entirely free from debt, the distributees may
in equity obtain distribution without the delay and expense of
administration;!' from which Brickell, C. J., deduces this rule:

which announces the rule that no action lo Smiley v. Bell, Mart. & Y. 378.

can be maintained by the heirs on a " Alexander v. Barfield, 6 Tex. 400,

promissory note, so long as the time fixed 404. But a grant of administration after

by statute within wliich letters may be a great lapse of time should be regarded

granted has not expired. as a nullity, unless special reasons existed

1 Hagthorp v. Hook, 1 Gill & J- 270, therefor: Cochran v. Thompson, 18 Tex.
294. 652, 655.

2 Lawrence r. Wright, 23 Pick. 128, i' Murphy v. Hanrahan, 50 Wis. 485,
130 ; Hall v. Burgess, 5 Gray, 12, 16. 490.

3 Marshall v. King, 24 Miss. 85, 91, ^^ Cobb v. Brown, Speers Eq. 564, 566 ;
citing Browning v. Watkins, 10 Sm. &M. Bethea v. McColl, 5 Ala. 308, 315; Van-
482,485. zant v. Morris, 25 Ala. 285, 295; Lyncli

4 Craslin v. Baker, 8 Mo. 4.37 ; Has- v. Rotan, 39 111. 14 ; McCleary v. Menke,
tings ;;. Meyers, 21 Mo. 519; Bartlett v. 109 111. 294.

Hyde, 3 Mo. 490 ; State v. Moore, 18 Mo. ^* Cobb v. Brdwn, supra ; Patterson v.

App. 406. High, 8 Ired. Eq. 52.

4 Tappan v. Tappan, ,30 N. H. 50, 68. i^ Norton v. Thompson, 68 Mo. 143, 146.

6 Beecher i'. Crouse, 19 Wend. 306. is George v. Dawson, 18 Mo. 407. In

'' Whit V. Ray, 4 Ired. L. 14 ; Davidson Kansas administration may be granted on

V. Potts, 7 Ired. Eq. 272. a minor's estate: Wheeler v. St. J. Rail-

8 Allen V. Simons, 1 Curt. 122. road, 31 Kans. 640.

9 Bradford v. Felder, 2 McCord, Ch. " Fretwell v. McLemore, 52 Ala. 124,
168, 169. 131, citing Vanderveer v. Alston, 15 Ala.

§201

EXCEPTIONS PERMITTED IN SOME STATES.

433

" A coui-t of equity will dispeiiso willi an adininistra- in some Statps
tioM, and decree distribntioii directly, when it affirm- p?"i;\;ml S'
ativelv appears that, if there was an administrator, "''';',^"-iiti<)ii if
the only dnty devolving on him would be distribution, mains to do
Then administration is regarded as ' a useless cere- the estate.
mony.' " i Most of these cases expressly emphasize that they
constitute exceptions to the general rule, and rest upon analogy
with the doctrine that equity will interpose where there is collu-
sion between the debtors and the personal i-cpresentative ; or
where he is insolvent and there is just apprehension of loss if he
is permitted to collect the debts, or, as was said by Chancellor
Kent,2 " where there is some other special case not exactly de-
fined,"^ and courts of eriuity refuse their aid, unless the case very
clearly shows that an administrator would be superliuous.^ The
same doctrine, holding administration unnecessary when there
are no debts of the estate, but only distribution to be made to
those entitled, and for the same reason, is applied in other
States; for instance, in Georgia,^ Indiana,^ Illinois,'' Louisiana,^
Michigan,^ Mississippi,^*' Nevada,'^ New Hampshire,^^ Pcnnsylva-

494 ; Frowner v. .Joltnson, 20 Ala. 477,
482 ; Plunkett v. Kelly, 22 Ala. G55 , and
Marsliall v. Crow, 21) Ala. 278.

1 Fretvvell v. McLemore, supra, qiiotinii
the last phrase from the earlier Alabama
cases cited.

'^ In LnnjT r. Majjestre, 1 John. Ch.305.

8 See Brickcli, C. J., in Costepliens r.
Dean, 69 Ala. 385, 388, quoting from
Duggrer V. Tayloe, 60 Ala. 504.

•1 Marshall v. Gayle, 58 Ala. 284; and
cases cited under § 200.

s Where distribution between adult
heirs or legatees is held good, at least in
equity, as among themselves and against
strangers, but cannot affect the rights of
creditors: Amis v. Cameron, 55 Ga. 44U,
451, citing earlier Georgia cases.

^ Begien i\ Freeman, 75 Ind. 308 ;
Ilolzman v. Plibben, 100 Ind. 338; Salter
r. Salter, 08 Ind. 522, holding that, as an
exception to the general rule, the heirs
may sue for a debt owing to the decedent,
if he left no debts to be paid and there
is no administration, and citing earlier
Indiana cases.

" McCleary v. Menke, 100 111. 294.

8 Succession of Welch, 36 La An. 702,
post. § 203.

VOL. I —28

^ Adult heirs having agreed upon the
settlement of an estate, tiiere being no
debts, are estopped from disturbing it by
the appointment of an administrator :
Needham v. Gillett, .39 Mich. 574 ; Foote
V. Foote, 61 Mich. 181.

" Voluntary distribution between heirs
capable of binding themselves is valid ;
but not if parties are interested who are
incapable of assenting to the distribution
in a binding manner : Kilcrease v. Shelby,
23 Miss. 161, Kit). It is well settled in
Mississippi, tiiat, in the absence of admin-
istration of the estate of a decedent, a
court of chancery will decree distribution
among the heirs : Watson i\ Byrd, 53
Miss. 4H0, 483, citing earlier Mississippi
cases ; Hicks r. Hiiliard, 45 Miss. 350, 363.

11 Wright V. Smith, 10 Nev. 148, 147.

1' Equity will not interfere with the
voluntary settlement of an estate b\' adult
heirs, except for manifest mistake, fraud,
or misconduct of arbitrators, or other
person concerned with the settlement :
George V. Johnson, 45 N. H. 456, citing
Ilibbard v. Kent, 15 N. II. 516, 510; and
it seems that the guardian may act for
the ward so as to bmd him : Woodman v.
Rowe, 59 N. H. 453

434 NECESSITY OF OFFICIAL ADMINISTRATION. § 202

nia,^ Tennessee,- Tcxas,^ and Vermont.* So where b}^ the statute
administration cannot be granted after the lapse of a certain
period of time, the title to the property of the decedent, which
may have been in abeyance during such period, vests in the heirs,
so that they may maintain an action thereon,^ or be sued.*^ Nor
will administration be held necessary to enable one to bring a
suit to cancel a conveyance of real estate, or to vacate an unau-
thorized will.' Where there is an administrator, and the heirs or
parties beneficially entitled thereto are in possession of personal
property, the administrator will not be allowed to recover if it
appear that debts are all paid.^ In Connecticut the statute pro-
vides that, if all parties in interest are capable of acting, they may
distribute the estate by deed recorded. If the deed is not exe-
cuted and recorded as provided by statute, it is not sufficient to
preclude a regular distribution by the probate court.®

§ 202. Residuary or Sole Legatees taking Estates vwithout Admin-
istration. — In the States of Maine,i*^ Maryland,^^ Massachusetts,^^
States in which Michigau,^^ Minnesota,^* Nebraska,^^ New Hampshire,^**
ary legatee " Ohio,^' Yemiont,^^ and Wisconsin,^^ it is provided that,
esffte'lvi'thout when the person nominated in the will as executor is
administration j^]g^ ^]^g residuary legatee, he may, at his option, in-

ongivinji; bona ./ o ' j i i 7

to pay debts. stcad of the regular administration bond required of
executors, give bond with sufficient sureties conditioned that lie
will pay the testator's debts and legacies (including, either ex-
pressly or by implication, funeral expenses and the allowances to

1 If there be no creditors, tlie heirs " Veal v. Fortson, 57 Tex. 482, 487.
have a complete equity in the property, * Abbott v. The People, 10 III. App.
and they may distribute it among them- 62, 65, citing Lewis v. Lyons, W> 111. 117 ;
selves without administration: Walworth Woodhouse v. Phelps, 51 Conn. 521;
V. Abel, 52 Pa. St. 370, 372; Weaver v. Robinson v. Simmons, 15 N. East. (Mass.)
Roth, 105 Pa. St. 408, 41.3. 558, 566.

2 Christian v. Clark, 10 Lea, 630, 6.38, » Dickinson's Appeal, .54 Conn. 224.
citing Brandon v. Mason, 1 Lea, 615. 10 Rev. St. 1883, p. 538, § 10.

But division of an intestate's property " Duvall v. Snowden, 7 Gill & J.

without administration is not encour- 4.30.

aged : Crabb, J., in Wright v. Wright, i'^ Pub. St. 1882, ch. 129, § 6 e< $<q.;

Mart. & Y. 43. ch. 130, § 8.

3 Patterson v. Allen, 50 Te.v. 23, 25 ; !» How. St. 1882, § 5836.
Webster v. Willis, 56 Tex. 468. 1* Rev. St. 1878. ch. 50, § 4.

* Taylor v. Phillips, 30 Vt. 238; Bab- ^^ Comp. St. 1887, ch. 2-3, §§ 164, 165.

bitt V. Bowen, 32 Vt. 437. i« Gen. Laws, 1878, p. 459, § 13.

6 Phinny v. Warren, 52 Iowa, 332, i' Rev. St. 1880, § 5997.

334. ^8 Rev. Laws, 1880, § 2067.

6 State V. Lewellyn, 25 Tex. 797 ; ^^ Rev. St. 1878, § 3795.
Patterson v Allen, supra.

§ 202 RESIDUARY OR SOLE LEGATEE. 435

the widow nnd children), and will then he relieved from tlie
necessity of rcturnint,^ an inventory, or further accounting in tlie
probate court. An executor giviniji: such bond at once „ ,

' '^ ^ Bona operates

becomes the owner of the whole estate in his own ''^ admission

• 1 1 T 1 1 f 11 r of assets siiHi-

right, and luible lor all of tlie debts of the testator; cienttopay
the bond being a substitute for the estate of the de-
ceased,^ and operating as an admission of suthcient assets and a
guaranty to pay all debts, since the executor files no inventory of
assets, the only means from which it could be ascertained whether
they equal the debts and legacies.^ The bond cannot be sur-
rendered or cancelled, at least not after the expiration of the time
within which the law requires an inventory in ordinary cases to
be filed ; ^ but if at any time afterward it be deemed insufficient,
the executor may be ordered to give additional bond, and removed
for failure to comply with such order."* Where a widow gives
such bond as executrix and residuary legatee, it is not avoided by
her failure to inform the judge, as required by the statute, of her
acceptance of the provisions of the will.^ The court may hear
evidence to determine whether a legacy be residuary, and, if it
appears that there is no other property undisposed of, a bond may
be given to pay debts and legacies.^ In Alabama a sole legatee
who is named executor in the will, but who fails to qualify as such,
cannot maintain an action as the real person in interest to recover
on a note in favor of the decedent, when it does not affirmatively
appear that there are no debts.'''

1 It was once held in Massachusetts t-. Snowclen, 7 Gill & J. 4.S0 ; BatclieUler
(overruling the case of Gore v. Brazier, r. Russell, 10 N. IT. 39; Tarhell v. Whit-
3 Mass. 523, 540) that hy the giving of ing, 5 N. H. 63; Buell v. Dickey, 9 Neb.
such bond creditors lost their liens on the 285, 203. See also Jenkins v. Wood, 144
real or personal estate wliich the executor Mass. 238.

may have conveyed to bona fide purclias- 3 Alger iv Colwell, 2 Gray, 404 ; H;ith-

ers: Clarke i-. Tufts, 5 Pick. 337, 340; ewny r. Weeks, 34 Midi. 237* 245; Probate

Thompson v. Brown, 16 Mass. 172, 178; Juilge v. Abbott, 50 Mich. 278, 284.

but the lien of creditors on tlie testator's * And after tlie removal no judgment

real estate is expressly preserved by Gen. can be rendered against him in an action

St. 1860, p. 485. But suit upon such bond previously brought against him in his

must be brought witliin the time limited representative character on a debt of the

for suits against executors and adminis- testator: National Bank v. Stanton, 116

trators : Jenkins v. Wood, 134 Mass. 115. Mass. 435.

2 Shaw, C. J., in Jones v. Richardson, 5 Heydock v. Duncan, 43 N. H. 05, 101.
5 Met. (Mass.) 247, 240 ; Conant v. Strat- ^ Morgan v. Dodge, 44 N. H. 255,'2tJ3.
ton, 107 Mass. 474, 483, citing Fay v. Tay- In this case Bell, C. J., strongly dis'cour-
lor, 2 Gray, 154, and other Massachusetts ages tlie giving of such bonds, " as many
cases. See also Colwell c. Alger, 5 Gray, persons have been ruined " thereby : p.
67, holding that the giving of such bond is 262.

a conclusive admission of assets ; Duvall "i Wood v. Cosby, 76 Ala. 557.

436 NECESSITY OF OFFICIAL ADMINISTRATION, § 203

It is to be observed that the simple designation in tbe will of
a person as residuary legatee and executor does not authorize him
to collect demands of his testator ; an appointment as executor,
by the probate court, is necessary .^

In Texas the statute provides that a testator may provide in his
will that "no other action shall be had in the county court, in rela-
tion to the settlement of his estate, than the probating and record-
ing of his will, and the return of an inventory and appraisement
and list of claims of his estate" ;2 and if the will does not dispose
of the whole estate, the executor may account in the county court,
and pray for distribution, as in other cases.^ It is there held, that
if the will provides for distribution or partition, the county court
has no jurisdiction to adjudicate thereon >

Provision is made by statute in some of the States, that, where
the property of an estate does not exceed in value the amount
„ , . . which is secured to the widow or minor orphans for

No adminis- ^

tiation is ne- their immediate support, the probate court raav dis-

cessaiy for , . . . t , . , ". -,

estates not ex- pcusc With admmistratiou, and authorize the widow,
amnunt allowed or iiiinor children by next friend, to collect and appro-
or mhior''"''' priatc to their own use all such property.^ The sound-
children, j^ggg q£ ^i^g principle upon which such provisions rest,
or rather the absurdity of a contrary view, is self-evident. Why
should the law compel administration where there is nothing to
administer ? The appointment of an administrator in such case
could have no possible effect but to diminish or eat up what the
law intends for the support of widows and orphans. It is held
in Louisiana, that administration is not necessary if the property
of an estate is of less value than the expense of administration.'^
If the property of the deceased debtor exceed in value the amount
of exemption in favor of the widow and minor children, adminis-
tration may be ordered by the probate court," or the creditor may
maintain a bill in equity to subject the excess held by the widow
or minor children to the satisfaction of his debt.^

§ 203. Administration in Louisiana. — The descent of property
is not governed by the same rule in Louisiana as in the other
States, but is modelled after the law prevalent on the continent

1 Tappan v. Tappan, 30 N. H. 50. S. E. R. 12. Similar provisions exist i. n.

2 Rev. St. 1888, art. 1942. in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois,

3 Ibid., art. 1948. and Oregon. See ante, p. 172.

4 Lumpkin v. Smith, 62 Tex. 249. ^ Sonhiran v. Rivollet, 4 La. An. 828.

5 Rev. St. Mo. § 2 ; Pace v. Oppen- ^ Rev. St. Mo. § 2.

helm, 12 Ind. 533; Clark y. Fleming, 4 ** Cameron y. Cameron, 82 Ala 392,395.

§ 203 ADMINISTRATION IN LOUISIANA. 437

of Europe. Pro})crty, personal as well as real, may there pass
directly to the heir, without any ofiicial intervention whatever.
Heirs are described as of three kinds : testamentary, or instituted
heirs ; legal heirs, or heirs of the blood ; and irregular heirs.
They may, as above suggested, take directly and absolutely, and
in such case become liable out of their own property for all debts
of the decedent, in like manner as the suua hceres, or the hceres
neeessarius, under the ancient Roman law;' or they may renounce
the succession, in which case they are not liable for any of the
debts, nor entitled to any of the property of the estate ; or they
may claim benefit of inventory, when an administrator is appointed
to manage the estate, pay its debts, and distribute the surplus.^
Minors can only take with benefit of inventory, hence partition
between them and adults can only be made upon the appointment
of an administrator ; ^ but where a succession is not in debt, the
tutrix of the minor children may recover the property of the
succession, and give valid acquittances therefor, without adminis-
tration.* A beneficiary heir does not represent the estate, and
cannot be sued by a creditor of the succession.^ Where a legatee
dies before the testator, and the latter leaves no debts to be paid,
the appointment of an executor becomes inoperative ; ^ and an
administrator will not be appointed unless there be an absolute
necessity for it.' But a judgment creditor of an estate can sus-
tain no petitory action against one alleged to be in possession of
property belonging to the succession when there is no adminis-
trator.s

1 Ante, § 170. 5 State v. Leckie, 14 La. An. 641.

2 Code La. tit. " Successions." ^ Succession of Dupuy, 4 La. An.

3 Dees V. Tihion, 2 La. An. 412; Sue- 570.

cession of Duclolange, 1 La. An. 181 ; " Alleman v. Bergeron, 16 La. An.

Martin v. Dupre, 1 La. An. 239. 191.

* Martin v. Dupre', sufwa ; Succession "^ Louaillier i'. Castille, 14 La. An. 777.

of Sutton, 20 La. An. 150.

PART SECOND.

OF THE INDUCTION TO THE OFFICE OF EXECUTOR
AND ADMINISTRATOR.

CHAPTER XXIII.

OF THE PRELIMINARIES TO THE GRANT OF LETTERS TESTAMENTARY
AND OP ADMINISTRATION.

§ 204. Local Jurisdiction to grant Letters Testamentary and of
Administration. — Whatever may have been the law in ancient
^ , , . times, it is certain that at the time of the passing of

Local courts in ' . .

England au- the Court of Probatc Act,^ the ecclesiastical court was,

thorized to .-r^,-,, i ,• i-iji t t, c

giant letters m England, the only court in which the validity oi
mid^of adniin- wills of pcrsoualty, or of any testamentary paper what-
istration. ^^^^ relating to personalty, could be established or

disputed, except certain courts baron.^ In the United States this
jurisdiction, and the power to appoint executors and administra-
tors, are vested in probate courts, or courts having probate powers,
by whatever name known.^

It is unimportant to consider, in this connection, the rules by
which the local jurisdiction of testamentary courts was deter-
mined in England, previous to the enactment of the statute of 20
& 21 Vict. c. 77, or the doctrine of bona notahilia affecting this

1 20 & 21 Vict. c. 77. Diocesan Courts, 36 ; Courts of Bishops'

2 Wms. [288]. An interesting account Commissaries, 14 ; Arcliidiaconal Courts,
of the ecclesiastical courts having tes- 37 " ; of Peculiar Jurisdictions, " Rov-
tamentary juri^^iliction in England is al, 11 ; Archiepiscopal and Episcopal,
given in Foster's "Doctors' Commons, 14; Decanal, Subdecanal, etc, 44; Pre-
its Courts and Registries," published in bendal, 88; Rectorial and Vicarial, 63;
London, 1871. It is there said that prior other Peculiars, 17 ; Courts of Lords of
to the year 1858 there were 372 such Manors, 48 ; = 372." See also ante, § 137.
courts, whose several names and num- ^ Ante, §§ 140, 142.

bers are thus stated : " Provincial and

§ 204 LOCAL JURISDICTION. 439

iurisdiction.i The rule in America is universal, that Court of pro-

, . . . 1 J 1 • oj. i. fT< • bate jurisdic-

administration may be granted in any btate or lerri- i^^^^oi the
tory where unadniinistered personal property of a de- trictS"the'^
ceased person is found, or real property subject to the JX^^'t\fgrLnt3
claim of any creditor of the deceased ; and that pro- letters.
bate of the will of any deceased person may be granted in any
State where he leaves personal or real property.

As between the several courts within the same State or sover-
eignty, jurisdiction attaches primarily to that tribunal which is in-
vested with probate powers for the county or territo- -^^j^j^^j se-
rial district which includes the domicil of the testator ga-d to place

of death or

or intestate at the time of his death, without regard to situs of prop-
tlie place of his death or situs of his property .^ Juris- ^ •^"
diction so attaching is not lost by a change of the territorial
limits or boundaries of the county or district after the death of
the testator or intestate ;3 but upon a proper representation the
court before which proceedings are pending may, it seems, by its
order to transfer the proceedings, confer jurisdiction upon the
court in the new county or district.*

If the deceased had, at the time of his death, no o,- where he
fixed place of residence, letters may be granted in the Kno fixed
county where he died; or if he died abroad, in any domicii;

, -1 . , 1 r 1 J T u orif he died

county where his property may be tound ; and it ne abroad in any
left property in more than one county, then in any of i^ef t prSP
them.^ It is obvious however, tliat there can be but eity.
one grant of administration on the same estate in the ^ranfed'hfany
same sovereiii'nty or State ; and since the jurisdiction county, no let-

o J ' -I ters can be

which has once attached remains until final comple- granted in any

. . other in the

tion of the administration, the court first exercising same state.

1 Ante, § 139 ; post, § 203. Bain v. Wiiiibisli, 27 Ga. 259, 261 ; Bug-

2 McBain v. Wimbish, 27 Ga. 259, 261 ; bee v. Surrogate, 2 Cow. 471 ; Lindsay v.
Johnson v. Beazley, 65 Mo. 250 ; Mc- McCormack, 2 A. K. Marsh. 229.
Campbell v. Gilbert, 6 J. J Marsh. 592 ; * Knight v. Knight, 27 Ga. 633, 636.
Succession of Williamson, 3 La. An 261 ; And the legislature, in some States, may
Ilolyoke v. Haskins, 5 Pick. 20; Wilson by s])ecial act confer such jurisdiction:
V. Frazier, 2 Humph. 30. Wrigiit v. Mare, 50 Ala. 549.

3 Tlius, if after the deatli of the intes- ^ Leake v. Gilchrist, 2 Dev. L. 73. In
tate that portion of tlie countj' in which Mississippi an appointment was sustained
lie resided at the time of his death is in a comity where tlie greater part of the
erected into a new county, or attached to personal property of the decedent was
anotlier county, the probate court of the situated, altliough liis domicil was in an-
old county still retains its jurisdiction: other county in the same State : Weaver
Estate of Harlan, 24 Cal. 182, 187 ; Mc- i'. Norwood, 59 Miss. 665.

440 PUELIMINAIIIES TO GRANT OF LETTERS. § 205

jurisdiction will retain it to the exclusion of every other court in
the State.^

S 205. Jurisdiction over the Estates of Deceased Non-residents.

— No administration can be granted in the case of a deceased
No letters can non-rcsidcnt, unlcss he left property within the juris-
estfte^ot'^de-" diction of tlic court makint^ the apjtointment.^ But
reskknt unless ^hcrc such property is found within the State, the
tiiere be prop- ^ourt of the couutv in wliich it, or a imrt of it, may be

erty to auinia- •' ' '

ister. situated, will grant administration at the request of

any person being interested.^ In England the property of a non-
Bcmanota- resident sufficient to authorize a grant of adminis-
biha. tration was called bo7ia notahilia ; this term is not

technically applicable in the United States, but writers and judges
find it convenient to use it in speaking of the jurisdiction con-
ferred by the several kinds of property for the purposes of ad-
ministration. " Personal property," says Judge Cooper of the
Supreme Court of Mississippi, " whether of a tangible or an intan-
gible character, is considered as located, for the purposes of ad-
ministration, in the territory of that State whose laws must
furnish the remedies for its reduction to possession." * At com-
mon law, says Phelps, J.,*^ the site of administration
in respect of debts due a deceased person never fol-
lowed the residence of the creditor. " They are always hona nota-
hilia, unless they happen to fall within the jurisdic-
Judgments. ^.^^^ where he resided. Judgments are hona notahilia
where the record is ; ^ specialties where they are at the time of the

1 People c. White, 11 111. 341; Wat- damages prosecuted for the benefit of the

kins v. Adams, 32 Miss. SoS ; Ex parte widow and children or next of kin is

Lyons, 2 Leigh, 761 ; Kamey v. Green, held, in Kansas, not to constitute assets,

18Ala. 771,774; Pawling u. Speed, 5 T.B. and letters granted on the estate of a

Mon.580; Seymour r. Seymour, 4 Johns, non-resident having no other assets in

Ch. 409; Estate of Scott, 15 Cal. 220; the State are void: Perry v. St. Joseph

Gregory v. Ellis, 82 N. C. 225 ; SHnger v. R. R., 29 Kans. 420.
Calverly, 37 N. W. R. (Wis.) 236. » Bowles v. Rouse, 8 111. 409, 422 ;

- Letters granted in violation of this Sprayberry v. Culberson, 32 Ga. 2yy ;

rule are void : Miller v. Jones, 2G Ala. Hyman v. Gaskins, 5 Led. L. 267
247 ; Jefferson ville R. R. v. Swayne, 26 * Speed v. Kelly, 59 Miss. 47, 51,

Ind. 477 ; Thumb v. Gresham, 2 Met. ^ in Vaughn v. Barret, 5 Vt. 333, 837.

(Kv.) 306; Grimes v. Talbert, 14 Md. To same effect, Bell, J., in Taylor c. Bar-

169; Blewitt v. Nicholson, 2 Fla. 200; ton, 35 N. H. 484, 494; Tliompson v.

Goodrich v. Pendleton, 4 John. Ch. 549; Wilson, 2 N. H. 291 ; Emery v. Hildreth,

Christy v. Vest, 36 Iowa, 285 ; Milten- 2 Gray, 228, 230.

berger v. Knox, 21 La. An. 399; Patillo « Citing Ld. Raym. 855 ; Carth. 149; 8

V. Barksdale, 22 Ga. 356. A claim for Mod. 244.

§ 205 ESTATES OF DECEASED NON-RESIDENTS. 441

creditor's decease ; ^ and sim])le contract debts where situs of simple
the debtor resides." 2 Thus, it is held that the court contract debts,
of a county in which tiie deceased non-resident had obtained a
judgment is competent to hear proof of his will, and grant letters
thereon; 2 oi' where an action will lie against the decedent to set
aside a conTcyance in fraud of liis creditors ; •* or where his debtor
resides.^ So the {)lace where a life insurance comi)any has an
office and an agent upon whom process may be served is the situs
of property so as to support administration on the estate of the as-
sured, although domiciled in another State at the time of his death,
if the policy of insurance was located in the State granting the
letters."^ The cause of action against a debtor must be one which
is enforceable against hira;'^ but if it be n bona fide claim, the
administration wuU not be avoided, though it prove, ultimately, to
be invalid.^ Negotiable promissory notes, bonds payable to the
bearer, or evidences of debt to which the title passes by manual
delivery or simple indorsement, are bona notabiUa in any State
where they may be found ; but the debtor's residence is not suf-
ficient to confer title upon the ancillary administrator unless
they come actually into his hands,^ Shares of stock of a rail-
road corporation are bona notahilia in the county where the
stock-books are kept, transfers made, and dividends paid ; ^° and
a note secured by mortgage, where the property is situated
out of which payment may be enforced.^! The situs of real
estate confers jurisdiction to take probate of a will affecting
it, and in consequence thereof to grant letters testamentary or

1 Citing Liini v. Dodson, in Selw. N. ^ New England Co. y. Woodworth, 111

P. ; Byron v. Byron, Cro. Eliz. (472). U. S. 108, 145.

^ Citing Ciirtliew, 373 ; Salli. 37 ; Ld. " A riglit of action whicli is local to

Raym. 562. An interest in an insurance the State creating it will not supjjort the

policy payable upon the death of another grant of administration in another State :

constitutes assets, and will authorize tiie Illinois Central K. li. Co. v. Cragin, 71

grant of letters in the county where the III. 177.

policy is : Johnston r. Smitii, 25 Hun, 171, ^ Sullivan v. Fosdick, 10 Hun, 173;

170. See /JOi?, § 300, and cases cited. Holyoke v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 22

3 Thomas v. Tanner, 6 T. B. ^lon. Hun, 75.

52, 58. 9 Goodlett v. Anderson, 7 Lea, 286,

* Bowdoin V. Holland, 10 Cush. 17. 288; Shakespeare v. Fidelity Co., !t7 I'a.

6 Stearns v. Wriglit, 51 N. H. 600; St. 173, 177; Beers i-. Shannon. 73 N. Y.

Murphy i-. Creighton, 45 Iowa, 179; 292, 2!I8 ; Moore /-..Jordan, 36 Kans. 271.

Sullivan v. Fosdick, 10 Hun, 173. 180; ^ Arnold r. Arnold, 62 Ga. 627, 637.

Swancy v. Scott, 9 Humph. 327 ; Wyman ^^ Clark v. Blackington, 110 Mass. 369,

V. Halstead, 109 U. S. 654. See, as to 373. It is held in Kansas, that on the

the situs of debts, post, § 309. death of the owner of a note secured by

442 PRELIMINARIES TO GRANT OF LETTERS. § 206

of administration,^ without reference to the deceased owner's
domicil.

Property brought into the State for collusive purposes, or tem-
porarily, after the owner's death, does not confer jurisdiction to
grant administration thereon ; ^ but if a debtor voluntarily come
to another State, although after the creditor's death, administra-
tion may be had in such State at the instance of creditors or other
persons interested.^

§ 206. What constitutes Domicil or Residence. — It is not
always easy to prove what was the domicil or place of residence
of a person at the time of his death, so as to fix the jurisdiction
Definition of ^^'^^" ^"^ estatc in the proper forum. It has been de-
domicii. fined as being, in the common law sense, the place

where one has his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal
establishment, to which, whenever he is absent, he has the inten-
tion of returning.* When once acquired, it continues until by free
It cannot he choicc another is substituted therefor. Hence there
one'not i^u^i ''"^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^ abandonment or acquisition of a domicil by
juris; quc uot sui juris, the domicil of the child follows that

of its parents, and the domicil of the wife follows that of her
husband. Absence from the domicil, and residence elsewhere for
reasons of health, comfort, business, recreation, temporary con-
venience, and the like, do not constitute or indicate an

nor without p i t • -i m

concurrence of abandonment of the domicil. lo work a change of

the intent and i . -i ,i , i n j^i - ^ ^•

factof aban- douiicil, there must be a concurrence of the intention
donment. ^^ acquire a new domicil with the fact of having

real estate in another State, the title to heirs, or property there : Speed v. Kelly,

the note vests in tlie domiciliar .adminis- 69 Miss. 47.

trator, who may sue for the foreclosure ^ Apperson v. Bolton, 29 Ark. 418,

of the mortgage in the State where the 437, citing Clark r. Holt, 16 Ark. 257, 265

land lies, (a foreign administrator having Kosenthal v. Renick, 44 111. 202, 207

authority to sue tiiere,) on the griund Sheldon v. Rice, .30 Mich. 296, 302

that the mortgage is a mere security, and Bisiiop v. Lalouette, 67 Ala. 197, 200

incident to the note: Eells v. Holder, 2 Lees v. Wetmore, 5H Iowa, 170, 179.
McCrary, 022. But the ancillary admin- ^ Cliristy v. Vest, 3tj Iowa, 285 ; Var-

istrator has not tlie title to the property, ner v. Bevil, 17 Ala. 286.
and hence cannot sue in another State ^ Pinney v. McGregory, 102 Mass. 186,

where the land is situate : Moore v. Jor- 189 ; Fox v. Carr, 16 Hun, 434, 437.
dan, 36 Kans. 271. So it is said in Mis- * Schoul. Ex. § 21, citing Bouv. Law

sissippi that a note secured on land in Diet. ; Thorndike v. Boston, 1 Met.

that State is not within the statute re- (Mass.) 242, 245; Oilman v. Oilman, 52

quiring personal property to be distrib- Me. 165; Story, Confl. L. § 39 et seq.

uted under its own laws, if the mortgage Tiie place of residence is prima facie a

and note are found at the foreign domicil man's domicil : Oraveley v. Graveley, 25

of the intestate, who has no creditors, S. C. 1, 17.

§ 207 PROOF OF DEATH. 443

acquired one and abandoned the former one, without the intention
of returning thereto.^

Where one dies while in the act of moving with his family from
one State to another, with the intention of accjuiring a new domi-
cil in the State of their destination, and after his ^ . ., ,

Uomicil <ii one

death the family continue their journey with the prop- dying j,, tian-
erty of the estate, it was held that letters of adminis- state to
tration may well be granted in the place of destination *"'"' ^^^'
where the family located.^ It is suggested by Mr. Schouler that
the status of distribution and of testacy should be rather accord-
ing to the law of the domicil he left, as the true locus of a last
domicil.^

In New York the property of a deceased Indian of the Six
Nations is not subject to administration by the State authorities,
and letters granted are void;* but in Alabama the Dumicii of
appointment of an administrator on the estate of an ^"^^'^"=^-
Indian, who died before his nation became subject to the laws of
the State, by the Orphan's Court of the county in which property
left by him was afterward found, was held valid ; ^ while in Cali-
fornia it was held that probate courts have no jurisdiction over
the estate of a person who died before the adoption of the State
constitution,^

§ 207. Proof of Death. — The death of the testator whose will
is to be proved, or of the intestate whose estate is asked to be

^ Sclioul. Ex. § 21, citing Udny v. death constructively in this State, under

Udiiy, L. H. 1 H. L. Sc. 451, 458; Story, tlie circumstances iiere presented ; solely,

Confl. L. § 45; Wiibraliam v. Ludlow, 99 however, for tlie purpose of enabling a

Mass. 587; Haldane i\ Eckford, L. K. 8 county court in this State to grant admin-

Eq. 6ol, G40 ; Colt, J., in Hallet v. Bas- istration thereon": Burnett r. Meadows,

seit, 100 Mass. 167, 170 ; and other f:ng- 7 B. Mon. 277.

lisii cases. '"The mere intention to change ^ The case cited by him does not sup-

tlie domicil, witliout an actual removal port the doctrine of his text, because no

with the intention of remaining, does not administration was granted in Slate r.

cause a loss of the domicil " : State v. Hallett, 8 Ala. 159 ; but see Embry v.

Hallett, 8 Ala. 159, 161 ; George v. Wat- Millar, 1 A. K. Marsh. 300, cited in IBur-

son, 19 Tex. 354; Walker i-. Walker, 1 nett r. Meadows, *«/«(/, as indicating such

Mo. App. 404, 413; Chalmers i-. Wing- a view,

field, L. R. 30 Cii. D. 400. •* Because the " Six Nations " are

^ " Inasmuch, however, as this prop- treated as a nation witli sovereign power

erty was /;; lidiisitu when he died, and in some respects: Dole i'. Irish, 2 Barb,

afterwards reached its destination, and as (539; see also United States v. Payne, 4

many inconveniences would result from Dillon, 387, and cases cited,

the absence of power in our count}' courts ^ Brashear v. Williams, 10 Ala. G30.

to regulate its administration, it should '' Downer r. Smith. 24 Cal. 114; Hardy

be regarded as being at the time of his v. Harbin, 4 Sawy. 536.

444

PRELIMINARIES TO GRANT OF LETTERS.

ix^ath of testa- Subjected to administration, is a question of fact, of
must' be proved wliicli pi'oof iiiust bc madc bcfoi'e the jurisdiction of
l^*"^"!?,.:"-!'; !^ the court attaches. Ordinarily, tlic death of a person
tion. leaving property for administration is a matter of such

notoriety that proof is of easy access among- the neighbors, rela-
tives, and i)ersons interested in the estate. But where the testator
or intestate was domiciled abroad, or died away from home in a
remote country, direct proof is not always attainable ; and death
must in such cases be established by circumstantial evidence, the
most usual of which is such person's prolonged and unexplained
absence from home without being heard from. When such ab-
Presuniption of scucc from liomc ^ has continued for above seven
affer'absence years,^ within which time no intelligence of his exist-
for seven years gj^^g j^g^g reached his relatives, friends, or acquaint-

witiiout being ' ' ^

heard from. anccs, it wiU bc prcsumcd that he is dead,'^ and proof
of these circumstances, unrebutted, will support the adjudication
of the probate court necessary to give it jurisdiction.* This pre-
sumption does not, obviously, attach to any particular time within
the seven years, but in the absence of facts indicating the time
of death, assumes the absentee to have lived through the whole
period.^

' Tliat is, from an estuhhshed place of
residence ; for no presumption arises out
of absence from any other place : Stinch-
field V. Emerson, 52 Me. 465; Spurr v.
Trimble, 1 A. K. Marsli. 278, 279.

^ The mere absence witliout being
heard from for any period short of seven
years does not raise the presumption of
death : Newman r. Jenkins, 10 Pick. 515 ;
Donaldson v. Lewis, 7 Mo. App. 403, 408.
And even when the absence is for more
than seven years, the attending circum-
stances ma}' be such as to make the pre-
sumption unreasonable : Dickcsns v. jMiller,
12 Mo. App. 408, 41-3. Where a statute
provides that the presumption shall arise
after an absence from the State for a cer-
tain time, it is held not to exclude all
presumptive evidence of death where it
does not appear that the party left the
State. So held in Bank of Louisville v
Board, 83 Ky. 219, 230 ; see, as to the
construction of a similar statute, Dickens
V. Miller, supi-a.

3 Best on Ev. § 409 ; Whart. Ev.
§ 1274, citing numerous American and

English cases ; 3 Redf. on Wills, 4, note 1;
Perkins's note to Wms. Ex. [3181, note s.
" Ordinarily, in the absence of evidence
to the contrary, the continuance of the
life of an individual to the common age
of man will be assumed by presumption
of law. The burden of proof lies upon
the party alleging the death of the person ;
but after an absence from his home or
place of residence seven years without
intelligence respecting him, the presump-
tion of life will cease, and it will be in-
cumbent on the other party asserting it
to prove that the person was living within
that time " : Howard, J , in Stevens v.
McNamara, 36 Me. 176, 178, citing Stark.
Ev. (*77), and Greenl. Ev. § 41, Ester-
ly's Appeal, 109 Pa. St. 222. But mere
proof of absence, without proof that the
absentee was never heard of, is insuffi-
cient to create a presumption of death :
Shriver v. State, 65 Md. 278, 287.

* And it matters not that the relatives
maj' believe such person to be alive :
Whiteside's Appeal. 2?, Pa. St. 114, 116.

5 Eagle I'. Emmet, 4 Bradf 117 ; Tilly

§ 207 PROOF OF DEATH. 445

Death may also be inferred from the absence of a person from
his home, without being heard from for a period less than seven
years, if proof be made of other circumstances tend- .

, It may be

ing to show his death. ^ Thus, it is held that death pioveii by cir-
may be inferred from testimony showing that when
last heard from the person was in contact with some specific peril
likely to produce death, or that he disappeared under circumstan-
ces inconsistent with a continuation of life, when considered with
reference to those influences and motives which ordinarily control
and direct the conduct of rational beings.^ Presence on board of
a ship which sailed for a given port at which she did not arrive,
and was never heard of for more than double the period of her
longest voyage, is said to make the death of all on board of her
as certain as anything not seen can be, and the time of such
death would fall within the period usually assigned as the longest
for such a voyage.^ Evidence of one's long absence without com-
municating with his friends, of character and habits making the
abandonment of home and family improbable, and of want of all
motive or cause for such abandonment, was held sufficient to sup-
port the presumption of death.*

The factum of death may, it seems, be proved by hearsay evi-
dence ; •' for, as has been said, that a person has been missing at
a particular time, accompanied with a report and gen- ^ven bv
oral belief of his death, must be, in many cases, not ''^arsay.

V. Tilly, 2 Bland Ch. 436, 444 ; Kauz v. domiciled abroad, where such reputation

Orderof Red ;Men, ISMo. App. 341. This has reached his friends and relatives in

point is very fully considered in Evans such form as t"o gain general credit."

r. Stewart, 81 Va. 724, 735, quoting and Citing Swinb., pt. G, § 13. See Ringhouse

reviewing English and American autiior- v. Keever, 49 III. 470.

ities, and announcing the true rule to be ^ j,, either case the fact of death maybe

that the 07uis of proving death at any inferred at such time within seven years

particular period, either within the seven as from the testimony shall seem most

years or otherwise, is not with the party probable : Hough, J., in Lancaster v.

alleging death at such particular period, Washington Life Ins. Co., 6'J Mo. 121. 128 ;

but is with the person to whose title Davie y. Briggs, 97 U. S. 628, 634 ; Wiiite

that fact is essential : p. 737. See also ;•. jNIann, 26 Me 361. 370 ; Smith v.

Piiene's Trust, L. R. 5 Ch. Ap. Cas. 139, Knowlton, 11 N. H. 191, 197.

151 ; Davie v. Briggs, 97 U. S. 628 ; Hoyt - Gerry i: Post, 13 How. Pr. 118, 120 ;

V. Newbold, 45 N. J. L. 219. see also Johnson v. Meritliew, 13 Atl. R.

1 3 Redf. on Wills, 4, note 1 : " Where (Me.) 132, 133.

the probabilities of deatii are corroborated * Tisdale v. Connecticut Life Ins. Co.,

by circumstances ; or where reliable repu- 26 Iowa, 170, 176 ; Hancock v. American

tation of the fact and manner of his death Life Ins. Co., 62 Mo. 26, 29 ; Succession

has reached the neighborhood of the tes- of Vogel, 16 La. An. 139.
tator's residence ; or, in case of his being

446 PRELTMINAEIES TO GRANT OF LETTERS. § 207

only the best, but the only, evidence which can be supposed
to exist of his death." ^ It is so held by the Supreme Court of
the United States, in a unanimous opinion,^ and in several of the
State courts.^

Presumptions of survivorship among different persons exposed
to the same peril, and not known to have survived, are not enter-
No presnmp- tained in English or American courts. In Louisiana
or°hip fnmi'r ^^ ^^ provided, following in this respect the Code Napo-
common peril jgon, that "if Several persons, respectively entitled to

in Eiif^land or ' i ' r ./ ^

America. inherit from one another, happen to perish by the

same event, such as a wreck, a battle, or a conflagration, without
any possibility of ascertaining who died first, the presumption of
survivorship is determined by the circumstances of the fact. In
the absence of circumstances of the fact, the determination must
be decided by the probabilities resulting from the age, strength,
and difference of sex according to the following rules. If those
who have perished together were under the age of fifteen years,
the eldest shall be presumed to have survived. If both were
above the age of sixty years, the youngest shall be presumed to
have survived. If some were under fifteen and some above sixty,
the first shall be presumed to have survived. If those who have
perished together were above the age of fifteen years and under
sixty, the male must be presumed to have survived, where there
was equality of age or a difference of less than one year. If they
were of the same sex, . . . the younger must be presumed to
have survived the older.""* The doctrine in England is stated,
in the syllabus to "the case of Wing v. Angrave,^ to be as fol-
lows: that "there is no presumption of law arising from age
or sex as to survivorship among persons whose death is oc-
casioned by one and the same cause ; . . . nor is there any pre-
sumption of law that all died at the same time ; . . . the ques-
tion is one of fact, depending w^holly on evidence, and if the
evidence does not establish the survivorship of any one, the law
will treat it as a matter incapable of being determined. The
onus prohandi is on the person asserting the affirmative."''

1 Primm ?'. Stewart, 7 Tex. 178, 181. 598, quoting from the Civil Code of Louis-

2 Scott V. Ratcliffe, 5 Pet. 81, 86. iana, art. 936-939.

3 Jackson i;. Boneham, 15 Johns. 226, ^ 8 H. L. 183.

228 ; Jackson v. Etz, 5 Cow. 314, 319 ; ^ See an interesting account of the

Ringhouse v. Keever, 49 111. 470. trial of Rohinson's case, involving the

* Robinson's Case, 2 South. L. R., N. 8., question of survivorship, in the Circuit

S 208 ESTATES OF LIVING PERSONS. 447

The same doctrine is held, by autliors and judges, to prevail in
America.^

§ 208. Administration on the Estates of Living Persons. — Probate
judges may be cunlidently relied on as furnishing their full quota
of bright illustrations to the truth of the adage that errare hu-
manum est^ — yielding nothing in this respect to their more
exalted brethren presiding over ai)pellate and nisi prius courts.
To the chance for mistakes due to this common trait of humanity
must be superadded the peculiar liability to err arising out of the
circumstances under which probate courts may be compelled to
decide — that is, judicially to ascertain — whether the evidence
before them is or is not sufficient legally to establish the death of
one who has been long absent from home, and whose property
and estate may be left exposed and without a legal owner's con-
trol and protection. We have seen that, in violation of the ordi-
nary rules of evidence, death may be proved by hearsay ,2 by a
presumption based upon circumstances which, without the force
imparted to them by the arbitrary rule of law, would not amount
•to proof, and with such sanction must still fail sometimes to con-
vince.^ There is, moreover, the possibility that the witnesses are
themselves mistaken as to the facts to which they testify, or may,
in furtherance of some fraudulent scheme, wilfully lie. No char-
itably disposed person will demand infallibility in the judgment
which a probate court may find itself compelled to render under
such circumstances ; nor does it seem wise, or rational, to condi-
tion the validity of such a judgment upon the omniscience of
the iudu-e rendering it. Yet the weight of authoritv Death of the

'' - ^ 1 ' 1 1 "p testator or in-

is very decidedly to the effect " that the decease ot testate ncces-
the supposed decedent is a prerequisite to the juris- jurfsdictiou.

Court of the United States for the District cing the law as above stated: "In the

of Louisiana, published in the Soutliorn absence of evidence from which the

Law lleview, supra, and givinfx a concise contrary may be inferred, all may be

and comprehensive review of the doctrine considered to have perished at the same

of survivorship under the civil law, and moment; not because the fact is pre-

in the different countries of Europe. It sumcd, but because, from failure to prove

was iield in this case that the provisions the contrary by those asserting it, prop-

of the Louisiana Code did not apply, and erty rights must necessarily be settled on

the instructions to the jury were in con- that theory" (p. 133 et scq.) ; Newell v.

sonance with the views announced in Nichols, 75 N. Y. 78; see also 3 Kedf. on

Wing I'. Angrave, supra. Wills, 5, note 1.

1 Johnson r. Merithew, 10 Atl. R. (Me.) 2 Ante, § 207, pp. 445, 446.

132, in which the court says after announ- ^ Ibid., p. 444, note 3.

448

PRELIMINARIES TO GRANT OF LETTERS.

§208

diction of the court, and that (if still living) he is wholly un-
affected by the })roceedings for the settlement of his estate." ^

The doctrine that the grant of letters testamentary, or of admin-
istration, on the estate of a person in fact living, but supposed to
be dead, is an act beyond the jurisdiction of the court, and there-
fore so utterly void that no person is protected in dealing with
the executor or administrator, even while his letters remain unre-
voked, is firmly adhered to in nearly all of the States in which the
question has arisen, and seems to command the acquiescence of
even text-writers. Judge Rcdfield, the illustrious author of an
American work on Wills, for many years one of the judges of the
Supreme Court of Vermont, and one of the editors of the Amer-
ican Law Register duriug the last fifteen years of his life, rejoices
in the recognition of this doctrine ;^ Freeman is content to mcn-

1 Freem.on Judgm.§319a. Mr. Free-
man cites the following cases : Melia v.
Simmons, 45 Wis. 334; Jocliuni.sen v.
Suffolk Savings Bank, 3 Allen, 87 ; Mc-
Plierson r. Cunliff, 11 S. & Pv. 422 ; Wales
V. Willard, 2 ]\Iass. UO ; Griffith v. Fra-
zier, 8 Cranch. 9 ; Allen v. Dundas, 3 T.
R. 125; Duncan r. Stewart, 25 Ala. 408 ;
Peebles' Appeal, 15 S. & R. 42; Morgan
r. Dodge, 44 N. H. 259; Bolton v. Jacks,
6 Rob. 1G6. Other decisions in the same
direction will be noticed /w/ya. With the
exception of the first two of the cases
mentioned in this note, which directly
adjudicate the question under considera-
tion, they all contain either mere dicta,
or adjudications upon cognate points only.

2 In his review of a New York case
liolding the contrary, which he charac-
terizes " as probably without a precedent,
either in English or American jurispru-
dence." The able critic, whose lamented
death is announced in the same number
of the Law Register which contains the
review spoken of, frankly admits, how-
ever, that he " cannot but see that there
is really nothing intrinsically absurd in
the decision, when looked at merely upon
the principles involved in it." " It is
only declaring probate courts in the State
of New York to be courts of general
jurisdiction and entitled to the same con-
clusive presumptions which we apply to
the superior courts of the State or nation,
and to superior courts of general jurisdic-

tion." " Within certain limits," he con-
tends, " this presumption would no doubt
prove salutary." He strongly commends
the collateral unimpeachability of the
jurisdiction of courts of probiite, so far
as it depends upon domicil within a"
particular district in the State, asserting
that tlie adjudicated cases to this extent
are very numerous, and have never been
questioned to his knowledge (a statement
indicating that he had not examined the
cases cited in the opinion which he was
reviewing); and continues : "But to be
extended to a case where no court could
possibly gain jurisdiction over the sub-
ject matter, the very casus belli or con-
tingency upon which the jurisdiction
attaches not having yet transpired, we
may, as it seems to us, well demand some
more compelling reasons for the exten-
sion than any presented by the learned
judse in the principal case" . 15 Am. L.
R. 212 e« seq.

If " there is really nothing intrinsically
absurd in the decision," (holding the judg-
ment of a surrogate as to the death of an
absentee conclusive in all collateral pro-
ceedings,) " when looked at merely upon the
principle involred in it," one is tempted to
ask. Why should we seek beyond the
"principle involved" to find the absurd-
ity? and. Whether, if justice, convenience,
and consistency require a rule of law not
objectionable on principle, there be any
basis left upon which to object to it 1

§ 209 INVALIDITY OF SUCH ADMINISTRATION. 449

tion the direction in which the current of decisions runs ; ^ and
Schouler disposes of the question in two lines, showing his assent
to the doctrine that a grant of administration upon the estate of
a living person is utterly void, and ])rotects no one dealing with
the appointee.2 Mr. Gary finds it " of course " that " the person
himself, if he returns alive, is not bound by the adjudication, not
being a party in any sense " ; but deems it a solecism to say that
a court does not adjudicate upon the primary jurisdictional fact
upon which it proceeds to act.^ The subject, however, is one of
such grave importance, and the anomaly presented so glaring and
deplorable, that a more minute investigation of the doctrine tlian
would otherwise be consistent with the scope of this work may be
pardoned.

§ 209. Reasons for the Invalidity of such Administration. — The
courts holding void the grant of letters on the estate of a person
not really, but only supposed to be dead, base the necessity of
their ruling upon the lack of jurisdiction in the probate court.
This depends, it is said, upon the fact of death : there being no
death, there is no estate to administer, hence no basis for the
jurisdiction of the probate court. The casual remark of Justices
Buller and Ashhurst, in the case of Allen v. Dundas,^ is generally
referred to as authority. It is to be observed that this case turned
upon the validity of an executor's acts under a will which had
received probate, but was subsequently found to have been forged.
The judges emphatically sustained the validity of the probate, and
of all acts done thereunder,^ and then remark : " The case of the
probate of a supposed will during the life of the party may be
distinguished from the present, because during his life the ecclesi-
astical court has no jurisdiction.^^ A similar remark was made
by Chief Justice Marshall in the case of Griffith v. Frazier,^ to
illustrate the invalidity of the judgment of a court acting upon a
matter not within its jurisdiction : " Suppose administration to be

1 Supra, p. 448, note 1. * 3 T. H. 125, 129, 130.

2 Sclioul. Ex. § 160. s Justice Asliliurst concluded his re-
8 Gary, Pr. L. § 287, note 59. His marks in these words : " But the founda-

commentary concerning the adjudication tion of my opinion is, that ever;/ person is
is directed to the case of Mutual Benefit bound bi/ the judicial acts of a court having
Life Ins. Co. v. Tisdale, 91 U. S. 238, in competent authority ; and during tlie exist-
which it is held tliat the probate court ence of sucli judicial act the law will pro-
does not adjudicate the death of the tect every person obeying it."
person on whose estate the letters are ^ 8 Cranch, 9, 23.
granted : p. 243.
VOL. I. —29

450 PRELIMINARIES TO GRANT OP LETTERS. § 209

granted upon the estate of a person not really dead. The act, all
will admit, is totally void." In this case the question was upon
the validity of a judgment suffered by an administrator cum testa-
mento annexo, who had obtained letters while a regularly appointed
executor had charge of the estate. The question under considera-
tion was before the court in neither of these two cases.

In the case of Burns v. Van Loan,i the dictum of Judge Marshall
is quoted, but the judgment was not based upon this principle,
there being a statute in Louisiana regulating the property of
an absentee, which, as well as the requirement of proof of death,
had been ignored in the grant of letters, for which reason the
letters were held void.

But in the case of Moore v. Smith,^ Wardlaw, J., announced the
law to be, as intimated in the dicta mentioned, that there was no
jurisdiction in the probate court unless there was in truth a
deceased person. He calls attention to the origin of the dicta, and
expresses his surprise that no case involving the exact point was
to be met with in the books ; and the court unanimously held,
upon the return of an absentee upon whose estate letters had been
granted, that such letters, and the distribution made thereunder,
and the sale of property so received by a distributee, were void.
In the same year the Supreme Court of North Carolina held evi-
dence that one upon whose estate administration had been
granted was alive, to be admissible in a suit upon the adminis-
tration bond, on the ground that, if such person were alive, the
bond would be void.^

In Jochumsen v. Suffolk Savings Bank,* the defendant was held
liable to one upon whose estate letters had been granted after his
absence for twelve years, for a debt which he had already paid to
the administrator so appointed. Judge Dewey reaches his con-
clusion of the utter invalidity of the appointment, and of every-
thing done by virtue thereof, from the previous Massachusetts
cases holding void the appointment of an administrator by the
court of a county in which the decedent did not at the time of his
death reside;^ and points for confirmation of his view to the dicta

1 29 La. An. 560, 564. announced in these cases had then been

2 11 Rich. L. 569, 572. Decided in generally receded from in most of the
1858. States, and had received the signal dis-

8 State V. White, 7 Ired. L. 116. approbation of the people of Massachu-

* 3 Alien, 87. Decided in 1861. setts more than a quarter of a century

5 It should be noted that the principle before in a statute peremptorily forbid-

§ 209

INVALTDITY OF SUCH ADMINISTRATION.

451

mentioned. He also mentions, as one of the strong reasons for
holding the question of jurisdiction not concluded, that the only
opi)ortunity for reversing or modifying a decree of the court of
probate is the limited one of appeal within thirty days, or by per-
mission of the Supreme Court within one year.i Jt is significant
that subsequent to the rendition of this decision provision was
made by statute for the relief of any person interested in or
affected by the act of an administrator, etc., under an appointment
void for the want of jurisdiction, by proceeding in equity, with
power in the court to set aside or confirm in whole or in part
such act or proceeding ; and making such administrator and his
sureties accountable for all money or property coming into his
hands as such.^

Other adjudications on this question then followed in rapid
succession, and all of them, with a single exception, holding
such administrations, and everything done in consequence thereof,
absolutely void : United States v. Payne,^ Melia v. Simmons,*
D'Arusment v. Jones,^ Lavin v. The Emigrant Industrial Savings
Bank,6 Stevenson v. Superior Court," Devlin v. Commonwealth,^

ding the assumption of jurisdiction by a
judge of probate, so far as it depends on
the place of residence of any person,
from being contested in any suit or pro-
ceeding whatever, except in an appeal
from the original case, or when tiie want
of jurisdiction appears on the same rec-
ord: Rev. St. Mass. 1830, ch. 83, § 12.
Tliis statute is the law of Massachusetts
to-day, and was the law at the moment
when Judge Dewey pronounced the above
opinion. It was recommended by the
commissioner^ as a remedy for the evils
consequent upon the collateral impeach-
ability of the judgments of probate
courts. Its wisdom is commended by
the courts of Maine, which incorporated
tliis provision into her statutes, (Record
V. Howard, 58 Me. 22-5, 228,) as well as by
those of ^Massachusetts (McFeely v. Scott,
128 Mass. 16, 18) The mischievous con-
sequences of the decisions on which Judge
Dewey relies were the subject of com-
ment long before : see the remarks of
the editor reporting Thompson v. Brown,
16 Mass 172, 180.

1 But this " strong reason " is thor-
oughly refuted by the same court in a

later case. In Waters v. Stickney, 12
Allen, 1, 15, says Gray, J.: " .... it is
impossible to deny the power of a court
of probate ... to correct errors arising
out of fraud or mistake in its own de-
crees. This power does not make the
decree of a court of probate less conclu-
sive in any other court, or in any way
impair tlie probate jurisdiction ; but ren-
ders that jurisdiction more complete and
effectual, and by enabling a court of
probate to correct mistakes and supply
defects in its own decrees, better enti-
tles them to be conclusive upon other
courts."

^ Laws of Mass. 187.3, pp. 684, 685.

8 4 Dillon, 387. Decided in 1877.

4 45 Wis. 334. Decided in 1878.

5 4 Lea, 251. Decided in 1880.

6 18 Blatchf 1. Decided in 1880.
' 62 Cal. 60. Decided in 1882.

8 101 Pa. St. 273. Decided in 1882.
In 1885 the legislature of this State regu-
lated the grant of letters on the estates
of persons absent for more than seven
years, and provideil for the safety of the
interests of all parties concerned : Bright.
Purd. Dig., Suppl. 1885, p. 2184 et seq.

452 PRELIMINARIES TO GRANT OF LETTERS. § 210

and Thomas v. The People.^ In all of them the same reason is
given for the ruling, to wit, the want of jurisdiction over the
subject matter ; the dicta by Justices Ashhurst, Bullcr, and Mar-
shall, and similar remarks in a number of other cases,^ are in-
variably referred to. The same doctrine is announced in a dictum
by Randall, C. J., of the Supreme Court of Florida,^ quoting a
similar dictum from a case decided in Virginia, to the effect that
there are two exceptions to the conclusiveness of the judgments
of probate courts collaterally : " As where the supposed testator
or intestate is alive ; or where, if dead, he has already a personal
representative in being when the order is made granting admin-
istration on his estate." * So also in Texas.^ An English case is
also mentioned as holding void the probate of a will upon motion
of the supposed deceased testator himself.^

The opinion in the case from Illinois,^ which was thoroughly
argued on both sides, and received the careful and intelligent con-
sideration of Mr. Justice Mulkey, may be looked upon as stating
all that can be said in support of the doctrine announced. The
general proposition that under our government no one can be
deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,
is relied on, and held to be inconsistent with the validity of a
judicial act as against one who had no notice of the proceeding,
and who was in no sense a party thereto ; and this although the
grant of letters upon an estate be deemed a proceeding m rem.
The same thing is necessary to give the court jurisdiction : there
must be a dead mati's estate ; if there is none such, there is no
jurisdiction, and consequently no power in the court to declare
such.^

§ 210. Cases holding Administration of Estates of Living Per-
sons valid. — The only case met with directly holding that, so far

1 107 111. 517. Decided in 1883. ^ " In every proceeding in rem, and

^ Some of them referred to by Free- in every case in tlie nature of a proceed-

man, in his work on Judgments, and cited ing in rem, there is some great central

ante, § 208. controlling fact upon which the jurisdic-

3 In Epping v. Robinson, 21 Fla. 36, tion or power in the court to act at all

49. Decided in 1884. depends, and such fact must have an act-

* Andrews v. Avory, 14 Gratt. 229, ual existence, otherwise the jurisdiction

236, per Moncure, J. (1858). will fail": p. 526 of the opinion, citing

& Martin v. Robinson, 67 Tex. 368, Thompson v. Wliitman, 18 Wall. 457 ;

375 (1887). Wheelwriglit v. Depeyster, 1 John. 471;

6 In re Napier, 1 Phillim. 83. Rose v. Himeley, 4 Cranch, 241, 269.

■^ Thomas v. The People, supra.

§ 210 ADMINISTRATION NOT IMPEACHABLE. 453

at least as to protect innocent persons acting upon the faith of
letters of administration issued by the surrogate upon due proof
as to the death of the intestate therein named, such letters are
conclusive evidence of the authority of the administrator to act,
until the order granting them is reversed on appeal, or the letters
are revoked or vacated, is that of Roderigas v. East River Savings
Institution.! It was decided in face of the case of Jochumsen v.
Suffolk Savings Bank,^ and of the dicta in Allen v. Dundas and
Griffith V. Frazier, as well as the case of Bolton v. Jacks,^ which,
holding the probate of a will of a testator not at the time of his
death an inhabitant of the county in which the probate is granted
to be void, is pronounced unsound. The doctrine announced com-
manded the assent of but four of the seven judges of the Court of
Appeals, three of them expressly dissenting, but giving no rea-
sons ; and was held to be in violation of the Fourteenth Amend-
ment to the Constitution of the United States in Lavin v. The
Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank,* the subject being elaborately
discussed by Choate, J.,who concludes that "the proceeding taken
under the laws of New York ... is void as to him [the returned
absentee] because it would deprive him of his property without
' due process of law.' " ^

The decision in the Roderigas case excited considerable criti-
cism at the time. Judge Redfield concludes a review of it in
these words : " When we come to find all this set aside and ig-
nored by one of the ablest courts in the country, and the oppo-
site views maintained and applied to a state of facts where no
court could possibly claim jurisdiction any more than it could
obtain jurisdiction of one who was never born, we must confess
to a new sense of uncertainty of the law." ^ The critic of the
American Law Review speaks of it as " a most extraordinary de-
cision, . . . contrary both to authority and principle," says that
" the proposition that a man cannot assert in court his own exist-
ence, because a court of probate has granted administration of his
estate supposing him to be dead, seems so preposterous, that it
would hardly be entitled to serious consideration if it had not

1 63 N. Y. 460. Decided in 1875. sen tee, for which reason he was not

2 3 Allen, 87. bound by tlie judgment of the surrogate

3 6 Eobt. 166. on the question of iiis death.

4 18 Blatclif. 1. ^ 15 Am. L. Reg. 212. See for further
* Ibid., p. 36. The principal reason e.iftracts from tliis review, ante, § 208,

given is the want of notice to the ab- p. 448, note 2.

454 PRELIMINARIES TO GRANT OF LETTERS. § 210

been put forward by the bigiicst court of New York," and con-
cludes by adopting the sarcasms of Judge Redfield in the review
above noticed.^ In several of the cases mentioned in tlie previous
section, a later decision by the same court in the same case is
cited in a manner from which it might be inferred that the New
York Court of Appeals had receded from the position above
announced ; but this is not so. In the latter case ,2 the court not
only refuse to review the former on its merits, but expressly affirm
it, distinguishing it from the latter in two particulars. In the
former case it was held that letters issued from the surrogate
upon due proof of the fact of death, and were therefore conclusive
authority to the administrator, while in the latter it appeared
affirmatively, first, that the letters had not been issued by the
surrogate, but by the clerk, who was not authorized thereto ; and
next, that no proof of death whatever had been offered or made ;
for these reasons the court unanimously held that the surrogate
had not obtained jurisdiction, and the letters were void.^

It is nevertheless true, that the opinion, which was delivered by
one of the judges dissenting from the former case, emphasizes by
its reasoning and quotation of authorities the views of those op-
posed to the doctrine of the majority, thus showing that the
dissenting judges, having been "convinced against their will, were
of the same opinion still." The laconic announcement at the
conclusion, that " all concur. Miller, J., concurring in result," is
eloquent of the protest of the latter against the reasoning of the
Chief Justice.

On the other hand, not even the formidable array of authority in
support of the doctrine suggested in 3 Term Reports and 8 Cranch
— imposing not more by the number than by the distinguished
character for ability and learning of its adherents — deterred
thinkers from investigating the problem for themselves, and, un-
warned by the fate of Galileo,* to publish their convictions to the
world. Thus the doctrine of absolute nullity is analyzed by a
writer in the American Law Review,^ who finds that upon princi-
ple there is something to be said in favor of the opposite view,

1 10 Am. L. Rev. 787, 789. " but to show that he never exerci.sed his

2 Roderigas v. East River Savings judgment, that he never acted": p. 322
Institution, 76 N. Y. 316, 319. of the opinion.

3 "It is not sought to impeach the * " E pur si muove .' "

judgment of tlie surrogate," says Church, ^ Vol. xiv. p. 337, May, 1880, essay by

C. J., in giving the opinion of the court, Jeremiah Smith.

§ 211 CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDGMENTS. 455

which has been regarded until i-ecently as " too absurd for any
one to entertain." ^ His conclusions are adverse to the current
of authorities. And in a late case decided in New Jersey, Chief
Justice Beasley, speaking for the whole court, says, " It is not
necessary to affirm the doctrine of this re])orted case, though in
passing it may not be out of place to remark that its reasoning,
notwithstanding the adverse criticisms to which it has been sub-
jected, appears to be of great weight." ^ And Dillon, J., render-
ing the opinion in United States v. Payne,^ says that much may
be said on both sides of the question, and that Roderigas v. East
River Savings Institution may be distinguished on solid grounds
from the case under consideration by him. " It was there held
that payment by a debtor in good faith to an administrator was
valid, and would protect the debtor against a second payment,
although the supposed intestate was alive at the time, and the
letters of administration were subsequently revoked for that rea-
son. The debtor was innocent, and acted on the faith of the
grant of administration of the proper court. It may be a different
question when it arises between an innocent third party and the
administrator himself, which is the present case."

§ 211. Conclusiveness of Judgments. — The argument of abso-
lute nullity of the authority of administrators over the estates of
living persons is stated thus : Courts of probate are empowered
to grant administration only upon the estates of deceased persons ;
they have no authority to grant administration on the estates of
living persons ; hence, if the supposed intestate was in fact alive,
the grant is absolutely void for the want of jurisdiction over the
subject matter.* Unless this statement assumes that jurisdiction
over the estates of deceased persons inheres in probate courts as a
matter of law, — requiring, indeed permitting, no inquiry by such
court, at least no adjudication, as to the factum of death, — it
must be understood as referring to the estates of persons adjudged
to be deceased. If such be the scope of the jurisdiction of probate
courts, — to grant administration on the estates of persons ad-

1 In this respect Judge Redfield agrees by courts, and holds payment by a debtor

with Mr. Smith ; see ante, p. 448, note 2. to the administrator of his creditor, ad-

- Plume V. Howard Savings Institution, judged to be dead on presumption after

46 N. J. L. 211, 230. The opinion pro- seven years' absence, to entitle the debtor

ceeds to comment on the necessity of vin- to an absolute discharge,

dicafing the conclusive validity as against ^ 4. Dillon, 387, 389.

collateral attack of judgments rendered * 14 Am. L. Rev. 338.

456 PRELIMINARIES TO GRANT OF LETTERS. § 211

judged to be dead, — it must follow that the grant is lawful, and
that the title of the administrator and of all holding under him
to any property belonging to such estate is unassailable, even
though the person supposed dead should return " in the flesh " ;
V)ecause he was adjudged dead, and the court had power so to
adjudge. This is the conclusion reached in the case of Roderigas.^
The only logical escape from it is the alternative, that no adjudi-
cation is necessary to determine under which of the two classes
of subject matter the estate is subsumable : whether under that
of deceased persons, in which case jurisdiction follows ; or that of
living persons, in which case it does not. But this alternative
is imaginable only upon condition that the question of the life
or death of the testator or intestate is a pure question of law, of
which courts will take judicial cognizance ; ^ an assumption vying
in absurdity at least with that ascribed to the Roderigas case, for
it could apply only to omniscient courts.

To condition the validity of a judgment upon a contingency in
the womb of the future which may or may not arrive, — to ascribe
to probate courts the power to inquire into and judicially deter-
mine upon the factum of death if the party shall not thereafter
return alive, and to deny the existence of such power if he shall
afterward be proved to be not dead, — is to introduce a new prin-
ciple into the science of the law, a new class of judgments (^sui
generis, it is to be hoped), which, ignis fatuus like, are apt to lure
confiding persons into peril ; — a logic equal to that of the sports-
man who so meant to shoot as to kill if what he aimed at was a
wild turkey, and to miss if it was his neighbor's goose.

The binding validity of the judgment of a court of competent
jurisdiction cannot be ignored without ignoring the validity of the
law itself. The judge is but the mouthpiece of the State : he
speaks, not the whim or even the solemn conviction of an indi-
vidual, but the sentence of the law, to the observance of which the
State holds all its citizens, and stands pledged to compel them
to it by the very terms of its existence.^ If, then, the probate
court acts within its jurisdiction in granting letters of adminis-
tration upon the estate of one whom, for the purposes of such

1 63 N. Y. 460, 470, opinion of Miller, Smith's Lead. Cas., 7th Am. ed. 632 ;

J. ; 76 N. Y. 316, 322, opinion of Church, Freem. on Judgm., 1st ed. § 608 ; Starkie

C. J. on Ev. 374.

■i 14 Am. L. Rev. 338, referring to 2 a Ante, § 11.

§ 211 CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDGMENTS. 457

administration, the law has pronounced dead, such letters are con-
clusive of the title of the administrator to all the personal property
of such person ; payment to him of any debt due to the person
legally deemed to be dead is as valid as if made to such person liv-
ing, and title to such property passes as fully to the administrator's
vendee, or distributee, as if aliened or donated by the intestate or
testator himself, unless the transaction be invalid for some other
reason.^ If lawful at the time, nothing which may happen subse-
quently can affect the rights of parties defined and determined,
" for it is a principle of manifest justice, as well as of established
law, that rights acquired by a third person, in the enforcement of
a decree of a court of general jurisdiction, shall endure, though
the decree be afterwards reversed." ^ Justice Ashhurst — whose
allusion to the invalidity of administration on a living person's
estate, (repeated a few years later by Chief Justice Marshall,) in
illustrating an argument, has probably given rise to the doctrine
under consideration — most emphatically asserts the rights of
those who rely upon the authority of a judicial act: " Every person
is bound by the judicial act of a court having competent authority ;
and during the existence of such judicial act the law will protect

1 " A court of general jurisdiction may has inquired, his conviction is conchisive

misconstrue, misapply, or plainly disobey of it." Park, J. (p. 440) says: " All the

the law, in pronouncing judgment, yet so cases from Hardress downward concur in

long as its judgment remains unreversed one uniform principle, that, where a niagis-

it unalterably binds the parties, and pro- trate has jurisdiction, a conviction by him

nounces the law which defines and deter- is conclusive evidence of the facts stated

mines their rights in that particular case": in the conviction." Richardson, J.: "I

Van Fleet, V. C, in Shultz v. Sanders, am of the same opinion ; wliether the ves-

38 N. J. Eq. 154, 156. In Brittain v. Kin- sel in question were a boat or no, was a

naird, 1 B. & B. 432, cited by Cooley in fact upon which the magistrate was to

his work on Constitutional Limitations, decide, and the fallacy lies in assuming

the question of jurisdiction depending that the fact which the magistrate has

upon the existence of a fact was discussed to decide is that which constitutes his

and thus stated by Dallas, C. J.: "The jurisdiction." (p. 442.)
general principle applicable to cases of '^ Shultz v. Sanders, supra, citing Rorer

this description is perfectly clear ; it is on Jud. Sales, § 431. " So great is the

established by all the ancient, and recog- faith reposed in judicial records," adds

nized by all the modern decisions; and the Vice-Ciiancellor (p. 157), " that it has

the principle is, that a conviction by a been held that a ?)ona/zV/e purchaser at a

magistrate who has jurisdiction over the judicial sale is entitled to hold the land

subject matter is, if no defects appear he has purchased and paid for, though the

upon the face of it, conclusive evidence defendant had, before the sale, paid the

of the facts stated in it. . . . The magis- debt on winch the judgment was founded,

trate, it is urged, could not give himself but left the judgment to stand open and

jurisdiction by finding that to be a fact un.satisfied on tlie records," citing Nich-

which was not a fact. But he is bound ols v. Disner, 29 N. J. L. 293 ; s. c. 31

to inquire as to the fact ; and, when he N. J. L. 461.

458 PRELIMINARIES TO GRANT OF LETTERS. § 211

every person obeying it." ^ In accordance with this principle, he
decided the probate of a will, which was subsequently found to
have been a forgery, to be valid, and to protect the executor and
all with whom he dealt until the revocation of the probate.^

It may be a hardship for a man who returns to his home after a
long absence to find that meanwhile his property has been sold or
used to pay his debts, or that it has been distributed to his widow
or next of kin. Fortunately, the cases of such Enoch Ardens are
rare ; but when they happen, it seems neither right, nor logical,
nor politic, that the law should shift their misfortune upon other
parties, at least fully as innocent as they. Not right, because the
party absenting himself is the victim of his own imprudence, or
of a concatenation of circumstances in which he is the actor or
sufferer, and should bear the consequences, because blame, if any,
can attach to no one but him ; while the judge who passes upon
the evidence submitted to him, the administrator who winds up
the estate, the debtor who pays in obedience to the mandate of the
law, act, not voluntarily, but upon compulsion of the sovereign
authority of the State. To hold them responsible for an errone-
ous adjudication of the court which the law itself requires, (for
we have seen that the probate judge, not being omniscient, cannot
always avoid error,) is to convert the element of misfortune into
that of arbitrary oppression and injustice. Not logical, because
such doctrine punishes one man for the imprudence or misfor-
tunes of another, and posits the absurdity that the law resents
obedience to the law. Nor politic, because unjust, and injustice is

1 Ante, § 209, p. 449, note 5. will ; it is not the act of the deceased

2 Allen V. Dundas, 3 T. R. 125. It person. The subject matter of juristlic-
might be interesting to learn the exact tion, then, does not exist, as is afterward
difference between a forged will (which clearly shown. Upon what principle, dis-
is therefore not a will) and the estate of a tinguishing this case from the other, can
person falsely represented as dead, con- jurisdiction be ascribed to the ecclesiasti-
sidered as facts bearing upon the question cal court "? The cases holding that, where
of jurisdiction. A person living is clearly even an inferior tribunal is required to
not a deceased person, and the argument ascertain and decide upon facts essential
is that no jurisdiction vests in the ecclesi- to its jurisdiction, its judgment thereon
astical court to determine or adjudicate cannot be collaterally attacked, are very
on the question of death, because after- general ; those making a distinction be-
ward it is found that the subject matter tween inferior and plenary courts in this
of jurisdiction does not exist, because respect are in most States overruled or
the person is not dead. The subject superseded by statutory enactments. See
matter of the jurisdiction to grant probate ante, on the subject of jurisdiction of
is the existence of a will, — the act of a probate courts.

deceased person : the forgery is not a

§ 212 ESTATES OF ABSENT PERSONS. 459

never wise ; the consciousness that the law itself imposes a wrong
strilvcs at the foundation upon which alone civil society and the
State itself can stand, — the confidence of the people in the justice
of the law.^

§ 212. Administration of Estates of absent Persons. — Adminis-
tration of property becomes necessary, as we have seen, when its
owner is, for any reason, incapable of exercising control over the
same, — oi assGvtmg; his jus disponendum.^ The practical reason
which demands the interposition of the State is fully as strong
when the owner of personal property — or of real property liable
for his debts, or for the support of his family — has voluntarily or
by compulsion absented himself, so that it is beyond his power to
provide for his family or satisfy his creditors, as if he were dead,
insane, or a minor. It is the office of the State, in such cases, to
assume that control over the property left by the owner which he,
if he could himself act, and would act rationally, would exercise, —
to cause such property to subserve its rational purpose. At com-
mon law the accomplislnnent of this function is brought about by
the arbitrary presumption of a person's death after an unexplained
absence from home of seven years, and subjecting his property to
administration as if he were dead. That this expedient is but an
unsatisfactory make-shift, giving rise to serious complications, and
leading to the anomalous doctrine whereby the law is made to
disown the logical result of its existence, thus destroying its own
essence, is abundantly apparent from the discussion of the subject
of administration on the estates of living persons.^ It raises a
presumption upon which it compels men to act, and then, accord-
ing to the decisions of nearly all the courts that have ruled on
the subject, disowns the necessary result of the presumption, and
treacherously deserts, in many cases vindictively punishes, those

1 See tlie argument of Justices Earl and ence between this logical consequence

Miller in the Roderigas case, pp. 462, 470. of the doctrine, and one which would

The liahlHty of a probate judge to refund hold guilty of murder the judge pro-

to a returning absentee, whom, according nouncing the sentence of death upon

to the testimony of witnesses and the pre- a felon convicted of a capital crime, the

sumption raised by the law, he had been jury who found the verdict, — ay, the

compelled to adjudge to be dead, the carpenter who built the scaffold upon

value of all property used in the pay- which he was executed, — if it should

ment of his debts, or distributed to his subsequently turn out that no crime had

wife, children, or next of kin, is logi- been committed 7

cally involved in conditioning the juris- '^ Ante, § 2

diction upon the existence, instead of ^ Supra, §§ 208 et seq.
proof, of a fact. How great is the differ-

460 PRELIMINARIES TO GRANT OF LETTERS. § 212

who confided in its validity.^ In recognition of the insufficiency
of the common law on this subject, the legislatures of several of
the States have given voice to the practical views of the people, and
rescued the law from humiliating inconsistency and impotence to
enforce its ordinances by statutory regulations.

Thus it is enacted in Missouri, that if administration be granted
on the estate of a person against whom the presumption of death
Statutes TO- ^^^^ arisen after an unexplained absence of seven con-
vidingforihe sccutivc ycars, the payment of money and delivery of
of absent property to the executor or administrator by any

debtor or bailee of such person shall be a bar to the
claims of such person, his heirs or assigns, against the person so
paying or delivering property ; and if such absentee do not ap-
pear before the court by which letters were granted before the
final disposition of his estate, obedience to the orders of such court
for the distribution or disposition thereof shall protect the execu-
tor or administrator from all claims of such absent person.^

A similar statute exists in Indiana, declaring the presumption
of death, after an absence of five years in " parts unknown," of a
person leaving property without sufficient provision for its man-
agement, and conferring jurisdiction upon the court of probate to
grant administration and dispose of the estate of such person, in
every respect, as if he were dead, if, upon complaint and proof,
after thirty days' notice by publication in a newspaper puljlished
at the capital of the State and also in one published in such
county, it appear that such property is suffering waste for want of
care, or that the family need it for their support and education, or
that it is needed for the payment of debts.^

^ Judge Wardlaw (and after him sev- planation would be greatly enhanced by

era! of the courts holding with him) thus an intimation how a purchaser, a debtor,

explains where the mistake lies in such an administrator, or even a probate judge,

cases: " The defendant insists that upon called on to act " within his sphere," can

the presumption sanctioned by law, and avoid " the unlucky predicament " of

the honest beUef thereby induced, judicial supposing the decision of a court, which

action was had, and in faith of that his the law compels such court to make, to be

purchase was made. The unlucky pre- judicial action.

dicament of the purchaser is the same ^ Rev. St. Mo. 1879, §§ 279. 280. The

that every one falls into who relies upon act was originally passed on March 14,

the action of a public functionary in a 1859; Laws, 1858-59, p. 42.
matter not within his sphere. The mis- ^ Rgv. St. 1881, §§ 22.32, 22.33. The

take has been in supposing that there was act originated, March 5, 1859, with an

any judicial action " • Moore f. Smith, 11 emergency clause, — the presumption of

Rich. L. 569, 575. The value of his ex- death declared therein after an absence

§ 212 ESTATES OF ABSENT PERSONS. 461

In Louisiana, if the owner of property absent himself without
appointing some one to take care of it, a curator is appointed to
administer it, who lias the same powers, duties, and annual com-
pensation as a tutor, makes annual settlements, and has them
homologated contradictorally with a curator ad hoc appointed for
that purpose ; and if such person has not been lieard of for ten
years, his administration ends, the property is delivered to the
heirs, or sold and the proceeds paid into the State treasury if
there are no heirs,^

In Rhode Island, the last will of a person absent from the State
for three years without proof of his being alive may be proved,
and administration granted on his estate "as if he were dead."
If such person afterward return, or appoint an agent or attorney
to act for him, the administrator must deliver up to him or such
agent all the estate then remaining in his hands, after deducting
all disbursements legally made, and such compensation for his
trouble as the probate court may deem reasonable.^ Tiiis statute
is said, by Choate, J., to be unconstitutional, for the same reason
on which he based the unconstitutionality of the New York stat-
ute authorizing the decision in Roderigas v. East River Savings
Institution.^ "The Rhode Island statute undertakes to do di-
rectly what the New York statute aims to accomplish by the
more indirect method of declaring a judicial decision conclusive
against a person not a party to it. In Rhode Island the court
does not go through the form of deciding that the person is
dead, but, conceding that he is only absent, distributes his estate
' as if he were dead,' without the service of any notice upon him
whatever." *

In Massachusetts, as has already been mentioned, the same sub-
stantial result is reached by subjecting the question of the relative
rights of the parties affected by the administration upon the estate
of one supposed to be dead, but afterward appearing in person, to
the jurisdiction of a court of equity, with power to validate or
avoid any of the acts done.^

of ten years: Laws, 1859, p. 33. The ^ See (J«?e, § 210.

ten years was reduced to five, March 9, * Lavin v. Tlie Emigrant Industrial

1861, by an act also containing the emer- Savings Bank, 18 Blatchf. 1, 37. The

gency clause : Laws, 1861, p. 116. decision of the case was put upon another

1 Burns v. Van Loan, 29 La. An. 560, ground, however.

561. ^ Ante, p. 451, note 2.

2 Pub. St. 1882, p. 476, §§ 8, 9.

462 PRELIMINARIES TO GRANT OF LETTERS. § 213

Pennsylvania, also, has enacted an efficient and simple remedy
for the administration of estates of absentees, amply securing the
interests of such absentee if he should subsequently return, and
enabling payment of creditors, and distribution to wife, children,
or next of kin, upon just and reasonable conditions. ^

In Texas, on the other hand, it is provided by statute that a will

probated before the death of the testator and administration on

the estate of a living person are void, except as to the

Statutes allow- ., . . . , '^ „^ _ ^-, ', ^ , ^

ingsuchad- administration bond.'' In Vermont there may be ad-
and declaring ministration on the estate of one who has been absent
^^ ^°' ■ and unheard from for fifteen years ; but if such ab-

sentee return, he is nevertheless entitled to all his property, and
may recover it from any one having possession of it.^ In Arkan-
sas presumption of death arises after five years' unexplained ab-
sence ; ^ but any property administered on in consequence of such
presumption may be recovered by such person on his subsequent
return, together with rents, profits, and interest.^ So, substan-
tially, in New Jersey.^

§ 213. Administration on the Estates of Persons civilly Dead. —
Civil death, which in England followed attainder of treason or
felony, and was anciently the consequence of entering a monas-
tery, abjuring the realm, and banishment, was there attended by
the same. legal consequences as death of the body. Hence a monk
might, on entering religion, make his testament, and appoint exec-
utors, and the ordinary might grant administration, as in case of
other persons dying ; and such executors and administrators had
the same powers as if he were naturally dead.^ Thus in Kansas,^
Maine,^ and Missouri,!^ the estates of convicts under sentence of
imprisonment for life are to be administered as if they were
naturally dead; and in New York the statute provides that a
person sentenced to imprisonment for life shall be deemed civilly
dead, but this is held not to be a divestiture of a convict's estate.^^

But in most of the American States the condition of civil death
is not recognized ; ^ the constitutions of the several States, as well

1 Brightly's Purd. Dig., Supplement, ^ 1 Bla. Comm. 132.

1885, p. 2184. 8 Dassler's St. 1885, ch. 82, § 337.

'^ Rev. L. 1888, art. 1791. ^ Rev. St. 188.3, ch. 64, § 18.

8 Rev. L. 1880, § 2077. ^ Rev. St. 1879, § 654.3.

4 Dig. 1884, § 28.50. " Avery v. Everett, 110 N. Y. 317.

6 Dig. 1884, § 217. ^^ Chancellor Kent apprehended, in
6 Hoytu. Newbold,45N.J.L.219,221. Troup v. Wood, 4 John. Ch. 228, the

§ 213 ESTATES OF PERSONS CIVrLLY DEAD. 463

as the Federal Constitution, abolish attainder and corruption of
blood ; and the property of persons sentenced to imprisonment
for life does not, generally, descend to the heirs or personal repre-
sentatives, like that of deceased persons.^

New York statute to be declaratory of death was never carried further by the

the existing law, enacted for greater common law than to persons professed,

caution ; but in Plainer v. Slierwood, 6 abjured, or banished the realm.

John. Ch. 118, he says that he was mis- ^ Frazer v. Fulcher, 17 Ohio, 260;

taken in this view, and that strict civil Cannon v. Windsor, 1 Houst. 143.

464 THE PROBATE OF THE WILL. § 214

CHAPTER XXIV.

OP THE PROBATE OF THE WILL.

§ 214. Production of the "Will for Probate. — In many States

the judge of probate or register of wills is, by statute, made the

custodian of wills deposited with him to that end. In

Dutv to pro- ..,.,, 1 ..-

pound will such States, it is his duty, as soon as he receives intor-
or pro -ite. jjjation of the death of any testator whose will he has
in custody, to institute proceedings for the probate thereof, and
to that end compel the attendance of the necessary witnesses to
prove its execution and the death of the testator.^ If the judge
of probate is not the custodian, or, being so, neglects to proceed
with the probate, it is the duty of the executor nominated in the
will, as well as of any other person who may have it in possession,
to produce it for probate. The time fixed by law for

Time for the ^ -..nc -it^c j.cij.i.

propounding such productlon IS different m the diiterent States,
varying from the time when the custodian shall learn
the testator's death,^ to ten days,^ fifteen days,* thirty days,^ or
Who may de- three months,^ after the day on which he died.^ Any
mand probate, pg^gon interested in a will may demand its production
and probate;® even a slave was allowed a standing in court to
compel probate of a will bequeathing him his freedom ; ^ and so

1 A statute providing for the ante mor- to compel such production by citation to,
tern probate of wills was held inoperative or attachment against, and, if necessary,
in Michigan : Lloyd v. Wayne Circuit imprisonment of the person having a
Judge, 56 Mich. 236, 239, 240. will in custody. In New York this power

2 As in Iowa. was held not to be affected by the stat-

3 In Colorado. ute inhibiting surrogates from exercis-
* In Pennsylvania. ing any power not expressly conferred :
6 In California, Connecticut, Illinois, Brick's Estate, 15 Abb. Pr. 12.

Maine, Massachusetts, .Michigan, Minne- ^ Finch v. Finch, 14 Ga. 362; Stone

sota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, v. Huxford, 8 Blackf. 452 ; Stebbins v.

Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, and Wis- Lathrop, 4 Pick. 33 ; Enloe v. Sherrill, 6

consin. Ired. L. 212, 215; State v. Pace, 9 Rich.

6 In Maryland. L. 355; Ryan v. Tex. & Pac. R. R. Co., 64

T In other States no provision as to Tex. 239, 242. One not interested cannot

the time within which the production is bring in a foreign probate for allowance :

required exists ; but in all of them au- Besancon i'. Brownson, 39 Mich 388, 392.

thority is given to the judge of probate '■' Ford v. Ford, 7 Humph. 92.

§ 214 PRODUCTION OF THE WILL FOR PROBATE. 465

an executor, devisee, or purchaser from a devisee, although the
estate has been fully distributed.^

In most of the States, the secreting, withliolding, or refusal to
produce a will for probate, in the possession of an executor or
other person, is a violation of the law subjecting such p^j^g^^^^^ f^r
persons to various penalties ; thev are made liable, for secretiiif^ or
instance, for any damages accruing to any person in- will from
terested in the will so withheld, in California,^ Indi- ^"^^ * ^"
ana,3 Iowa,* Kansas,^ Maine,^ Massachusetts,^ Nebraska,^ Nevada,^
Ohio,io and Wisconsin ; " a fine is imposed in Maryland ; ^^ and an
action given for the use of the estate, or a qui tarn action against
the person withholding the will, in Connecticut,!^ Illinois,^'' Maine,!^
Rhode Island,!^ and Vermont.^^ In Mississippi, such withholding
is punishable as grand larceny.^^ In Texas,!'-* the executor forfeits
his right of executorship, if he neglect for more than thirty days
to present the will for probate.

In respect of the time within which a will is alloived to be
proved, there is also considerable divergence in the several States.
In New Jersey probate of a will within ten days of Limitation of
the testator's death is erroneous, but good until it Jvhicirprobate
be reversed in a direct proceeding.^*^ Perkins, iu his ™^-^' '^*' '^'^'^•
American edition of Jarman on Wills,^! mentions a Georgia stat-
ute requiring the registry within three months after the testa-
tor's death, otherwise the will to be void ; but this statute was
held inoperative.^ In Ohio, a devise is held to lapse, and the
estate devised to descend to the heirs of the testator, if the
devisee, knowing of its existence, fail to offer the will, or cause
it to be offered, for probate within three years.^'^ In Connecticut,

1 Because a will confers no legal title ^^ Originally for £5, now for $20 per
without probate: State r. Judge, 17 La. month: Barber v. Eno, 2 Root, 150.

An. 189; Ryan v. Tex. & Pac. R. R. Co., i^ Rev. St. 1885, p. 2472, § 12 ($20 per

01 Tex. 239. month).

2 Code Ciy. Pr.'l885, § 1298. i5 Moore v. Smith, 5 Me. 490.

3 Rev. St. 1881, § 2.582. i6 p„b. St. 1882, p. 473, § 5 ($100 per

4 Code, § 2339. month).

6 Dassler's St. 1885, ch. 117, § 10. i" Rev. L. 1880, § 2052 ($10 per month).

6 Rev. St. 1883, ch. 64, § .3. is Code, 1857, p. 434, § 47. See Code,

7 Pub. St. 1882, cli. 127, § 13. 1880, § 2978.

8 Comp. St. 1887, ch. 23, § 138. i9 Stone v. Brown, 16 Tex. 42-5, 428.

9 1 Comp. L. 1873, § 486. 20 Will of Evans, 29 N. J. Eq. 571.
1" Rev. St. 1880, § 5924. 21 Pa<re 218, note 3.

11 Rev. St. 1878, § 3785. 22 Harrell v. Hamiton, 6 Ga. 37.

12 At the discretion of the court : Code, 2.3 Carpenter v. Denoon, 29 Oh. St. 379,
1878, p. 422, § 17. 392.

VOL. I.— 30

466 THE mOBATE OF THE WILL. § 214

no will is allowed to be proved after the expiration of ten years
from the testator's death, except in the interest of minors, who
have three years after reaching majority within which to obtain
the probate.^ In Maine,^ Oregon,'^ and Tennessee,'* no probate
is to be granted after the expiration of twenty years from the
testator's death ; and in Kentucky the lapse of thirty years is
prima facie a bar to the establishment of a will in chancery.^ In
Indiana,^ a bona fide purchaser from the heirs of the testator can
hold against his devisees if the will is not probated within three
years ; in New York '' and Ohio,^ if not within four years. In
Illinois no time has been designated within which a will may be
probated ; hence a Avill was admitted to probate thirteen,^ and in
Massachusetts sixty-three,^^ years after the testator's death. So in
New Jersey the will of a married woman was admitted to probate
ten years after her death, her husband's consent thereto being
held irrevocable, although the husband had administered the
estate until his own death ; ^^ and m Texas, although probate is
required to be made within four years, after the expiration of
which no letters testamentary can be granted, a will may be pro-
bated thereafter for the purpose of establishing a link in the chain
of title ; and where the devisee has assigned his interest under
the will before probate, the subsequent probate gives vitality to
the conveyance, except against an innocent purchaser from an
heir.i2 In Michigan a legatee, holding a will or having knowledge
of its existence, must secure its probate within a reasonable time
after he knows of the testator's death, or he may bar himself
from claiming any benefit therefrom.^^

1 Goodman v. Russ, 14 Conn. 210, 6 Rgv. St. 1881, § 2575 ; unless devisee

215. is under disability, or the will has been

^ Eev. St. ch. 64, § 1. But where the concealed,

will is fraudulently concealed, the stat- ' Unless the will is concealed by the

ute does not begin to run until it has heirs; 1829, 1 Rev, St. 748; 3 Jarm. 729,

been discovered • Deake's Appeal, 12 note iii.

Atl. R. (Me.) 790. ^ If the devisee know of its existence

3 St. 1855, p. 342, § 30. and have the same in bis power to con-

• 4 Except to infants or married women trol : Rev. St. 1880, § 5943.

at the time of the testator's death, as to ^ Rebhan v. Mueller, 114 111. 343.

whom the limitation is thirty years. The i" Haddock v. Boston & M. R. Co., 146

probate of a will in the Probate Court Mass. 155.

more than thirty years after the death of " Camden Safe D. & T. Co. v. Ingham,

a testator was held erroneous, but con- 40 N. J. Eq. 3.

elusive, Shackelford, J., dissenting, hold- ^^ Ryan v. Texas & Pac. R. R. Co., 64

ing it to be void: Townsend f. Townsend, Tex. 239, 241 , Ochoa v. Miller, 59 Tex.

4 Coldw. 70, 79, 86. 460.

5 Hunt V. Hamilton, 9 Dana, 90. i^ poote v. Foote, 61 Mich. 181, 194.

§ 215 VALIDITY OF PROBATE IN PROBATE COURTS. 467

§215. Validity of Probate in Probate Courts. — Previous to

the act creating the Court of Probates/ no will or testamentary
paper whatever relating to personalty could be estab- ^^ common
lished or disputed in any other than the ecclesiastical, {,'^^7^,7^^',^'^^^.
or prescriptive manorial courts of England; these ceived i>nibate

' . . ,. . Ml £c ^ in ecclesiastical

courts, however, had no jurisdiction over wills aiiect- courts only ;

. . ■! • ■ 11 wills of rcaltv,

ing real estate, — their sentences and decrees were in common law
wholly inoperative as to such.2 Under the act referred •=<'"''^' ""'•'•
to, jurisdiction to take probate of wills, without distinguishing
between them on the ground of their disposing of real gj^j,,^^^^, .^,.
or personal property, is vested in the Court of Probate risdictioa now

'^ 1 1 .; ' _ ,,j probate

thereby created. The probate may be in the " com- courts as to
moil " or " non-contentious " form, granted by the
registrar upon the affidavit of the applicant showing the testator's
domicil and death; or it may be in the "solemn" or "conten-
tious " form, upon citation to the widow and next of kin, and a
regular trial by the judge.^ This power had long before been
exercised by the probate courts of nearly all the States ; the dis-
tinction between wills of realty and of personalty is now practically
ignored in the proceedings to obtain probate,'^ except, perhaps, in
Maryland, where a will of personalty may be admitted to probate
in the Orphan's Court, and on the testimony of one of the attest-
ing witnesses, while a will of real estate must be proved by the
testimony of all of them.° In some of the States, however, there
is still a distinction observed as to the conclusiveness of such
probate.^ But the distinction between the several Different meth-
methods of probate, variously designated as the "com- "^i^ of P-o^^ie.
mon" contrasted with the "solemn" form, the "non-contentious"
with the "contentious," or the " ex parte" probate with the pro-
bate ^^ per testes" exists in many of them, requiring different
forms of proceeding in bringing about the same result secured by

1 20 & 21 Vict. c. 77, § 13. 8 Wms. Ex. [290].

- " Whenever a freehold is claimerl, * Schoul. Ex. § 59, citine Shiimway

the origin.xl will must be prorlueed. ... r. Tlolbrook, 1 Pick. 114 ; Wilkinson v.

And sucli is the jealousy of tiie common Leland, 2 Pet. 627,655 ; Bailey v. Bailey,

law with regard to ecclesiastical jurisdic- 8 Ohio, 239, 245.

tion, that neither an exemplification un- ^ Robertson c. Pickrell, 109 U. S. 608,

der the great seal, nor the probate under 610.

the seal of the ecclesiastical court will ^ See as to effect of probate, infra,

be admitted as secondary evidence " : § 228.
Adams on Eject. *290 (4tb ed.), citing Ash
V. Calvert, 2 Camp. 387, 389.

468

THE PROIJATE OF THE WILL.

the English statute. Courts of probate have orig-inal exclusive
jurisdiction in all of the States to take probate of wills in the
common form, where there is no notice to any of the parties, or,
if parties are cited or notified by publication, they either fail to
appear, or, appearing, make no objection. In some instances
the same class of courts has also jurisdiction to cite parties in
interest, either upon demand of the executor or other person pro-
pounding the will, or upon objections being made or caveat filed,
and in such case grant probate in solemn form, which then is con-
clusive.

Thus in California,^ Delaware,^ Florida,^ Georgia,'* Maryland,^
Mississippi,^ Nevada, Nebraska, New Jersey,' New Hampshire,^
and South Carolina,^ the probate in common form may be con-

1 Code Civ. Pr §§ 1298-1333. Parties
having no notice of the probate may
contest within one year; and the decision
on such contest, as well as the original
probate if not contested within one year,
is conclusive. If the heirs appear, al-
though not properly served with notice,
they are bound : Abila v. Padilla, 14 Cal.
103. Such decision is not assailable if
not appealed from : State v. McGlynn, 20
Cal. 233; see McCrea v. Haraszthy, 51
Cal. 146.

2 Rev. Code, 1874, p. 539 ; Davis v.
Rogers, 1 Houst. 183.

3 The will may be proved on the affi-
davit of the executor or other proponent ;
any party interested may contest witliin
seven years : Meyer v. Meyer, 7 Fla. 292.

* Probate by one witness without no-
tice to any one is conclusive, if it re-
mains unchallenged for seven years
(except as to minors, who may interpose
caveat for four years after their major-
ity) ; probate in solemn form by all wit-
nesses, upon notice to all parties . Code,
1882, §§ 242-3-2426. Notice to the hus-
band of one next of kin is not sufficient :
Stone V. Green, .30 Ga. 340 ; if one of the
caveators die, his representative need not
be made a party : Stancil v. Kenan, 35
Ga. 102 ; destruction of the subject of a
legacy is no ground for a caveat: New-
som V. Tucker, 36 Ga. 71,76.

^ Upon caveat by any person in inter-
est, there must be a trial ; issues are
made up and sent by the orplian's court

to the circuit court, from which appeal
lies to tlie court of appeals ; Jameson
V. Hall, 37 Md. 221, 230 • Scliull v. Mur-
ray, 32 Md. 9, 15. Where tliere is a
dispute in regard to the facts, it is in-
cumbent on the court to order a plenary
proceeding. Mills v. Humes, 22 Md. 346,
351, citing numerous earlier cases. The
probate of a will of personalty by the
probate court is conclusive, of realty only
prima fade ; but a rejection is conclusive
in both classes of wills : Johns v. Hodges,
62 Md. 525, 533.

6 The issue of devisavU vel non is sent
for trial to the circuit court and tlie
verdict certified to the probate court :
Graves v. lid wards, 32 Miss. 30.5.

' Proceedings in this State are the
same as in Maryland • on objections be-
fore the surrogate, trial is had in the or-
phan's court, whence issues may be sent
to the circuit court ; a probate without
notire will be set aside by the ordinsiry :
Will of Lawrence, 7 N. J. Eq 21,5, 221.'

8 The probate in common form may
be appealed from, or proof in solemn
form demanded witiiin one year: Stew-
art V. Harriman, 56 N. H 25.

9 Probate in common form, by one
witness, ex parte, is conclusive, unless
probate in full form be demanded within
four years after removal of any disability,
whereupon trial is upon notice to all par-
ties and examination of all the witnesses:
Kinard v. Riddlehoover, 3 Rich. L 258,
266.

§215

VALIDITY OF PROBATE IN PROBATE COURTS.

469

tested within a limited time, and probate in solemn form, with
notice to all interested parties, had in the probate court.

In Alabama,^ Colorado,^ Illinois,^ Indiana,^ Kansas,^ Kentncky,^
Missouri,^ New York,** North Carolina,^ Ohio,i*^ Pennsylvania,^^
Tenncssce,^^ Texas,^'^ Virginia,^** and West Virg-inia,^^ the pro-
bate originally obtained ex parte, or in common form, in the
probate court, may be contested either in chancery, or by action
in a court of law ; and the proceedings in such court constitute

1 Probate without notice to the next
of kin or widow may be set aside in chan-
cery within five years: Hall v. Hall, 47
Ala. 290 ; although it is the duty of the
probate court to set aside a probate
granted without notice to the heirs, upon
petition by such heirs : Sowell v. Sowell,
40 Ala. 24.S.

^ Probate may be contested by parties
not notified and not appearing, in chan-
cery, within two years ; or the probate
may be appealed from : Gen. L. 1883,
§§ 3508, 3510.

3 Within three years, in chancery ; or
tliree years after removal of disability ;
and parties may also contest in the pro-
bate court: Duncan v. Duncan, 23 111.
364, 360 ; and appeal from it : Doran v.
Mullen, 78 111. 342 ; Storey's WiU, 20
111. A pp. 183; s. c. 120 111. 244.

* By parties not present or notified,
witiiin three years, or two years after re-
moval of disability, in the circuit court :
Etter V. Armstrong, 46 Ind. 197 ; Deig v.
Morehead, 110 Ind. 451. There is right
to trial by jury : Lamb v. Lamb, 105 Ind.
456.

» Within two years after removal of
disability, by civil action.

•^ Within five years in circuit court;
or by persons not present or notified in
chancery within three years, on the gen-
eral doctrine that a person bound by a
judgment who was not present or notified
may have the judgment reviewed : Sin-
gleton V. Singleton, 8 B. Mon. 340, 358
et seq., reviewing numerous earlier cases ;
or by writ of error in circuit court : Tib-
bats 0. Berry, 10 B. Mon. 473, 476 ; or
appeal : Walters v. Ratliff, 5 Bush, 575,
citing Hughey v. Sidwell, 18 B. Mon. 259.

" Probate or rejection ex parte by the
probate court is binding, and there is no
appeal ; but any person interested may

within five years institute proceedings in
the circuit court for the trial of an issue
of devisavit vel non : Kenrick v. Cole, 46
Mo. 85 ; Duty's Estate, 27 Mo. 43.

^ Probate by the surrogate is conclu-
sive as to personalty, prima fucie as to
realty ; he cannot grant probate in solemn
form : Wetmore v. Parker, 52 N. Y. 450,
456 ; Burger v. Hill, 1 Bradf. 360, 371.

'J Upon caveat, at any time, proceed-
ings will be removed into the superior
court.

1* Contest may be made in the circuit
cotirt within two years : Hathavvay's Will,
4 Oh. St. 383. See McArthur v. Scott, 113
U. S. 340, 385 et seq , reviewing the Ohio
cases, and holding that, on a contest in
chan(;ery, the decree only affects parties
to the suit, being void as to all others.

11 Upon caveat, issues must be tried
in the orphan's court or common pleas
court ; probate is conclusive as to per-
sonalty, but may be contested as to real
estate by caveat and action at law ; if
not contested within five years, it is con-
clusive also : Wikoff' s Appeal, 15 Pa.
St. 281 ; Cauffmann v. Long, 82 Pa. St.
72 ; Broe v. Boyle, 108 Pa. St. 76, 82.

^'^ Proof by one witness ; but on con-
test at any time within eighteen years,
there must be full trial in the circuit
court : Gibson v. Lane, 9 Yerg. 475 ; Ed-
mondson v. Carroll, 2 Sneed, 678; Miller
V. Miller, 5 Heisk. 723.

1^ Tiie probate may be contested with'n
four years after removal of disability or
discovery of fraud in the circuit court.

1^ Probate is conclusive upon all parties
notified or appearing ; but if not, they
may impeach the probate in equity within
five years : Spencer v. Moore, 4 Call, 423.

i** Appeal is given within one year to
circuit court, and review in chancery
within three years.

470 THE PROBATE OF THE WILL. § 216

the probate in solemn or full form, or, as is sometimes snid, per
testes.

In the States of Arkansas,^ lowa,^ Maine, Massachusetts, Mich-
igan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin,
the probate obtained in the probate court seems to have all the
force and validity of a probate in solemn form, and is conclusive,
both as to real and personal estate, if not appealed from or an-
nulled in equity for fraud, or some cause which gives equity courts
jurisdiction over judgments at law.^

In Louisiana the will must be proved before the parish or dis-
trict judge ; ■* a foreign will may be registered, or proved before
the court in which it is offered as evidence.^

The probate of wills lost, suppressed, or destroyed,^ is ordinarily
within the jurisdiction of probate courts, as coming within the
scope of their general jurisdiction^ But in most of the United
States chancery courts exercise the power to establish wills on the
ground that they have been lost, suppressed, or destroyed, and the
jurisdiction in such cases seems to be concurrent,^ unless the stat-
ute restrict the jurisdiction of the one or other of these courts.
Thus, it is held in Tennessee, that where a will has been lost, or
destroyed, or suppressed, by accident or fraud, it can only be set
up in a court of chancery ; ^ in Ohio, that the jurisdiction is
confined to a court of probate ;^'^ and the Supreme Court of the
United States expressed grave doubt whether such is the law of
Louisiana.^^

§ 216. Method of Proof in Common Form. — The probate of a

will in common form is in its nature ex parte, without notice to

any one interested in or against it, and resting, in

non-contentious somc States, upou the evidence or affidavit of a single

*""° ^ ^' witness, which in some instances may be the executor

1 Dowell v. Tucker, 46 Ark. 438, 449. ^ Code, 1681, 1682.

2 Proceedings in Iowa are in tlie cir- ^ As to wliicii see post, § 221.

cuit court: Code, § 2312 ; Murphy v. '' Dower v. Seeds, 28 W. Va. 113, 152,

Black, 41 Iowa, 488 ; Gilruth v. Gilruth, and numerous cases cited.

40 Iowa, 346 ; a proceeding to probate is ^ Dower v. Seeds, supra ; Harris v.

not reviewable de novo on appeal : Don- Tisereau, 52 Ga. 153.

nely's Will, 68 Iowa, 126. ® Buchanan ?;. Matlock, 8 Humph. 390,

3 Scboui. Ex. § 70, citing Smith Prob. 400.

Pr. 46 ; O'Dell v. Rogers, 44 Wis. 136 ; ^^ Morningstar v. Selby, 15 Ohio, 345,

Parker v. Parker, 11 Cush. 519. 362.

4 Code, 1637 ; Succession of Eubanks, ^^ Gaines v. Chew, 2 How. (U. S.) 619,
9 La. An. 147; Hollingshead c. Sturges, 647.

16 La. An. 334.

J 216 METHOD OF PROOF iN COMMON FOEM. 47l

or proponent himself. It '' applies only for convenience, expe-
dition, and the saving of expense, where there is apparently no
question among the parties interested in the estate that the
paper propounded is the genuine last will, and as such entitled
to probate. For contentious business before the court, probate
in common form would be quite unsuitable." ^ According to the
English ecclesiastical practice, in which this form of probate ori-
ginated, a will is proved when the executor presents it before the
judge and produces more or less proof that the testament pre-
sented is the true, whole, and last testament of the deceased,
■wiiereupon the judge passes the instrument to probate, and issues
letters testamentary under the official seal.^ Under Effect ..f pio-
the Court of Probate Act the executor may at his i>atei,..„n„non

.' iuul 111 solemn

pleasure prove the will in common or in solemn form, fo''»-
the diflerence in effect being that the probate in conniion form
may be impeached at any time within thirty years by a person
having an interest, whereupon the executor will be compelled to
prove it per testes in solemn form ; ^ whereas, if once proved in
solemn form of law, the executor is not to be compelled to prove
the same any more, and the instrument remains in force, although
all the witnesses be dead.*

According to the practice in American probate courts, a similar
course is pursued in most of the States ; usually, the executor
(but it may be any other person having an interest) proof ir
presents the will, and sets forth in a petition Cwhich '"°'? ^"'i"'

*• , r V under Ai.

may be a printed blank provided for such purpose) the can statutes.
facts of the death of the testator, his last domicil, the names and
places of residence of the surviving widow or husband, if there be
such, and of the next of kin ; and, alleging that the paper or papers
presented constitute the last will of the deceased, prays for the
probate thereof and for appointment of executor or administrator,
as the case may be.^ It is held in some of the States, as has

1 Schoul. Ex. § G6. But in some States, tion of the executor by the next of kin
for instance in Missouri, tliere can be no to prove it i>er testes in due form of law,
contentious proceeding until the will has revoked in 1818: Wms., citing Satter-
been either admitted or rejected by the thwaite r. Sattertliwaite, oPhillim. 1 ; aiul
probate court, which can only be in the one granted in 1807 was revoked in 1820:
common form : Rev. St. §§ 3972, 3980. Finucane ;• Gayfere, 3 Phillim. 405.

2 Schoul. Ex. § 6G, citing Swinb., pt. 6, * Wms. Ex. [334], citing Swinb., pt. 6,
§ 14, pi. 1 ; Wms. Ex. [325|. § 14, pi. 4.

3 So tiie probate of a codicil, granted " Schoul. Ex. § 65. It is not essential
in common form in 1808, was upon cita- that the petiiiou allege the testamentary

in com-
orm
Lnieri-

472 THE PROBATE OF THE WILL. § 217

already been mentioned, that proof may be made by a single sub-
scribing witness ; ^ but in most of them the testimony of both or
all subscribing witnesses is required, if they are living and within
What facts the reach of the process of the court.^ Whether the
must be proved ^[\\ y^Q pj-Qved hv the testimony of one or all of the

to obtain pro- i j ^

bate. witnesses, or by the affidavit of the executor, or by

other witnesses, the facts necessary to be proved are in all instan-
ces the same : that the testator was of sound mind, and that he
and the subscribing witnesses complied with all the requirements
of the statute respecting the execution and attestation by the
requisite number of witnesses.^ The essential qualities of a will
have been considered in a former chapter of this work, to which
reference is hereby made.*

§ 217. The Probate in Solemn Form. — The English distinction
between the common or ex parte probate and the probate in
solemn form, or per testes, has already been mentioned.^ In some
Proof in solemn of the American States,^ the only method of probate
uXe'3'tHai provided for is the original proceeding in the probate
of an issue of court, wliich, as it requires citation or notice to all the

devisnvit vet ' ' ^ i • i p ,1 • £

non. parties interested and a regular trial of the issue ot

devisavit vel non, with trial by jury under the direction of a judge,
is substantially a proceeding in solemn form.'^ In others, how-
ever, the proceeding in solemn form is materially different from

capacity of tlie testator: Hathaway's 2 R. I. 88, 90; Clarke v. Dunnavant, 10

Appeal, 4G Mich. 826, 328. Leigh, 13, 23 ; Staring v Bowen, 0 Barb.

1 Schoul. Ex. § 70 ; lb. § 68 ; so pro- 109, 113. But it is not essential tiiat the

vided by statute in California : Code subscribing witnesses shall each testify

Civ. Pr. §1308 ; Massachusetts: Pub. St. to all of the essential facts: Tilden v.

754, § 1 ;" Michigan : Howell's St. § 5802 ; Tilden, 13 Gray, 110 ; Weir v. Fitz-

Nevada : Comp. L. 1873, § 498; and held gerald, 2 Bradf. 42. See post, § 218, on

in Iowa : Barney v. Chittenden, 2 Green the effect of want of memory of subscrib-

(Inwa), 165, 176 ; and Tennessee : Rogers ing witnesses.

■y. Winton, 2 Humph. 178; but in a later ^ Moore v. Steele, 10 Humph. 562;

case it was held that there must be two Johnson ;;. Dunn, 6 Gratt. 625. The

witnesses to prove a will of personalty in handwriting of a testator who signed by

Tennessee, who need not, however, be making a mark cannot be proved : Walsh's

subscribing witnesses: Johnson i-. Fry, Will, 1 Tuck. 132; Matter of Reynolds,

1 Coldw. 101. The statutes of Florida, 4 Dem. 68; and where the witnesses

Georgia (Brown v. Anderson, 13 Ga 171 ), seemed to remember tlie circumstances

South Carolina, and Tennessee (Code, with essential accuracy, the want of tes-

1884, § 3012) contain similar provisions. tamentary declaration was held fatal :

'■2 Doran v. Mullen, 78 111. 342, 344 ; Wilson v. Hetterick, 2 Bradf. 427.

Lindsay v. McCormack, 2 A. K. Marsh. * Ante, § 36 et seq.

229 ; Martin v. Perkins, 56 Miss. 204, 209 ; 5 Ante, § 215.

Butler V. Benson, 1 Barb. 526, 5-33 ; Arm- ^ Ante, § 21.5.

strong V. Baker, 9 Ired. 109; Fry's Will, ^ Schoul. Ex. § 70.

§ 217 THE PROBATE IN SOLEMN FORM. 473

that primarily resorted to in the probate court, and may in some
instances be had in the probate court also, but must in others be
pursued in common law or chancery courts.^ The chief distinc-
tion here, as in England, is the necessity of notice or summons to
all the parties in interest in the plenary proceeding,^ while the
other is generally ex parte. Another rule is, that upon

, . ' „ All attesting

a contest, or caveat, where probate m solemn form is witnesses
required, all the attesting witnesses competent to '"'^'i"'''^
testify, and within the reach of the process of the court, must be
examined.^ But this rule is not a universal one ; there are cases
in some of the States in which, on proceedings at law for the
probate of a will, the testimony of one or two subscribing wit-
nesses out of a greater number was held sufficient to establish it
without calling or examining them all;* in others, that the testi-
mony of one subscribing witness, and facts and circumstances
equal to that of another, are sufficient.^ In Michigan it is inti-
mated, contrary to the English rule, that all the subscribing wit-
nesses need not be called, except, inferentially, in the probate
court.^ The age of the instrument to be proved is held to be an
important element to be considered in connection with the suffi-
ciency of the proof to establish it ; a will forty years old may be
proved by testimony which would be insufficient to prove one of
recent date.'' And it is not essential that each one of the witnesses
shall be able to testify to all the formalities required for the exe-
cution and attestation of the will.^ So it is held in Illinois, that
the subscribing witnesses must declare that the testator was, in
their belief, of sound mind and memory, but this may be stated in

1 Ante, § 215. 2 N. J. Eq. 220, 232; Rash v. Purnel, 2

2 " In proceedings of this nature, . . . Harring. 448, 449.

the judge of probate having given that * Hall v. Sims, 2 J. J. Marsh. 509, 511

public notice which tiie law requires, the Jackson v. Vickory, 1 Wend. 406, 412

mere fact that some of the heirs are in- Walker v. Hunter, 17 Ga. ?:>^A,\\^etseq.

flints, idiots, or insane will not defeat the McKecn v. Frost, 40 Me. 239, 244.
))robate of the will": Dewey, J., in Par- '" Suggett i'. Kitchell, 6 Yerg. 425

kery. Parker, 11 Cush. 519, 524. Where Loomis v. Kellogg, 17 Pa. St. 60, 63

the statute prescribes no form of notice Moore v. Steele, 10 Humph. 562, 565

for the parties to pursue, the sufficiency Bowling v. Bowling, 8 Ala. 538; Nalle v.

of notice is left in the discretion of the Fenwick, 4 Rand. 585, 588.
judge : Marcy v. Marcy, 6 Met. (Mass.) *> Abbott v. Abbott, 41 Mich. 540, 543.

360, 367. 7 Wclty v. Welty, 8 Md. 15, 21, citing

3 Brown r'. Anderson, 13 Ga. 171, 177; Lovelass on Wills. 418; 23 Law Libr.
Withmton v. Withmton, 7 Mo. 689; Chase (Wharton's ed.) 1839, p. 223 ; Jackson v.
V. Lincoln, 3 Mass. 236 ; Burwell v. Cor- Le Grange, 19 Jolins. 386, 389.

bin, 1 Rand. 131, 141; Bailey v. Stiles, « Jauncey r. Thorne,2 Barb. Ch.40,53.

474 THE PROBATE OF THE WILL. § 218

equivalent words ; it is not essential that the statutory formula
shall be adhered to.^

§ 218. Proof when the Testimony of subscribing Witnesses cannot
be obtained. — It appears from the discussion of the subject of
the attestation of wills in a former chapter,^ that the competency
of attesting- witnesses generally required by the statute refers to
the time of attestation ; for it may happen that a witness has
become incompetent after the execution of a will, but before the
death of the testator. And it was there also shown that the stat-
ute of Geo. II. c. 6, which provides that interest in the probate of
a will does not disqualify an attesting witness, but that the act of
attestation disqualifies the witness from taking any benefit under
the will, has been substantially enacted in most of the States.^
Aliunde testi- It is sclf-evidcntly indispensable to admit aliunde
^S'itn'xlt'oi evidence to prove the will, if any one or more of the
subscribing attesting witnesses are dead, insane, or cannot, for

witnesses is uot ° ' '

attainable. any rcason, be compelled or permitted to testify on
the probate thereof. Thus where one of the attesting witnesses
is probate judge, the will may be proved by the other witnesses ; *
where any of them are dead, insane, or incompetent to testify, or
where their place of residence or whereabouts is unknown, so
that their testimony cannot be obtained, proof may be made of
their handwriting, and of the handwriting of the testator, and the
will admitted to probate upon such proof.^ But, in order to make
such testimony admissible, it must be shown that it is impossible
to obtain that of the subscribing witnesses, either by taking their
depositions, as is provided for in some States in case of attesting
witnesses being beyond the reach of the process of the court, or by
securing their personal attendance.^ Where the statute does not
authorize the taking of the depositions of subscribing witnesses,
secondary evidence is admissible, upon proof of their being beyond

1 Bice V. Hall, 120 111. 597, 600; Yoe 187, 192; Pollock i;. Glassell, 2 Gratt. 439,
V. McCord, 74 111. 33. 460.

2 Ante, § 41, p. 72, note 3 et seq. " Graber v. H;iaz, 2 Dem. 216; Stow

3 Ante, § 41, p. 73, note 3 et seq. v. Stow, 1 Redf. 305. In Mississippi it is

4 Patten ?'. Tallman, 27 Me. 17, 27; in held that, on the ex parte exhibition of a
some instances the statutes provide for will, the subscribing witnesses must be
probate before another officer in such examined, and are the only competent
case: Gen. St. Col. 1883, § 3504; Rev. witnesses to prove the signing, publica-
St. 111. 1885, p. 2409, § 5. tion, and attestation : but other witnesses

5 Miller v. Carothers, 6 Serg. & R. 215, may prove the sanity : Martin v. Perkins,
222 ; Hopkins v. De Grafienreid, 2 Bay, 56 Miss. 204, 209.

§ 218 PROOF WITHOUT SUBSClilBlNG WITNESSES. 475

reach of process of the court in which pi'oceediiigs arc pending.^
Ill all such cases the absence of the witnesses must Abseiceof sub-
be satisfactorily accounted for, after proof of such ue^'^'i"'^,"^'t"(je
diligence in the search for them and endeavor to ob- accouuu-d for.
tain their testimony as is required ordinarily before evidence of a
secondary nature is admitted.'-^

For the same reason the validity of a will cannot be permitted
to rest upon the veracity or memory of the attesting witnesses :
to do so would be subversive of justice and destructive Piobate in de-
of the rights of the testator, as w^ell as of the benefici- a»ahi"t t'he
aries under the will. Hence a wdll may be established te!^tllnollv of

"^ subscribing

although some or all of the subscribing witnesses witnesses,
fail to remember the essential facts to be proved,^ or where tlnnr
testimony, biased by prejudice, interest, or ill will, negatived such
facts.'* It is held that w^here there is a failure of rec- t

. _ Importance of

oUection by the subscribing w-itnesses, the probate of attestation
the will cannot be defeated if the attestation clause
and the surrounding circumstances satisfactorily establish its exe-
cution.^ The testimony of an attesting witness invalidating a will
ought to be viewed with suspicion,^ because such person by his
act of attestation solemnly testifies to the sanity of the tes-

1 Bowling V. Bowling, 8 Ala. 538 ; 37 N. J. L. 312, 325. See numerous cases
Bethell v. Moore, 2 Dev. & B. L. 311. cited by Perkins in Wnis. Ex. [103], note
Engies y. Bruington, 4 Yeates, 345. (w) ; also by Bigelow in 1 Jarin. *86,

2 Stow V. Stow, 1 Redf. 305 ; Perkins's note (2), and *87, note (1).

Jarm. on Wills, 219. Thus, where one * Lamberts f. Cooper, 29 Gratt. 61, 68;

voluntarily, without mistake or accident. Pollock v. Glassell, 2 Gratt. 439, 462,

destroyed a will, he would not be permit- citing numerous Englisli cases ; Vernon

ted to prove it by secondary evidence : v. Kirk, 30 Pa. St. 218 ; Howell's Will, 5

WyckofE ('. Wyckoff, 16 N. J. Eq. 401. T. B. Mon. 199, 203 , Peebles v. Case, 2

See, as to diligence required in search for Bradf. 226, 240; Will of Jenkins, 43 Wis.

subscribing witnossos, 1 Greenl. Ev. § 574 ; 610, 612 ; Abbott v. Abbott, 41 Mich. 540,

Hodnett i;. Smith, 2 Sweeney, 401. 542; Conselyea v. Walker, 2 Dem. 117,

3 McKee v. White, 50 Pa. St. 854, 359. 121.

" Want of memory will no more destroy ^ Rugg i'- Rugg, 83 N. Y. 592, 594,

the attestation tlian insanity, absence, or citing Matter of Kelium, 52 N. Y. 517, and

death; . . . memory can no more be kept Trustees v. Calhoun, 25 N. Y. 422, 425 ;

alive than the body, and hence the law Will of Pepoon, 91 N. Y. 255, 258 ; Allaire

allows tiie attesting signature to speak, v. Allaire, 37 N. J. L. 312 ; Brown v.

when the tongue may be silent; and it Clark, 77 N. Y. 369; 1 Am. Pr. R. 510,

attests that everything was rightly done and cases cited, p. 517 et seq.

unless the act attested be impeached, not 6 Lamberts v. Cooper, 29 Gratt. 61, 68.

negatively merely, but positively " : Kirk As to the importance of reciting all the

V. Carr, 54 Pa. St. 285, 290 ; Newhouse v. formalities required in the execution and

Godwin, 17 Barb. 236, 255; Beadles v. attestation of a will in the attestation

Alexander, 9 Baxt. 604 ; Allaire v. Allaire, clause, see ante, § 40, and supra, note 3.

476 THE PROBATE OF THE WILL. § 219

tator ; ^ it was said that no fact stated by such a witness can be
rehed on when he is not corroborated by other witnesses.^ But of
whatever effect the recitals in the attestation clause may be where
the witness fails to remember what occurred, they are not sufficient
to outweigh his positive statements in contradiction thereof.^

§ 219. Witnesses Disqualified by Interest. — The competency of
attesting witnesses, to what extent and in what States an interest
Disquaiifica- i^^ ^hc will disqualifies them, and how and when their
witnesses by Competency may be restored, as well as the effect of
interest. f\^Q testimony of such witnesses upon a devise or leg-

acy to them, has been discussed in a former chapter in connection
with the attestation of wills.* But one who is not an attesting or
subscribing witness may also be incompetent, by reason of inter-
est in the probate, to testify. Thus, it was held in Alabama, that
the proponent, being interested in the question of costs, was in-
competent to testify in support of the will ; ^ and in New Jersey,
that an executor was disqualified because of the commissions to
which he would be entitled.^ This subject is determined by the
law of each State in defining the competency of witnesses in ordi-
nary cases. The rule which excluded witnesses on account of
their interest has been greatly relaxed in most of the States ; and
it seems now that one who would be competent to testify in an
action between himself and the parties interested in the probate
of the will, is competent to give evidence for or against it.' In
Maine, it is held that the provision of the statute which excepts
executors, administrators, and heirs of a deceased person from
the operation of the general law providing that no one shall be
excused or excluded from testifying on the ground of interest in
the event of the suit, as party or otherwise, does not apply to one
named as executor in a will, because such person is not really and
legally an executor until the will has been established,^ nor to one

1 Webb V. Dye, 18 W. Va. 376, 388 ; affirmative testimony showing the omis-

Young V. Earner, 27 Gratt. 96, 103. sion of some essential requisite to the

- Staples, J., in Cheatham v. Hatcher, validity of the will.
.SO Gratt. 56, 64, citing Kinleside v. Har- * Ante, § 41.

rison, 2 Piiillim. 449. ^ Gilbert r. Gilbert, 22 Ala. 529, 532.

3 Burke v. Nolan, 1 Dem. 436, 442 ; e Snedekers v. Allen, 2 N. J. L. 35, 38.

Lewis V. Lewis, 11 N. Y. 220, 224, citing ^ Milton v. Hunter, 13 Bush, 163, 168 ;

English and American cases ; Orser v. Harper v. Harper, 1 Th. & C 351, 359,

Orser, 24 N. Y. 51, 54 ; Barr v. Graybill, 360 ; Elliott (•. Welby, 13 Mo. App. 19, 28.

13 Pa. St. 396, 399, distinguishing between But see, as to the law in Missouri, infra.
the want of memory by the witness, and ^ McKeen v. Frost, 46 Me. 239, 248.

§ 219 WITNESSES DISQUALIFIED BY INTEREST. 477

who opposes the probate as guardian of minor heirs. ^ In Massa-
chusetts, the exception from such an enabling statute of " attesting
witnesses to a will or codicil " is held not to apply to an executor
who is also one of the subscribing witnesses ; "^ which would, a
fortiori^ qualify one who is named as executor, but who is not a
subscribing witness, as a competent witness to the probate. So
in New York.^ In Missouri, the statute removing the disability
of witnesses on account of interest was held to enable beneficiaries
under a will, who were not subscribing witnesses, to testify in
support of its probate;'^ but this was subsequently qualified to
the extent of requiring proof to be made of due execution and
attestation by the subscribing witnesses, and holding interested
witnesses incompetent to supply such proof ; ^ and later still it
was held by the Supreme Court that a legatee whose interest in
the establishment of a will still continues, though not an attesting
witness, will not be allowed to testify as to its due execution.^*
In North Carolina, the statute of 1866, removing the disqualiiica-
tion of interest, is held to apply to witnesses in will cases, render-
ing legatees and devisees competent to prove the will, except they
be attesting witnesses.' In Pennsylvania, one appointed as ex-
ecutrix is held competent to testify to the proper execution of a
will.^

There seems to be no reason why a legatee or other person
interested in the will should not be competent to testify against a
will, on the same ground which renders an heir competent to tes-
tify in its favor, where his interest is diminished by the probate of
the will.9

1 Ibid., p. 249. they should be permitted to prove the

2 Wynian r. Sy dimes, 10 Allen, 153, 154. execution of the will because they had

3 Matter of Wilson's Will, 103 N.Y 374. not signed it as attesting: witnesses."
* Garvin v. Williams, 50 Mo. 206, 212, The cases of Garvin v. Williams, and

following Shailer v. Bumstead, 99 Mass. Gamache v. Gambs, supra, are alluded to,

112, which similarly construes a Massa- and held not in conflict with tlie doctrine

chusetts statute of like import ; Gamache announced.

V. Gambs, 52 Mo. 287 ; Harris v. Hays, " Thus a devisee under a holograph

53 Mo. 90, 95. will was held competent to prove tiie

s Miltenberger v. Miltenberger, 8 Mo. same, and that such testimony did not

App. 306. avoid the devise, because the operative

'' Miltenberger i\ Miltenberger, 78 Mo. words of tlie avoiding act apply only

27, 30. The reason given is that " leg- to wills that have attesting witnesses :

atees and devisees are not allowed to be Hampton v. Hardin, 88 N. C. 592, 595.
attesting witnesses while their interest as ^ Combs and Hankinson's Appeal, 105

such continues, and the policy of the Pa. St. 155.

law, as indicated in these sections (of the ^ Leslie v. Sims, 39 Ala. 101 ; Smallcy

statute) would be entirely frustrated if y. Sraalley, 70 Me. 545 ; Crocker r. Chase,

478 THE PROBATE OF THE WILL. § 220

§ 220. Proof of the Testator's Sanity. — The necessity of making
proof of the testator's sanity in order to secure the [)robate of liis
will, and tliat the burden of making such proof rests naturally
upon the proponent, has been pointed out in a former chapter.^
It was there shown that in a number of States the proponent may
rely upon the ordinary presumption of sanity as constituting the
prima facie proof, sufficient in the absence of rebutting evidence ;
but that in others affirmative proof is required on this point, in
default of which the will cannot receive probate. It was also
shown, that the testimony of non-experts is necessarily admissible
to establish the sanity or insanity of the testator in proceedings
to establish the will,^ and that there is a difference between the
testimony of experts and non-experts in this, that the latter must
give not only their opinion of the testator's sanity, but also the
facts upon which such opinion is based ; except that subscrib-
ing witnesses are always heard on this question, ^ and are not
usually requii^ed to state the facts upon which their opinion rests.
What testi- Testimony may be given as to the mental condition of
mony is admis- the tcstator recently before, at, and shortly after the

sible to prove j i ■> j

testator's time of making the will ; and it is comj)etent for the wit-

^^"' ^" ness, though neither an expert nor attesting witness,

to state whether he observed any incoherence of thought in the
testator, or anything unusual or singular in respect to his men-
tal condition ;* whether, in his opinion, the testator had mind
enough to enable him to have a reasonable judgment of the kind
and value of the property he proposed to dispose of by will ; ^
whether he appeared unconscious of what was going on around
him, and much prostrated by sickness, and did not appear to

57 Vt. 413, 421 (excluding the witness, whether there was an apparent change

however, on another ground). in a man's intelligence or understanding,

1 j\„te, § 26. or ^ want of coherence in his remarks,

2 Ante, § 28 ; see Beaubien v. Cicotte, is a matter not of opinion, but of fact, as
12 Mich. 4.59. 501, and a long list of cases to which any witness who has had oppor-
cited by Perkins, Wms. Ex. [346], note(d'5). tunity to observe may testify, in order to

3 See list of cases so holdingby Perkins put before the court or jury the acts and
in Wms. Ex. [346], note (d^), commencing conduct from which the degree of his
with Pobinson r. Adams, 62 Me. 369, 409. mental capacity may be inferred " : Gray,

4 " We do not understand this to be J., in Barker r. Comins, 110 Mass. 477,
the giving of an opinion as to the con- 487, citing Hastings v. Rider, 99 Mass.
dition of the mind it.<!elf, but only of its 622, 625.

manifestations in conversation with the ^ Bost v. Bost, 87 N. C. 477, citing

witness": Wells, J., in Nash v. Hunt, Lawrence v. Steel, 6') N. C. 584, and
116 Mass. 237, 251. " The question Home v. Home, 9 Ired. 99.

§ 220 PROOF OF THE TESTATOR'S SANITY. 479

know a certain individual, one of his neighbors ; whether an en-
deavor to converse with him proved unsuccessful because he was
insensible ; ^ whether his eyesight was good enough to have ena-
bled him to see the Avitness, if his mind had been right ; whether
he looked at the witness with a vacant stare ; and whether his
countenance and appearance indicated childishness ; ^ and it is
said that the testimony of opinions and impressions obtained
from personal knowledge and actual observation in such cases
are " no more nor less than statements of fact differing from
ordinary statements only because of the peculiarity of the sub-
ject." ^ But the mere naked opinion of persons who are neither
subscril)ing witnesses nor experts is inadmissible ;* nor can such
persons be allowed to give their opinion upon a hypothetical case
proved by others, but not witnessed by themselves.^

The testimony of educated practising physicians is admitted
upon subjects of medical science ; and it has been held that the
difference between the opinion of one who has made Testimony of
insanity a special study, and that of one who has not, ^-^^p^''^^-
is in the weight, rather than in the competency, of the testimony.^
But one who has not made the subject of mental disease a special
study should not be permitted to give his opinion on a hypotheti-
cal case, although he might give his opinion as to tlie mind of a
person so far as he could testify from his personal observation ; ^

1 Halley !?. Webster, 21 Me. 461, 464. note ((F), oommencing with Clary ?;. Clary,

" Tliese." the court say, " were not mere 2 Ired. 78.

matters of opinion, but facts, somewhat ■* Wms. Ex. [346], ottinsr mimerous

of a general cast, and combining many American cases, note (d') ; Ellis v. Ellis,

particulars." 133 Mass. 469.

•^ Irish V. Smith, 8 Serg. & R. 573, 578. 5 Bell v. McMaster, 20 Hnn, 272, citing
In this case evidence was held proper Clarp r. Fullerton, 34 N. Y. 190 ; Hew-
that the testator's wife said in presence lett v. Wood, 55 N. Y. 634 ; Appleby v.
of her husband, sitting at the table, that Brock, 76 Mo. 314, 318.
he did not attend to business, that he ® Baxter v. Abbott, 7 Gray, 71, 78.
was incapable, and that the testator said Even as to the weight of such evidence,
nothing : p. 578. Thomas, J., holds the preference to be

3 Perkins in Wms. Ex. [347], citing with a family physician, whose opinion

Campbell, J., in Beaubien v. Cicotte, 12 " sliould have far greater weight with a

Mich. 450, 507 ; Potts v. House, 6 Ga. jury than that of any number of physi-

324; Duffield v. Morris, 2 Harring. 375; cians who had made insanity a special

Grant v. Thompson, 4 Conn. 203, 208 ; study, but who were called to give an

Harrison v. Rowan, 3 Wash. C. C. 580; opinion upon wliat is always, and neces-

Rambler v. Tryon, 7 Serg. & R. 90; sarily, an imperfect statement of the

Tnwnshend i'. Townshend, 7 Gill, 10; facts and symptoms": p. 79.
Dunham's Appeal, 27 Conn. 192, 197. '' Commonwealth v. Rich, 14 Gray,

See also list of cases, Wms. Ex. [346J, 335, 337.

480 THE PROBATE OF THE WILL. § 221

Physicians and and this altliougli hc is not the family physician.i So
sick-nurses T)hvsicians in a-encral practice and sick-nurses are sup-
experts. poscd to be cxpcrts as to the effect, upon the mental

capacity of a patient, of the progress of a disease resulting in
death.2 Ordinarily, the witness allowed to give his opinion on a
state of facts not within his own knowledge, but which is sup-
posed to be in evidence before the jury, or, as is usually said, upon
a hypothetical case, must first be shown to be an expert ; ^ and
whether a witness not shown to be an expert is qualified to ex-
press an opinion as a conclusion of fact, is to be decided by the
judge presiding at the trial.'^ Whether one has merely studied a
profession or science, without being engaged in the practice of it,
or is in full practice, and how long, do not affect the competency
of such person as a witness, but may go to his credit.^ No pref-
erence is given in law to any particular school of the medical
profession.^

§ 221. Proof of Lost Wills. — The presumption arising, where
a will which was in the possession of the deceased cannot be
Thepresump- found at the time of his death, that it was destroyed
tion alihnT^'^' ^J ^^^ tcstatoF animo revocandi, may be rebutted by
revocandi of a pj-Qof that it was destroyed after his death, or during

lost will may ^ •' ^

be rebutted, his lifetime without his knowledge or consent ; ' or by
the testator himself while he was under the fraudulent influence of
another,^ or in a fit of insanity, when he was incapable of under-
and the will standing the nature and effect of his act,^ and such a
t*o probatef will may, upon positive proof of destruction, or of dili-

1 Hastings v. Rider, 99 Mass. 622, 625; « Bowman v. Woods, 1 Green (Iowa),
Hathorn i'. King, 8 Mass. 371. 441.

2 Fairchild v. Bascomb, 35 Vt. 398, ^ Ante, § 48, page 91 ; Happy's Will,
408. 4 Bibb, 553; Gaines v. Hennen, 24 How.

3 Kempsey v. McGinniss, 21 Mich. (U. S.) 553, 559 rtsfg.; Graham r OTallon,
123, 137. A hypotlietical question, asked 3 Mo 507 ; Kitchens r. Kitchens, 39 Ga.
an expert, should include only such facts 168; Hall v. Al'en, 31 Wis. 691 ; Morris
as are admitted or established, or which r. Swaney, 7 Heisk. 591 ; Baugnrtli r
there is some evidence tending to estab- Miller, 26 Oh. St. 541 ; Kearns v. Kearus,
lish ; it is not a question as to the weight 4 Harring. 83 ; Everitt v. Everitt, 41 Barb,
of evidence, but whether there was any 385; Minklerj;. Minkler, 14 Vt. 125; Kid-
evidence tending to prove the fact ; Nor- der's Estate, 57 Cal. 282 ; Jaques v. Her-
man's Will, 72 Iowa, 84 ; Ray v. Ray, 98 ton, 76 Ala. 238, 245.

N. C. 566. '^ Voorhees v. Voorhees, 39 N. Y. 463,

* Commonwealth v. Sturtivant, 117 466.
Mass. 122, 137; Tullis v. Kidd, 12 Ala. ^ Idley r.Bowen.ll Wend.227 ; Apper-

648, 650. son v. Coftrell, 3 Port. 51, 65 ; Cunningham

6 Tullis V. Kidd, supra. v. Somerville, 36 N. W. Rep. 269 (Minn.).

§221

PROOF OF LOST WILLS.

481

gent search and non-existence, be admitted to probate.^ The
proof must show that the destruction was unauthor-

. IT "P"" proof of

ized and improper ; - and if by some one after the destiuctioa by
testator's death, that it was accidental ; for if it ap-
pear that the proponent destroyed it voluntarily, without mistake
or accident, he will not be permitted to prove it by secondary evi-
dence.3 In Ohio, the pi'oof must show loss or destruction after
the testator's death, or it cannot receive probate unless pro-
duced ; * and so in New York, unless the same was fraudulently
destroyed during the testator's lifetime.^ Generally, however, the
presumption of destruction animo revocandi may be rebutted by
such evidence as produces a moral conviction to the contrary,^
and the acts and declarations of the testator are admissible for
such purposed So also it may be proved by circumstantial evi-
dence that the will has been lost or destroyed without the knowl-
edge of the testator.^ Where a will is detained bv a „,.„ , . ,

'^ " Will detained

foreign court, so that the proponent cannot produce it by a foreij^n
for probate, secondary evidence thereof is admissible, proved iVke a
as much so as if it were a lost will.^

lost wil

1 Cases on preceriitig page ; Eure v.
Pittraan, 3 Hawks, 364 ; Raster v. Raster,
52 Ind. 531 ; Wyckoff v. Wyckoff, 16 N. J.
Eq. 401 ; Harris v. Harris, 36 Barb. 88 ;
Apperson v. Cottrell, 3 Port. 51, 65, citing
Trevelvaii ;;. Trevelyan, 1 Pliillim. 14U,
153

■- Idley V. Bowen, 11 Wend. 227, 237.

3 Wyckoff y. Wyckoff, .s»/«y7.

^ Sinclair's Will, 5 Oil. St. 290.

5 Code Civ. Pr. § 1865; Matter of
Marsh, 45 Hiin, 107.

6 Will of Foster, 18 Phila. 567, 568 (cit-
ing Davis V. Davis, 2 Addams, 223, 226 ; 1
Redf. Wills, 329); s. c. 87 Pa. St. 67, 75.

'' Will of Foster, supra, drawing a dis-
tinction between the declarations of a
testator touching the contents of a will,
which are of little weight especially when
made to importuning relatives, and such
declarations as showing the testator's
conviction that he has a will in existence
at the time of his death, and citing Jones
V. Murphy, 8 W. & S. 275, Youndt v.
Youndt, 3 Grant, 140, and Havard v.
Davis, 2 Binn. 406 ; Johnson's Will, 40
Conn. 587, 588 ; Matter of Page, 118 111.
576, 579 ; Durant v. Ashmore, 2 Rich.
184. So his declarations that he has no

VOL. I. — 31

will, or that he has destroyed his will,
are evidence to show that the will has
been revoked : Durant v. Ashmore, supra ;
Miller t'. Phillips, 9 R. L 141, where
declarations of the testatrix were allowed
to rebut the presiinij)tion of revocation
by her marriage. In New York it was
held that declarations of the deceased are
incompetent to prove tiie e.xistence and
contents of a will : Grant v. Grant, 1
Sandf. Ch. 285, 237, citing Dan r. Brown,
4 Cow. 483, and Jackson v. Betts, 6 Cow.
377 ; but the better opinion seems to be
that such declarations are admissible as
circumstances : Hatch v. Sigman, 1 Dem.
519, 525; Matter of Marsh, 45 Hun, 107,
reviewing the authorities. See Wilbourn
V. Shell, 59 :\Iiss. 205, where a holograph
which the testator caused to be copied to
correct the spelling and make it more legi-
ble, and attempted to execute the copy,
in which he failed on account of defective
attestation, was admitted to probate not-
withstanding its destruction by the testa-
tor, on the testimony of a single witness.

8 Schultz V. Schultz, .35 N.' Y. 653.

9 Loring v. Oakey, 98 Mass. 2fw, 269 ;
Per Field, J., in Robertson v. Pickrell,
109 U. S. 608, 610. And see Russell v.

482 THE PROBATE OF THE WILL. § 221

The execution and attestation of the lost will must be proved
M'ith the ti-diua certainty and fulness as in case of proving an
I'roof of execu- existing will, including proof of the testator's sanity
tal'iou oflosT 01' testamentary capacity ; and by the same witnesses
will- which are required to prove a will produced for pro-

bate. Thus the subscribing witnesses must be called, if within
reach of the process of the court ; and if not, depositions of such
as may be reached must be taken, and if the law does not require
the depositions of witnesses residing abroad, then proof may be
taken as in case of the death or insanity of subscribing witnesses. ^
The declarations of the deceased that he had made a will are not
sufficient to prove either the due execution or the contents of a
will, unless corroborated by other evidence, and if there is no
corroborating evidence, such declarations should be rejected ; ^
and if there is no legal evidence that a will ever existed, there
can be no evidence of its fraudulent abstraction or suppression.^

The contents of the lost will upon which probate is prayed
must be proved clearly and distinctly,^ with a sufficient degree of
^ , , certainty to establish the legacies and devises, and

Proof of con- •' "^

tents of lost that uoue have been omitted.^ It was laid down by
Swinburne,^ that, " if there be two unexceptionable
witnesses who did see and read the testament written, and do re-
member the contents thereof, these two witnesses, so deposing to

Hartt, 87 N. Y. 19, where the foreic^n will Houghton, 6 Abb. N. C. 234 ; and they

was inspected by commissioners of the need not testify to the exact langnacre ;

court : Matter of Dehiplaine, 5 Dem. 398, but must prove sufficient of the substance

affirmed 45 Hun, 225. to enable the deciee of probate to incor-

1 Bailey v. Stiles, 2 N. J. Eq. 220 231 ; porate tlie whole will : McNaliy v. Brown,
Graham v. O'Fallon, 3 Mo. 507 (granting 5 Hedf. 372 ; the appointment of an exec-
probate of the lost will on the evidence utor is not an indispensable part of the
of one of the subscribing witnesses); will, and it is not essential to prove it:
Durant v. Ashmore, 2 Ricii. 184 (showing Early v. Early, 5 Redf. 376.

the competence of attesting witnesses to ^ Will of Foster, supra ; Davis r.

be the same where the will is lost as Sigourney, 8 Met. (Mass.) 487; IMcBeth

where it still exists) ; Matter of Russell, v. McBeth, 11 Ala. 598. In Skeggs v.

33 Hun 271 • CoUyer v. CoUver, 4 Dem. Horton, 82 Ala. 352, a charge to the jury,

53 ; Matter of Page, 118 111. 576, 578. that " unless the evidence of contents of

2 Mercer v. Mackin, 14 Bush, 434,4.39. the alleged will is clear and positive, —

3 Mercer v. Mackin, supra. not vague or uncertain recollections, —
* In New York and California two and of such a character as to leave no

witnesses are required by tlie statute to reasonable doubt as to any of the sub-
prove the contents of a lost will : Kidder's stantial parts of the paper, the jury should
Estate, 66 Cal. 487 ; but a correct draft find for the contestants," was said to in-
or copy of it is in New York held to be voke too strict a rule, and was therefore
equivalent to one witness : Collyer v. rightly refused.
CoUyer, 4 Dem. 53, 62 ; Sheridan v. « Swinb., pt. 6, § 14, pi. 4.

§ 221 PlIOOF OF LOST WILLS. 483

the tenor of the will, arc suflficicnt for the proof thereof in form
of law ; 1 but it seems now to be held in Kn.uiand, that the con-
tents of a lost will, like those of any other instrument, may be
proved by secondary evidence ; that they may be proved by the
evidence of a single witness, though interested, whose veracity
and competency are unimpeached ; and that declarations, wi-itten
or oral, made by a testator, both before and after the execution
of his will, are in the event of its loss admissible as secondary
evidence of its contents.^ In the absence of statutory provisions
on this subject this is recognized in the several States to be the
law, at least to the extent of establishing the contents proof where
by the testimony of a single witness.^ The rule, that, gtrl!ye(i''r.y
where one destroys a written instrument, an innocent hens at law.
party will not be required to make strict proof, in a judicial
inquiry concerning its contents, against the spoliator, is some-
times applied to a will ; where part of the heirs of a testator con-
nive at the destruction of his will, an innocent legatee may obtain
probate of the same upon proof in general terms of the disposition
which the testator made of his property, and that the instrument
purported to be his will and was duly attested by the requisite
number of witnesses ; and in such case it is not necessary to
prove the sanity of the testator by affirmative evidence in the
absence of proof to the contrary.*

It appears from a discussion on the revocation of wills, in a
former chapter,^ that the execution of a later will inconsistent
with a former one operates as a revocation of the former will,
though the revoking will is not produced.^ Mr. Williams in-

1 Wms. Ex. [378] et spq. Lewis v. Lewis, 6 S. & R. 489, dictum by
'^ Perkins's nnte to Wms. Ex. [380] ; Duncan, J., 497 ; Baker v. Dobyns, 4
Snellen v. Lord St. Leonards, L. R. 1 Pr. Dana, 220, 221 ; Matter of Page, 118 111.
D. 154 ; see opinion of Sir J. Hannen,Pr., 57(); Dickey v. Maleclii, citing earlier
p. 176, of Cockburn, C. J., p. 220 <( sw/., of Missouri cases, 6 Mo. 177, 184 ; Kearns r.
Jessel, M. R., p. 238; tlie case of Hrown Kearns, 4 Harring. 83 (where the will
I'. Hrown, 8 E. & B. 876, so holding, is was destroyed by the heir at law). See
contrasted with Wliarram r. Wharram, Jackson, C. J., in Biirge v. Hamilton, 72
3 Sw. & Tr. 301, 33 L. J. (P. M. & A.) Ga. 568, 613. But in Tennessee two wit-
75, and fully approved by all the judges nesses are necessary : Hunter v. Garden-
after a full discussion. This case over- hire, 13 Lea, 658, fi62.
rules Quick c. Quick, 3 Sw. & Tr. 442, * Anderson v. Irwin, 101 111. 411,414;
hohling declarations of an alleged testator Kearns r. Kearns, 4 Harring. 83.
as to the contents of a will not produced ^ Ante, § 51, page 98.
incompetent to prove its contents. ^ Jones v. Murphy, 8 Watts & S. 275,
3 Skeggs r. Horton, 82 Ala. 352 ; citing Clark v. Morton, 5 Rawle, 2.35, and
Jacques v. Horton, 76 Ala. 238, 246 ; Lawson v. Morrison, 2 Dallas, 286.

484 THE PROBATE OF THE WILL. § 222

Proof of a lost sists,^ that where the revocation of an existini^

will revoking a t » t i i p c i '

former will. will is soiight to be estabushed by the prooi oi the
execution of a subsequent will, not appearing, the evidence ought
to be most clear and satisfactory, and if parol evidence alone be
relied on, such evidence ought to be stringent and conclusive;^
yet the proof may be sufficient to be availed of as a revocation in
o(tposition to the probate of the will revoked by it, though insuffi-
cient to justify the probate of the lost wnll.^

It seems to result from the necessity of proving the contents
of a lost will with sufficient certainty and clearness to admit of
Proof of part their legal construction, that a part only of a lost or
of a lost will, destroyed will,w^liere other parts cannot be proved, or
where it is not known whether the instrument contained other
or contradictory provisions, cannot be admitted to probate. It
is so held in several States.* But in others, isolated portions
of lost wills clearly proved have been established, although other
portions could not be proved.^ The subject of proving lost wills
is now regulated by statute in many of the States.^

§ 222. Probate of Wills iii Part and in Fac Simile. — Although
it is not the province of the court of probate to pass upon or
Parts of a will determine the legal validity of the provisions of a will,
Jroljate'lTnd OY whether they are rational and capable of being
Uiereor'^'^ Carried into effect, yet it becomes necessary some-
rejected, times, to admit the will to probate in part, and reject
it in part. For if a court of probate be satisfied that a particular
clause has been inserted by fraud, in the lifetime of the testator,
without his knowledge," or by forgery after his death,^ or that he
has been induced by fraud to make it a part of his will,^ probate
wdll be granted of the instrument, with the reservation of that

1 Wms. Ex. [162]. ^ Jackson v Jackson, 4 Mo. 210 ;

2 Citing ditto v. Gilbert, 9 Moore, P. Dickey v. Malechi, G Mo. 177 ; Steele v.
C. 131 140 141. Price, 5 B. Mon. 58, 72 ; Burge v. Hamil-

3 Wallis V. Wallis, 114 Mass. 510, cit- ton, 72 Ga. 568, 02.3, 632 ; Skeggs v.
ing Helyar v. Helyar, 1 Lee, 472; Nel- Horton, 82 Ala. 352.

son V. McGiffert, 3 Barb. Oh. 158, 164; « So in California and Colorado.

Drty V. Day, 3 N. J. Eq. 549; and see ' 1 Wms. Ex. [377], citing Barton v.

Cunningham v. Somerville, 36 N. W. Rep. Robins, 3 Phillim. 455, note (b).
269 (Minn.). * Plume v. Beale, 1 P. Wms. 388.

* Butler r. Butler, 5 Harring. 178; ^ Ante,^Bi; In re Welsh, 1 Redf. 238,

Davis V. Sigourney, 8 Met. (Mass.) 487 ; 248; Burger v. Hill, 1 Bradf. 360, 376;

Durfee v. Durfee, 8 Met. (Mass.) 490, Morris u. Stokes, 21 Ga. 552; Harrison's

note • Rhodes v. Vinson, 9 Gill, 169, Appeal, 48 Conn. 202 ; Florey v. Florey,

171 24 Ala. 241, 248.

§ 222 WILLS IN PART AND IN FAC SIMILE. 485

clause.^ So where a clause is inadvertently introduced in a tes-
tamentary paper, which the testator has not directed to be in-
serted, and he executes the paper, not having been read over to
him, probate will be granted of the remainder of the paper, omit-
ting such clause ; ^ but where a man's mind gives way in the very
act of dictating a will, before completing all the dis])ositions he
intends to make, that part which he dictated while in possession
of his mental faculties cannot be set up as his will.-^ This princi-
ple has been extended to cases in which part of a destroyed will
only could be proved, and probate granted as to so much of such
will ; * and relied on as justifying the rejection of clauses held
void as being inconsistent with public policy, or impossible of
execution, while the remainder of the will was ad- i.-ii,n.jio„ „f
mitted to probate.' But this seems inconsistent with P'"''ate courts

1 _ extends only

the functions of a court of probate, which determines t" determine

validilvof exe-

only whether the instrument propounded has been cation and
executed by the testator and attested by the witnesses testamentary
in the manner prescribed by the statute, and that he *^^p''^'^-^-
possessed sufficient testamentary capacity, — in other words,
Avhether the instrument is the testator's spontaneous act, express-
ing his last will in the form recognized by law. Its Questions of
approval of the will relates only to the form: void dTJposAit'n
bequests are not validated thereby, nor should the b^^/u*/,™of"^^
probate distinguish between valid and void, certain construction.
and uncertain, rational or impossible, dispositions of the testator.^
All such questions are for the courts of construction, which are
bound by the judgments of courts of probate only as to the due
execution." Hence, although the court of probate may reject
such portions of the paper as are not the testator's spontaneous
act or will, it cannot, even by consent, order any passage to be

1 Wms. [377], citing Allen r. McPlier- constitutional clause, both in tlie probate
son, 1 H. L. Cas. 191 ; Meluish v. Milton, court ex parte, and in the circuit court
L. R. 3 Ch. D. 27. in a proceeding to establish the clause

2 Goods of Dunne, 2 Sw. & Tr. 590; rejected.

Hill V. Burger, 10 How. Pr. 2H4, 2(50. '- Bent's Appeal, 35 Conn. 523 ; s. c. 38

3 Tabler i'. Tabler, 62 Md. 001, 007. Conn. 26, 34 ; George v. George, 47 N. H.

4 Ante, § 221. 27, 40.

6 Kenrick v. Cole, 61 Uo. 572. The " Hegarty's Appeal, 75 Pa. St. 503,

will contained a clause in conflict with 514, citing earlier Pennsylvania and Eng-

the constitution of 1865 (under which the lish cases ; Hawes v. Humphrey, 9 Pick,

probate was granted) and was admitted 350, 362.
to probate with the exception of tiie un-

486 THE PROBATE OF THE WILL. § 222

expunged which the testator, being of sound mind, intended to
form part of it.^

The effect of interlineations and erasures in a will have been
pointed out in an earlier chapter.^ Where alterations are satis-
factorily shown to have been made before execution, it is usual
to engross the probate copy of the will as altered, inserting the
words interlined in their proper places, and omitting words struck
through or obliterated.^ But in cases where the construction of
Probate in the wiU may be affected by the appearance of the
fac simile. original paper, the court will order the probate to pass
in fac simile., so as to assist the court of construction in finding
the meaning of the testator.* This is obviously of great impor-
tance where the will is to receive construction in a court different
from that which grants the probate, and the court of construction
is denied access to the original will. The law seems to be un-
settled in England, whether the probate copy is conclusive upon
courts of law and chancery courts if it should contain obvious
mistakes. It has been repeatedly held that the court construing
the will may look at the original,^ and, on the other hand, that
the probate, in /tfc simile or otherwise, conclusively settles that the
will was executed in the form shown by the probate.^ Mr. Wil-
liams is of opinion that it may, on the whole, be doubted whether
chancery courts in England have not gone beyond the legitimate

1 Wins. [377], citing Curtis v. Curtis, tion that they are applicable to two sets

3 Add. 33, and many Englisli authorities, of legatees. In such case, it sliould seem,
But tliough the court cannot expunge there must, of necessity, be a fac simile
any words from the original will, offensive probate.

passages, such as scurrilous imputations & In L'Fit v. L'Batt, 1 P. Wms. 526,

on tlie character of another man, have a will was proved in the original French

been excluded from the probate and copy language, and under it, in the same pro-

kei)t in tlie registry : Goods of Wartnaby, bate, it was translated into English, but, It

4 Notes of Cas. 476; Marsh v. Marsh, 1 appeared, falsely translated. The Master
Sw. & Tr. 528 ; Goods of Hony wood, L R. of the Rolls held that the court might de-
2 P. & D. 251. termine what tlie translation ought to be.

2 ^^rifp, § 49. In Compton v. Bloxham, 2 Coll, 201, the

3 3 Re'df. on Wilis, 53, pi. 2. Vice-Chancellor begged to haveit observed

4 Wras. [381]. If, for example, the that he had sent for and examined the
testator says, " I give A. B. an annuity original will, and had been influenced by
of £500, and I also give him .£1000"; it m his construction. So in Sliea v,
and the testator tlien strikes out down to Boschetti, 18 Beav. 321, and Manning v.
and including the words ".£500"; Gann Purcell, 7 DeG., M. & G. 55, the original
r. Gregory, 3 DeG.,M.&G. 777, 780. Sup- wills were examined for the purpose of
pose, again, the words " to be equally construction.

divided amongst them" interlined, (with- « Gann v. Gregory, supra; Taylor v.

out any caret to show where they were Richardson, 2 Drew. 16.
intended to come in,) and in such a posi-

§ 223 PROBATE OF HOLOGRAPHIC WILLS. 487

means for construing- wills, where they have soiig'ht aid from ap-
pearances in the will itself nut to be found in the probate, and
whether the more i)roper course is not to apply to the court of
l)robate for a corrected fac simile probate, if it be desired to relv
on stops, or capital letters, or any marks which, in truth, are
apparent in the will, though not in the probate. '^ For until Ihe
court of probate has sanctioned them as legal ])arts of the will,
non constat that they have not been introduced by a stranger, or
by the testator himself after the will was executed, or otherwise,
so as not properly to form a part of it. And this can only be
decided in the probate court, which is bound to exclude from its
probate, whether a/ac simile probate or not, all such appearances
on the face of the will as do not legitimately belong to it as a
testamentary instrument."^

The same view seems applicable in the American States. Mr,
Schouler says : " To construe a will duly probated, and define the
rights of parties in interest, remains for other tribunals ; they
must interpret the charter by wdiich the estate should be settled
in case of controversy ; while the probate court, by right purely
of probate or ecclesiastical functions, establishes and confirms
that charter. But in order to do this, the probate court throws
out the false or the superseded will, or the instrument whose
execution does not accord with positive statute requirements ; it
determines what writing or writings shall constitute the will." 2
Hence a decree by a court granting probate of a will, that it is null
and void in so far as it conHicts with the legal, constitutional, and
equitable rights of the widow, can have no legal effect.^

§ 223. Probate of Holographic Wills. — The difference between
ordinary wills, requiring attestation by subscribing witnesses, and
holographic wills, is, as appears from the discussion of this sub-
ject in a former chapter,^ that the latter are valid, if written
wholly by the testator, without such attestation. It was there
pointed out in what States such wills are admitted to probate, and
also that in some of them the statutes provide for the method
of proof by which they must be established; it is not proper,
therefore, to repeat in this connection the statutory requirements
concerning their probate.^ It is necessary to bear in mind, how-

^ Wins. Ex. [569]. ° See also the cases there cited, passing

2 Sfhoiil. Ex. § 85. upon some of the principles and proced-

3 O'Docherty v. McGloinn, 25 Tex. 67. ure involved.
* Ante, § 43.

488 THE PROBATE OF THE WILL. § 223

Proof neces- Gver, that proof must be made that the whole of the
.<arvt()es- instrumciit was written bv the hand of the testator

tablish a ^ ?

holograph. and generally, also, that he dated and signed it.^ In
Kentucky it was decided that a pajjcr wholly written and sub-
scribed by a person, with the intention of making it his will,
is valid as a will, although he may not have thought it a com-
pleted paper by reason of a mistaken notion on his part that the
law required witnesses to such a paper.^ Proof should be made
in strict accordance with the rules prescribed by the statute.^ In
some States the handwriting must be proved by three witnesses;*
in others by two;^ and in Kentucky it was held that proof of hand-
writing by one witness, together with proof of declarations by the
testator in corroboration thereof, was sufficient to establish a holo-
graph.^ In Virginia it was doubted whether one or two witnesses
are necessary^ In England the rule laid down, before the Wills
Act of 1838, in respect of wills of personalty, allowed them to be
established upon sufficient proof that the will, or signature, was in
the handwriting of the testator.^ Under this rule, it was held to
be clearly established in the ecclesiastical courts, that similitude
of handwriting, even with a probable disposition, is not sufficient
to establish a testamentary paper, without some concomitant cir-
cumstances, as the place of finding, or the like, to connect it
with the party whose will it is alleged to be.^ The same doc-
trine seems to be applicable to the proof of the liandwriting in
a hologra[)hic will, where the statute does not control it. Dec-
larations by the testator are generally admissible in connection

1 It was held in California that a proof, although previously admitted im-
printed form, filled in by the testator, is properly : Succession of Clark, supra.
not a holographic will. Ante, § 4-3, citing * As in Arkansas, North Carolina, and
Estate of Rand, 61 Cal. 468. In Tennes- Tennessee.

see a will written by the testator's own ° As in Louisiana: " Who are familiar

hand, although not signed by him nor with his handwriting, having often seen

attested by witnesses, is good as to per- him write in his lifetime": Succession

sonalty, provided the handwriting be suf- of Eubanks, supra. But this rule applies

ticiently proved : Suggett v. Kitchell, 6 only where the probate is not contested ;

Ycrg. 429; Reagan v. Stanley, 11 Lea, where it is contested ah initio, on the

316. ground that the will is a forgery, the

- Toebbe v. Williams, 80 Ky. GSl, ordinary rules of law apply : Succession

664. of Gaines, 38 La. An. 123.

3 Succession of Clark, 11 La. An 124. 6 Ilaimah v. Peak, 2 A. K. Marsh. 133.

In this State women cannot be subscrib- '' Redford v. Peggy, 6 Rand. 316.

ing witnesses to a will, but are competent 8 Sharp i". Sharp, 2 Leigh, 249, 254.

to establisli a holograph • Succession of ^ Wms. Ex. [350], citing numerous

Eubanks, 9 La. An. 147 ; and such a will English cases.
may be admitted to probate upon proper

§ 224 PROOF OF NUNCUPATIVE WILLS. 489

with such evidence,^ but are not alone sufficient to establish I lie
will. 2

§ 224. Proof of Nuncupative 'Wiila. — The method of proviu''
nuncupative wills has been extensively discussed in connection
with the statutory regulations affecting this species of strict proof
testamentary disposition.^ In consequence of the dis- "^'^,';7rif ^°
favor with which this class of wills is looked upon by »;"i)ative wills,
the courts,* it is necessary to observe the utmost strictness in ful-
filling the statutory requirements with reference to them, and
to prove the testamentary capacity and animus teHtandl by the
clearest evidence ; any deviation therefrom will, according to the
unvarvinii' current of authorities, prove fatal.^ The

I * 1- 1 -11 • 1 1 • r 1 I''<''"'>te of a

probate ot such a will is, however, conclusive,'' and nunciiiiation
cannot, in some States, be set aside or contested in
chancery, like a written will, the only remedy of a party aggrieved
being by appeal;" but a contest being, in some States, in the
nature of an appeal from the judgment of the probate court, ev-
ery fact which is required to be proved in order to admit the
will to probate may be disproved on the contest to show it to be
invalid.**

§ 225. Admissibility of Declarations as Evidence in the Probate
of Wills. — The conversations, statements, and declarations of
the testator are always admissible on the question of Testator's dec-
his testamentary capacity, since they are the most di- Jili^Jib|"e^o^'
rect manifestations of his mental condition ; their P'"\e ."'^

' condition of

value as evidence being, in this respect, fully equal, if '»« '"'"d;
not superior, to that of his acts, conduct, behavior, or appearance.
Many phases of insanity — delusions, hallucinations, and the like —

1 But declarations that he made a Winn v. Bob, 3 Leigh. 140 ; Prince v.
subsequent will, in the absence of all tes- Hazieton, 20 Johns. 502; Tally r. But-
tiniony of the contents, execution, attes- terworth, 10 Yerg. 501 ; BrayfieUi r.
tntioii or handwriting of sue!) subsequent Bra.vfield, 3 Har. & J. 208; Webb r.
will, cannot be introduced as proof of Webb, 7 T. B. Mon. 026, ():U ; Rankin r.
ih,' revocation of a holographic will of- Kankin, 9 Ired. L. 156 ; vSt. James Cimrcli
fired for probate : Allen v. Jeter, 6 Lea, v. Walker, 1 Del. Ch. 284; Succession of
^i"^. 675. Dorries, 37 La. An. 833. In lo va the

2 Succession of Eubanks, supra. mi'imns testandi was interred from the tes-
8 .^/(/p, §§ 44, 4-5. tiitor's expression of his desire : Mulligan
* Woods (;. Kidley, 27 Miss. 110, 146; v. Leonard, 46 Iowa, 6!>2.

deciding, however, that when properly 6 Bradley r. Amiress, 27 Ala. 596;

proved th^'y are equally entitled to pro- Brown r. Harris, 9 Baxt. 386.
bate wiih written wills. " Page v. Page, 2 Hob. Va. 424.

^ Broach r. Sing, 57 Miss. 115, 116; » Bolles v. Harris, 31 Oh. St. 38, 41.

Dorsey v. Sheppard, 12 Gill & J. 192, 198;

490 THE PliOBATE OF THE WILL. § 225

are capable of proof by this means only. Hence great latitude is
allowed in proving declarations, acts, and statements of a testator,
extending over many years, to establish the status of his mind
but iH,t to wlien he made his will.^ Of course the declarations

jMove thecou- g^^.^ j^^jj- competent to prove the truth of the matter

tent of lus 1 '■

stiitemeuts. stated iu them, and when the content of a statement
or declaration concerns a fact in issue in the proceeding, the jury
should be cautioned on this point.- On an imputation of fraud,
also, in the making of the will, declarations of the testator are
admissible in evidence to show his dislike or affection for his rela-
tions, or those who in the will appear to be the objects of his
bounty, and respecting his intentions either to benefit them or to
pass them by in the disposition of his property .^ But such decla-
rations, alone and unsupported by other facts, are not only insuffi-
cient to prove undue influence, but their exclusion, in the absence
of other evidence, is not erroneous.* Nor should declarations
made so long before or after the making of the will that they
Deciaiaiioiis caunot be considered as of the res gestce, be admitted
inadmissible ^ prove the fact of fraud, circumvention, or imposi-

to prove revo- >^^ i ^ j ■> l

cation of awiii. tiou.^ The revocation of a will cannot be proved by

1 " To enable the jury to determine ^ Wms. Ex. [359], citing Shallcross v.
the real state of mind, the action of that Palmer, 16 Ad. & El. (Q. B.) 747, 759;
mind, as siiown best by conversations, Allen v. Allen, 12 Ad. & El. 451 ; Howell
declarations, claims, and acts, is the most v. Barden, .3 Dev. 442; Neel v. Potter, 40
satisfactory evidence " : Kent, J, in Rob- Pa. St. 483 ; Denison's Appeal, 29 Conn,
inson v. Adams, 02 Me. 369, 413. Ram- 399, 402 ; Potter v. Baldwin, 183 Mass.
bier V. Tryon, 7 Serg. & R. 90, 93, al- 427, citing earlier Massachusetts cases ;
lowing declarations tiiat his wife and Dye w. Young, 55 Iowa, 433; Reynolds
father-in-law plagued him, wanting him ;;. Adams, 90 111. 134, 147 ; Parsons v.
to give her all, or he would liave no rest, Parsons, 56 Iowa, 754.

as showing weakness of mind; Roberts * Cawihorne v. Haynes, 24 Mo. 236,
V. Trawick, 13 Ala. 68, 83 ; Barker v. 239 ; Rusling v. Rusling, 36 N. J. Eq. 003,
Barker, 36 N. J. Eq. 259, 268, holding a 608; Shaw v. Shaw, 1 Dem. 21, 24; Kit-
denial by the testatrix that she made a chell i-. Heach, 35 N. J. Eq. 446, 454 ;
will competent to prove want of testa- Storer's Will, 28 Minn. 9, 12 ; Wurzell v.
mentary capacity, and that the will was Beckman, 52 Mich. 478.
never executed, but not that there was ^ Smith v. Fenner, 1 Gall. 170, 172;
undue influence. See remarks of Surro- Stevens (•. Vancleve, 4 Wash. C. C. 262,
gate Rollins in Hamersley v. Lockman, 265; Shailer v. Bumstead, 99 Mass. 112,
2 Dem. 524, 533; Matter of Clark, 40 121, holding that the value of such evi-
Hun, 233, 238. dence depends upon its significance and

2 Robinson v. Adams, supra ; Boylan proximity ; Shields c. Ingram, 5 Redf.
«. Meeker, 28 N. J. L. 274, 279 ; Harring 346, holding proof of a conversation
V. Allen, 25 Mich. 505 ; Jones v. McLel- eigliteen years before to be unreliable ;
Ian. 76 Me. 49; Bush v. Bush, 87 Mo. 480, Rule r. Maupin, 84 Mo. 587, 590; Crocker
485. V. Chase, 57 Vt. 413.

§ 226 DECLARATIONS AS EVIDENCE. 491

the declarations of the testut(n' ; * hut liis expressions of ajjpnn-al
or dissatisfaction have heen held admissible as bearing ii|)()n his
intention in destroying the will, or proving that a lost will is not
revoked.2 Diaries kept and letters written bv a testa- ,^. .

. p 1 ' -ii iJianes and

tor, either before or after the execution oi the will, are, lutters subject
like his verbal declarations, proper evidence as bearing
upon his mental capacity, and the condition of his mind with refer-
ence to objects of his bounty, but not competent to prove the facts
stated in them, or fraud or undue influence.^ It has been held
that the testator's declarations are competent to prove the fact of
sul)Scription by the attesting witnesses where one of them denies
or fails to remember such fact, on the ground that the testator
must certainly know about his own acts, and has no motive to
speak falsely ;* and in North Carolina the declarations of a testa-
tor at any time after the making of the will were held com[)etcnt
to prove that the will in question is not his will.'^

§ 226. Wills proved in a Foreign Jurisdiction. — The principle
r(!(iuiring the title and disposition of real property to be governed
exclusively by the law of the country or State in which it is situ-
ated,—Zea; loci rei Slice, ^ — and that requiring personal property
to follow the law of the owner's domicil, — lex domicilii,^ — to-
gether with the extra-territorial invalidity of municipal laws and
regulations,^ have heretofore produced considerable divergence in
respect of wills which have been executed and admitted to jtrobate
in sister States or foreign countries, and operate upon i)roperty
situated within the jurisdiction of the forum where they are sought
to be enforced. It is now a fully established rule in En-iish mie
England, that, in order to sue in any court of law or bat'eof'wins "
equity, in respect of the personal rights or property of °,5 J;lri~s'l'!^','|,^u
a deceased person, the plaintiff must appear to have "^ '''" *'^"""-

1 Jackson v. Kniffen, 2 Jolins. 31 ; witnesses, was doubted in New York :

Reynolds v. Adams, 90 111. 134, 147 ; Beekman v. Beekinaii, 2 Dcm. G:]5, tWQ.
Ho'itt r. Hoitt, 63 N. H. 475, 4U9 ; Slaugli- * Beadles v. Alexander, 9 Baxt. 604.

ter V. Stephens, 81 Ala. 418. ^ Reel v. Reel, 1 Hawks, 248, 267 ;

■^ Matter of xMarsh, 45 Hun, 107: Har- Hester v. Hester, 4 Dev. 228 (in this

ring V. Allen, 25 Midi. 505, 507 ; John- case objection was made to the compe-

son's Will, 40 Conn. 5S7 ; nnle, § 221. tency of a widow testifying to the decla-

3 Marx V. McGlynn, 88 N. Y. .357, 374. rations of her busband, and overruled;

Wiietlier a memorandum by tbe testator nothing was said as to the competency

is admissible, to tbe effect that be bad of the declarations as sucb).
on that (biy " made a will in favor ^ Story, Confl. L. § 424.

of " the beneficiary under the will pro- ' Ibid., § 376. See ante, § 157 el seq.

pounded, and adding the name of the 8 Ante, § 157 et seq.

492 THE PROBATE OF THE WILL. § 226

obtained probate of the will, or letters of administration in the
court of probate there ; ^ and this is so in America in
Aniericaa all the States with the exception of those in which

btates. |.|jg statutes confer certain powers upon foreign ex-

ecutors and administrators, which may be exercised by virtue
of such statutory regulations,^ or give validity to a foreign pro-
bate.^ It follows that a will made in another State or foreign
country, and proved there, disposing of property elsewhere, must,
except in the States holding as above, be proved in the State where
the property is situated also, or courts cannot enforce the provis-
ions of such will.*

Generally, the court in which the will is to be proved anew
will adopt the decision of the court in the foreign country where
Probate of the tcstator died domiciled as to the probate of a
trvonhe""" ^^^^ disposiug of personal property ; for it is a clearly
doniKii fni- established rule, that the law of the countrv in which

lowed as to '

personalty. the dcccascd was domiciled at the time of his death
not only decides the ccnirse of distribution or succession as to
personalty, but regulates the decision as to what constitutes
the last will, without regard to the place either of birth or
death, or the situation of the property at that time.^ It is pro-
. . vided by statute, that the will of a non-resident, ad-

Statutes givinj? . . .

effect to foreign mittcd to probate according to the law of the State in
which he resided at the time of his death, may be ad-
mitted to probate upon the production of a duly authenticated
copy thereof together with the probate, without other proof or

1 Wms. Ex. [362], wliere the author 22; Campbell v. Wallace, 10 Gray, 162
quotes a note to the American edition of Drake v. Merrill, 2 Jones, L. 368, 373;
his work, stating "tliat it has been estab- Kx parte Povall, 3 Leijih, 81B ; Dixon v.
lished as a rule, by repeated decisions in D'Arinond, 23 La. An. 200 ; Pope i\ Cut-
many of the States, that the executor or ler, 34 Mich. 150, 162 ; Townsend t\
administrator of a person who dies dom- Downer, 32 Vt. 183, 216; Ward r. Gates,
ieiled in Great Britain, or any other for- 43 Ala. 515; Thiebaut v. Sebastian, 10
eign country, cannot maintain an action Ind. 454, 458 ; Helm v. Rookesby, 1
in the United States, by virtue of let- Met. (Ky.) 49; Ives i: Allyn, 12 Vt. 589,
ters testamentary or of administration 504 ; Armstrong v. Lear, 12 Wheat. 169,
granted to him in the country where tiie 175.
deceased died." ^ Wms. Ex. [366] ; Wood v. Wood, 5

^ Mansfield v. Turpin, 32 Ga. 260; Pai 506,603; Moultrie r. Hunt, 23 N. Y.

Karrick r. Pratt, 4 Greene (Iowa), 144. 394. See list of American cases collected

3 As to which see infra, and p. 494, by Bigelow in his note to the eighth edi-
note 3 pfsffj. tion of Story's Conflict of Laws, p. 644,

4 Campbell v. Sheldon, 13 Pick. 8, note (a).

§2::C

WILLS PROVED IN A FOREIGN JURISDICTION.

493

notice, in the States of Alabama,^ Arkansas,^ Colorado,"' Florida,'*
Georgia,^ Illinois,^ Indiana,^ lowa,^ Michigan,^ Missouri,^'^' New
York,^i North Caroliiia,^^ Oregon,'^ reiinsylvaiiia,'^ South Caro-
lina,^° Texas,^*^ and Virginia ;^^ and, with the difference that notice
is required to be given to persons interested, likewise in Califor-
nia,^^ Maine,^^ Massachnsetts,^^* Minnesota,-^ Nebraska,^^ Nevada,''^-^
New Jersey ,2"* Ohio,-^ Rhode Island,-'^ Tennessee,-'' Vermont,''^^ and
Wisconsin.^^ In many of these States it is affirma-
tively provided, that the foreign probate is conclusive
only in so far as the will concerns personal property ; with tiie Taw
to pass title to real estate, it must appear, either by
proof furnished in the forum loci rei sitce, or by the authenticated
copy of the evidence upon which the foreign probate was granted,
that in the execution, attestation, and proof of the will the re-
quirements of the law of the State in which the land lies have
been complied with.'^*^ In some of the States the for- states in which

, , , . . , forei^'u ])iobate

eign probate seems to be made conchisive as to real as is concUisive.

Even as to
realty, if in
coiifoiniitv

1 Dickey v. Vann, 81 Ala. 42.5, 432;
Ward V. Gates, 43 Ala. 515, 517 ; Code,
1886, § 1985. Such will cannot be con-
tested : Brock v. Frank, 51 Ala. 85.

2 Dig. 1884, § 6513.

3 Gen. St. 1883, § 3507.

* Laws, 1881, p. U87, §§ 8, 14.

5 Code, 1882, § 2133, 2434 a. In a re-
cent case it was held tliat the probate of
a will in a foreign jurisdiction is conclu-
sive, where the will was contested by all
the heirs : Thomas v. Morrisett, 76 Ga.
381 (Jackson, C. J., dissenting).

6 Rev. St. 1885, p. 2471, §§9, 10.

■? Rev. St. 1881, §§ 2591-2.593. In this
State a will so filed and recorded cannot
be set aside or contested for any cause :
Harris v. Harris, 61 Ind. 117, 124.

8 Stanley v. Morse, 26 Iowa, 454, hold-
ing that the certificate of the prol)ate of
such will is conclusive ; Vance v. Ander-
son, 39 Iowa, 426.

» Howell's An. St. § hSOo Pt nfiq.

w Rev. St. § 3993 ; Applegate v. Sniitli,
31 Mo. 166, 169.

11 Throop's Code Civil Proc. 1887,
§§ 2703-2705.

12 Code, 1883, §§ 2156, 21-57.

13 Code, 1887, § 308-3.

1* Bright. Purd. Dig. 188-3, p. 507, § 7.
15 Gen. St. 1881, § 1751.

16 Rev. St. 1888, § 1856.
1" Code, 1887, § 2-536.

18 Code Civ. Pr. § 1324.

19 Rev. St. 1883, p. 5.38, § 13; Crofton
V. Ilsley, 4 Me. 134, 138 ; Spring v. Park-
man, 12 Me. 127, l.,l.

20 Pub. St. 1882, p. 749, § 15; Dublin
V. Chadbourn, 16 Mass. 433, 441 ; Parker
r. Parker, 11 Cush. 519. Tlie probate in a
foreign State is conclusive althougli no
notice was there given : Crippen v. Dex-
ter, 13 Gray, 330 ; Shannon v. Shannon,
111 Mass. 331.

21 St. 1878, p. 569, § 18.

22 Comp. St. 1887, ch. 23, § 144.

23 Comp. L. 1873, p. 506.

2'* Laws, 1877, p. 757, § 23. An exem-
plified copy of the foreign will and of its
probate is not competent evidence, it must
be regularly proved and recorded in this
State : Graham i: Whitely, 26 N. J. L. 254,
258 ; see Allaire v. Allaire. 37 N. J. L. 312.

25 Rev. St. 1880, §§ 5938-5940.

2''' Pub. St. 1882, p. 474, §§ 6-9.

2- Code, 1884, § 3024

28 Rev. L. 1880, §§2058-2060; Ives v.
Salisbury, 56 Vt. 565.

29 Gary Pr. L. § 224.

3'' So in Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri,
North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island,
Tennessee, and Virginia.

494 THE PROBATE OF THE WILL. § 226

well as to personal property ; ^ but unless such be the express
or nccessarv import of tlie statute, it must affirmatively ap[)car
from such foreign probate, or otbcr proof, that the law of the
forum has been observed in making and proving the will in
order to give validity to its disposition of real estate.^ There are
States Kivincc &ome States, also, in which the probate of the foreign
effect to foreign uu'isdiction, dulv authenticated, either according to

probate witliout J ^ J ' ^ c

probate anew, the act of Congress, or in accordance with the regu-
lations prescribed in the statutes of such States, are allowed to be
given in evidence without probate anew, or previous ap])roval by
the probate court of the loci rei sitce ; ^ it is so provided by stat-
ute in Florida,* Georgia,^ Illinois,^ and in some other States the
statute seems to provide only for a recording of the foreign will.'
The authentication of the probate, and certificate that such au-
thentication is in due form of law in the State grnnting it, in the
manner prescribed by the act of Congress for the authentication
of records, is sufficient to entitle such will to admission in the
courts of sister States without proof of the statute giving jurisdic-
tion to the foreign court.^

There is some deviation, also, on the validity of wills executed

1 So in Connecticut: Irwin's Appeal, Neilson, 13 Lea. 461, 4G6 ; Lewis v. City

33 Conn. 128, 140 ; Illinois : Gardner v. of St. Louis, 6'.) Mo. 595, affirmed in Brad-

Ladue, 47 111. 211; Wisconsin: Hayes v. street v. Kinsella, 76 Mo. 03. 66; Gaines

Lieniokken, 48 Wis. 509, 511 ; Michigan : v. Fender, 82 Mo. 497, £05, and Drake v.

Wilt i: Cutler, 38 Mich. 189, 196. Curtis, 88 Mo. 644.

^ Varner v. Bevil, 17 Ala. 286; St. * Laws, 1881, p. 988, § 14. But unless

James Church v. Walker, 1 Del. Ch. 284 ; the execution of the will conforms to the

Kichards v. Miller, 62 111. 417 ; Sneed v. law of Florida, it is not sufficient to pass

Ewing, 5 J. J. Marsh. 460, 465 ; Crusoe v. real estate : CroUy v. Clark, 20 Fla. 849.
Butler, 36 Mississippi, 150 ; Davison's ^ Code, 1882, § 24.33.

Will, 1 Tuck. 479 ; Hynian i-. Gaskins, 5 « st. & C. Kev. St. 1885, p. 2471, § 9.

Ired. L. 267 ; Holman ;•. Hopkins, 27 Tex. ' In Missouri such a statute was held

38; McCormick r. SuUivant, 10 Wheat, to authorize a will proved in anotiier

192 ; Fennel v. Weyant, 2 Harr. 501, 506 ; State, in accordance with the law of Mis-

Bud'd /•. Brooke, 3 Gill, 198, 232; Barstow souri, an authenticated copy of which

V. Spracuc, 40 N. H. 27, 31 ; Goodman v. was recorded in the proper ( ounty of the

Winter^ 64 Ala. 410, 428; Williams i: latter Stnte, to be competent evidence of

Jones 14 Bush, 418; Smith v. Neilson, title: Applegate v. Smith, 31 Mo. 166,

13 Lea, 461, 466. 169 ; Bright v. White, 8 Mo. 421, 426 ;

a Harris' u. Anderson, 9 Humph. 779 ; Haile v. Hill, 13 Mo. 612, 618. So in

Lancaster v. McBryde, 5 Ired. L. 421, other States : Bromley v. Miller, 2 Tli. &

42.3, citing Helme v. Sanders, 3 Hawks, C. 575 ; Carpenter r. Denoon, 29 Oh. St.

563 (hut compare on this point the later 379, .395.

case of Drake ". Merrill, supra, which ^ Puryear r. Beard, 14 Ala. 121, 128;

seems to overrule the last two cas'-s); Robertson v. Bnrhour, 6 T. B. Mon. 52-3,

Shephardy.Curriel, 19111. 31.3, 319; New- 528; Wilt i-. Cutler, 38 Mich. 189, 198;

man v. Willetts, 52 III. 98, 104 ; Smith v. and see cases, supra, note 3.

§ 226

WILLS PROVED IN A FOREIGN JURISDICTION.

495

in a State or country, according to the requirements thereof, in
which the testator was not domiciled at the time of his p,.„i,.,,^ .^f^^.j!]
death, as to personal ])ronerty situated in the State of exi^i^^i't^^'i '" --^

' ^ I I J ^ country wliere

his domicil, or some otiicr country. Thus, a will made the testator was

not domiciled.

in Massachusetts by an inhabitant thereoi must be
proved according to the law of Massachusetts, no matter where it
receives original probate ; ^ and a will is admissible to original
probate in the jurisdiction of the testator's domicil at the time of
his death, without regard to where he died or where tiie will was
made.'-^ While a foreign will may be admitted to probate upon
proper proof, although it has not been proved or recorded in the
testator's domicil,*^ and although it has been declared void in other
States,'* the probate of a court which is without jurisdiction be-
cause the testator may have resided, but was not domiciled, in the
State, is void, and cannot support a probate in the State of the
domicil.^ And it has been held that the proof must be in accord-
ance with the law of the domicil at the time of death, altliough
the statute provides that property may be bequeathed if the will
be executed and proved "according to the laws of this State, or of
the country, State, or Territory in which the will shall be made."°

1 Pub. St. 1882, p. 749. So in New
Jersey ; Wallace v. Wallace, 3 N. J. Eq
61(3; Mississippi. Bate r. Incisa, 59 Miss.
513, 517, citing numerous Mississippi
cases.

2 Converse v. Starr, 23 Oh. St. 491.

3 Varner r. Bevil, 17 Ala. 286; Hyman
V. Gaskins, 5 Ired. L. 207 ; Jaques v. Hor-
ton, 76 Ala. 238; Booth v. Timoi.ey, 3
Dem. 41G.

* Rice ('. Jones, 4 Call, 89.

5 Stark V. Parker, 56 N. H. 481, 485;
Desesbats v. Berquier, 1 Binn. 336 (in
which Yeates, J., p. 347, cites Vattel,
154, § 85; 2 Huberus, lib. 1, tit. 3; 2
Wolfe, 201; Denizart, 515; Target, and
Lord Kaimcs, as severall\' asserting that
tlie validity of a testament as to its form
can oidy be decided by the judge of the
domicil, whose sentence delivered \n form
ought to be everywhere acknowledged) ;
Caulfield r. Sullivan, 85 N. Y. 153,^159;
Manuel v. Manuel, 13 Oil. St. 458, 463,
citing numerous authorities ; Morris r.
Morris, 27 Miss. 847 ; Moultrie v. Hunt,
23 N. Y. 394 ; Grattan v. Appleton, 3
Story, 755, 764 ; Dupuy v. Wurz, 53 N. Y.

556, 560; and the rule is the same if
the testator, having made a will in ac-
cordance with the law of his domicil,
subsequently changes his residence and
acquires a new domicil in another State,
— the will becomes void, unless it con-
form to the law of his /nr.f dotincil . Story,
Confl. L. § 473 : Schoul. Ex. § 17; 1 Hedf.
Wills, p. 401, pi. 12.

Mr. Wharton, mentioning the English
statute of 24 & 25 Vict. c. 107, providing
that a will validly executed at an actual
domicil is not affected by a subsequent
change of domicil, says that "this amend-
ment of the law has been adopted gen-
erally in the United States" (Wh. Contl.
L. § ^i86), citing 1 Redf (3d ed.) 381, Coffin
;•. Otis, 11 Met. (Mass.) 156, and Manuel
V. Manuel, 13 Oh. St. 458. These au-
thorities do not, however, seem to warrant
the statement.

^ Such is the statutory provision in
several States, among them in Missouri.
Yet it was here held, in the face of this
statute, that a will made in another vState
by a person then a resident of such State,
but who afterwards removes to this State,

496 THE PROBATE OP THE WILL. § 227

The rule requiring the validity of a will affecting personal

property to be tested by the law of the testator's doniicil, does not

extend to the execution or construction of a ijower of

Law govern-
ing power of appointment by will ; the law of the domicil of the
apiioin 11 . ^Jqj-,qj. y£ ^jjQ power, and not of the testator, governs

in such case.^

The provision of the Constitution of the United States requir-
ing full faith and credit to be given m each State to the public
Full faith and acts, rccords, and judicial proceedings of every other
d-n'lLrudi'ca- ^tate, and the act of Congress relating thereto, do not
tioiis under o;ive sucli acts, rccords, or proceedings any greater

Constitution ^ ■ ' * o i

and act of forcc and efficacy in the courts of other States than

Congress. .in r i • i ji ^ i

they possess m the States from which they are taken,
and apply only so tar as such courts have jurisdiction.^ Hence,
while the judgment of a court admitting a will to probate is bind-
ing on the courts of every State in respect of all property under
its jurisdiction, whether real or personal, yet it establishes nothing
beyond that, and does not take the place of the necessary formali-
ties to make the will valid in respect of real property in other
. States, if wanting.^

A late case decided in Connecticut holds that, where probate
was granted in New York of a will invalid in Connecticut, but
valid in New York, such probate was binding upon the courts of
Connecticut, although a probate court in Connecticut had previ-
ously decided, under circumstances giving it jurisdiction, that the
testatrix had died domiciled in Connecticut, and had appointed an
administrator.*

§ 227. Revocation of Probate. — The power to revoke probate
of a will is exercised by English courts of chancery in cases
Revocntinn in whcrc it is clcar that probate courts are powerless
England by ^q afford adequate relief against iniurv in conse-

courts of ^ ...

chancery. qucucc of fraud or perjury committed in obtaining the

probate. But in the United States there is no such power in

and dies a resident of this State, is in- Wall. 521, 529; Robertson v. PickrcII,

valid, if not made according to the laws 109 U. S. 608.

of this State : Nat v. Coons, 10 Mo. 543, 3 Robertson v. Pickrell, 109 IT. S. 608,

546 ; Stewart v. Pettus, 10 Mo. 755. 610 ; McCormick v. SuUivant, 10 Wheat.

1 Bingham's Appeal, 64 Pa. St. .345; 192, 202; Darby v. Mayer, 10 Wlicat.
Sewall V. Wilmer, 132 Mass. 131, citing 465, 469; McCartney v. Osburn, 118 111.
English cases ; 1 Jarm. *29. 403, 410; Osburn ;;. McCartney, 121 I!l.

2 Suydam ;;. Barber, 18 N. Y. 468, 472 ; 408, 411.

Public Works v. Columbia College, 17 * Willett's Appeal, 50 Conn. 330.'

§ 227 REVOCATION OF PROBATE. 497

chancery, except as pointed out by statute, in some otherwise in
of the States. " Wherever the power to probate states.
a will is given to a probate or surrogate's court, the decree of
such court is final and conclusive, and not subject, except on
an appeal to a higher court, to be questioned in any other court,
or to be set aside or vacated by the court of chancery on any
ground." ^ This language is quoted and approved by Justice
Bradley of the Supreme Court of the United States,^ and received
the unanimous assent of the whole court, save that Judges Clifford
and Davis qualified it to the extent of claiming jurisdiction for
chancery courts in cases where there is no adequate remedy in
the probate court for a party injured by perjury or fraud. Judge
Story, the stanch vindicator of the most comprehensive chancery
powers, says that there is but one exception to the concurrent
jurisdiction of chancery courts in all matters of fraud, which is
fraud in obtaining probate of a will ; and he finds it " not easy to
discern the grounds upon which this exception stands in point of
reason or principle, although it is clearly settled by authority." ^
The common law rule is stated to be, that the remedy for fraud in
obtaining a will is exclusively vested, in wills of personalty, in
the ecclesiastical courts ; and in wills of real estates, in the courts
of common law.*

The power to revoke exists, however, in the probate court itself,
in all cases where the court acted without jurisdiction, without
notice, where the statute requires notice, or in dis- power to
regard of some statutory requirement, so that the Jn^^rohltt^^^^
decree or judgment rendered is void ; ^ and so where ^°"'"*-
a later will is discovered subsequently to the probate of an earlier
one, there is no doubt of the power of the probate court to estab-

1 State V. McGlynn, 20 Cal. 2.>3, 268. ordinary to try the will de novo; an ex-

2 In Broderick's Will, 21 Wall. 503. pedient also resorted to in Palmer v.

3 Story, Eq. Jur. § 440. Among the Mikell, 2 Desaus. 342 ; Howell v. Whit-
cases so holding, see Gaines r. Cliew, 2 clnirch, 4 Hay w. 49 ; Burrow v. RagLaiid,
How (U. S.) 019; Tarver v. Tarver, 9 6 Humph. 481, 484 ; Lyne i^. Guardian, 1
Pet. 174, 180; Ewell r. Tidwell, 20 Ark. Mo. 410; Trotters o. Winchester, 1 Mo.
136, 141; Townsend v. Townsend, 4 413; Colton v. Ross, 2 Pai. 396, 398;
Coldw. 70, 80 ; Slade v. Street, 27 Ga. Wells v. Stearns, 35 Hun, 323.

17; Booth V. Kitchen, 7 Hun, 25-5, 259; * Story, Eq. Jur. § 184.

Walters v. Ratliff, 5 Bush, 575; McDow- 5 Waters v. Stickney, 12 Allen, 1, 9

ell V. Peyton, 2 Desaus. 313, 320, decree- et seq. ; Lawrence's Will, 7 N. J. Eq. 215,

ing that the defendants consent to a 221; Roy v. Segrist, 19 Ala. 810, 813;

revocation of the probate, to enable the Sowell v. Sowell, 40 Ala. 243, 245.
VOL. I. — 32

498 THE PEOBATE OF THE WILL. § 227

lish the later will.^ But where a will has been conclusively es-
tablished, the production of a later will for probate, not in terms
revoking the former, does not raise the question of revocation,
and such revocation cannot be determined in such proceeding if
there is room for dispute as to construction. The probate of the
former will should be left to stand for what it is worth, and its
effect decided elsewhere.^ It has been held that no lapse of time
will bar an application for the revocation of the invalid probate
of a will, in the court which granted it ;^ but unless the power to
review or revoke is conferred by statute, no merely erroneous
probate can be set aside by the probate court after the term at
which it was granted has expired.*

In most States, however, the revocation of probates is regulated

by the statutory provisions concerning the probate, as will appear

from the consideration of this subject in the opening sections of

this chapter.^ It may be assumed that, with the ex-

Probate not . pio, . i-iji ii r

impeachable ccptiou 01 a icw 01 tlic hitatcs m which the probate ot
a eia j. ^ ^.^^ .^^ ^j^^ commou form, or ex parte, is not conclu-
sive as to real estate devised, no probate, decreed by a court hav-
ing jurisdiction of probates, is impeachable collaterally ; to annul,
set aside, or revoke such probate, there must be a direct proceed-
How probate ing to that end upon notice to all parties interested.*^
revoked. This may be by appeal from the decree establishing

1 Per Gray, J., in Waters v. Stickney, 90, 92 ; Schultz v. Schultz, 10 Gratt. .358,
12 Allen, 1, 11 : "A court of probate has 373; Vance v. Upson, 64 Tex. 266, 269.
no more power by a decree establishing But it is held in some States that the pro-
one testamentary instrument to preclude pounding of a codicil is a contest pro
the subsequent probate of a later one <a?!^o, and can be treated as such only:
never before brought to its notice, than Estate of Adsit, Myr. 266 ; Hardy v.
b}- a decree approving one account to Hardy, 26 Ala. 524.

discharge an administrator from respon- ^ Besan9on r. Brownson, 39 Mich 388.

sibility for assets not actually accounted ^ Clagett v. Hawkins, 11 Md. 381, 387 ;

for." This point was commented on by to the same etTect, Bailey v. Osborn, 33

-Justice Wayne in Gaines v. Hennen, 24 Miss. 128.

How. 553, 567 : " Courts of probate may * McCarty v. McCarty, 8 Bush, 504,

for cause recall or annul testamentary 506.

letters, but they can neither destroy nor ^ Ante, § 215.

revoke wills ; though they may and often ^ Castro v. Richardson, 18 Cal. 478 ;

have declared that a posterior will of a Taylor v. Tibbats, 13 B. Mon. 177, 181,

testator shall be recognized in the place citing Well's Will, 5 Litt. 273 ; Cochran

of a prior will which had been proved, v. Young, 104 Pa. St. 333; Roberts v.

when it was not known to the court that Flanagan, 21 Neb. 508; Kirk i'. Bowling,

the testator had revoked it." To the 20 Neb. 260 ; Dower v. Seeds, 28 W. Va.

like effect, Bowen v. Jolinson, 5 R. I. 113, 143.
112, 119; Campbell i;. Logan, 2 Bradf.

REVOCATION OF PROBATE.

499

or rejecting the probate, by any person interested in the will,^ but
which, since the right thereto is purely statutory, must be pur-
sued in strict compliance with the requirements of the statute ; ^
or it may be by contest, which any interested person may insti-
tute who was not a party to the original proceeding resulting in
the probate or rejection of the will,^ either in the court which
granted the probate,^ or in a superior court of law,*'' or in a court
of chancery,'' as may be provided by the statute.' These proceed-
ings are in most instances limited to a given period of time, after
which the probate becomes absolutely conclusive, or is impeach-
able on the ground of fraud alone ; ^ and a court of equity will

1 Northampton v. Smith, 11 Met.
(Mass.) 390, 393, recognizing the right
to appeal in a corporation to whicli the
legal title to a fund was devised to be
held in trust, although payable at a future
and distant day ; Cheever v. Judge, 45
Mich. 6; Howe v. Pratt, 11 Vt. 2-55;
Scribner v. Williams, 1 Pai. 550 ; New-
house i\ Gale, 1 Redf. 217 ; Havelick v.
Havelick, 18 Iowa, 414 ; Will of Alexan-
der, 27 N. J. Eq. 463 ; on appeal, tlie pre-
sumption is in favor of the probate :
RoUwagen v. Rollwagen, 3 Hun, 121, 128 ;
Estate of Sticknoth, 7 Nev. 22-3, 228.

2 Dennison v. Talmage, 29 Oh. St. 433.

3 Worthington v. Gittings, 56 Md. 542,
547; Cunningliam's Estate, 54 Cal. 556 ;
Bailey v. Stewart, 2 Redf. 212, 224; a
creditor of the testator cannot invoke
the power to revoke probate of a will :
Heilman v. Jones, 5 Redf. 398; State Na-
tional Bank v. Evans, 32 La. An. 464. In
California, where tiie statute saves to
minors one year after removal of disabil-
ity to contest tlie validity of a will, it is
held that probate is not conclusive upon
a minor, where tlicre has been no contest,
although citation had been served upon
him, and an attorney appointed to rep-
resent him in the probate : Samson i-.
Samson, 64 Cal. 327.

* Estate of Rice, Myr. 183 ; Hubbard
V. Hubbard, 7 Or. 42, 44 ; Miller v. Miller,
5 Heisk. 723, 727 ; Will of Kellum, 50'
N. Y. 298 ; Matter of Paige, 62 Barb.
476; Dickenson v. Stewart, 1 Murph. 99;
Brown v. Gibson, 1 Nott & McC. 326 (ac-
cording to the common law, at any time
within thirty years).

5 Leighton v. Orr, 44 Iowa, 679, 682 ;
Kelsey v. Kelsey, 57 Iowa, 383.

® Johnston v. Glasscock, 2 Ala. 218,
233 ; McCall y.Vallandingham, 9 B. Mon.
449. But one who has appeared to the
original probate and unsuccessfully pros-
ecuted an appeal therefrom, cannot there-
after file a bill in chancery to contest the
will: Dale v. Hays, 14 B. Mon. 315, 317;
unless he withdraws before the order ad-
mitting tlie will to probate is made :
Dillard v. Dillard, 78 Va. 208. The pro-
ceeding in chancery is held in Ohio to be
binding only on the parties to the suit,
being void as to all others : McArthur v.
Scott, 113 U. S. 840, 387 el seq., reviewing
Ohio authorities.

' Ante, § 215. In Indiana a contest
may be instituted before or after the in-
strument is admitted to probate : Curry
V. Bratney, 29 Ind. 195. In Kentucky
the probate can only be set aside by ap-
peal to a higher court ; but an original
bill in equity to set aside the probate of
a will is allowed upon grounds which
would give equity jurisdiction over any
other judgment at law, or to non-residents
who were not parties to the original pro-
ceeding: Hughey v. Sidwell, 18 B. Mon.
259.

8 Matter of Becker, 28 Hun, 207 ; Post
j>. Mason, 26 Hun, 187. In Louisiana the
prescription of five years bars nullities
of form in the probate : Porter v. Horns-
by, 32 La. An. 337. It is sufficient, how-
ever, if the proceedings be cmnmpnced
witliin the time : Estate of Sbarboro,
Myr. 255, 258 ; Stewart v. Harriman, 56
N. H. 25. Where time is given, in addi-

500 THE PROBATE OF THE WILL. § 227

set aside a judgment rejecting a will in solemn form, obtained by
collusion or fraud, and, if the will had already been probated in
common form, reinstate such probate.^ Another form in which the
probate of a will may be controlled is by the right recognized in
some States in the next of kin, to demand the establishment of a
will in solemn form which had been admitted to probate in com-
mon form.2 This method does not commend itself as a wise or
just rule, and meets with little favor from courts,^

The probate cannot be revoked as to some and not as to
others ; hence a judgment entered in pursuance of a stipula-
Partiai revoca- tion of the partics to the contest for the revocation,
tion disallowed, -^i^e^.gijy f]^Q probate is annulled merely as to con-
testant, is void.*

The right to contest the validity of a probate granted, in the
method pointed out by the statute, may be exercised by any
Any person pcrsou who has a Substantial interest in the will so
conTettprobrte. established, whether domestic or foreign,^ But since
a person cannot hold under a will and also against it,^
tlkh"°under ^^'^ ^^^^ acccpts a beneficial interest under a will
the will. thereby bars himself from setting up a claim which

will prevent its full operation,^ at law or in equity ; ^ and such

tion to the period of limitation, after the And this is not all. A part of the heirs

discovery of fraud or forgery, to contest and legatees occupying the same status

a will, the contestant must show due dili- precisely toward the litigation and its

gence, or he will be barred : Ransome v. subject matter fail, and a part recover !

Bearden, 50 Tex. 119, 127. A mischief so patent should not be

1 Smith V. Harrison, 2 Heisk. 230, 242. tolerated."

2 In South Carolina this right is lim- * In re Freud, 73 Cal. 555.

ited to four years : Craig v. Beatty, 11 ^ Lynch v. Miller, 54 Iowa, 516, 518;
S. C. .375, 379, citing Kinard v. Riddle- a fortiori a foreign will, affecting lands
hoover, 3 Rich. 258. In Georgia, to seven in tiie State where it has not been admit-
years : Vance v. Crawford, 4 Ga. 445, ted to probate, may be contested when
457 ; Howell v. Whitchurch, 4 Hayw. 49. offered as evidence in a suit of eject-
Contesting probate in common form by ment : Fennel v. Weyant, 2 Harring. 501.
counsel for the heirs, but without their 6 Smart v. Easley, 5 J. J. Marsh. 214,
knowledge or consent, is held not to 215; Herbert v. Wren, 7 Cr. 370, 878;
waive their right to probate in solemn Preston r. Jones, 9 Fa. St. 456, 459, citing
form : Gray v. Gray, 60 N. H. 28. Whistler v. Webster, 2 Ves. Jr. 367.

3 Lumpkin, J., of tlie Supreme Court ^ Smith v. Guild, 34 Me. 443, 447, cit-
of Georgia, in Walker v. Ferryman, 23 ing Thellusson w. Woodford, 13 Ves. 209;
Ga. .309, 317, says, in an earnest appeal Hyde v. Baldwin, 17 Pick. 303 ; Weeks v.
to the legislature to abolish the double Patten, 18 Me. 42 ; Benedict v. Mont-
probate of wills : ' ' The expense of attend- gomery, 7 Watts & S. 238, 243.

ing the re-probate of wills, in Georgia, ^ Smith v. Smith, 14 Gray, 532 ; Van

since I have been on the bench, has cost Duyne v. Van Duyne, 14 N. J. Eq. 49,
the public more than its Supreme Court. 52 ; Fulton v. Moore, 25 Pa. St. 468, 476.

§ 228 EFFECT OF THE PROBATE. 501

person will not, therefore, be allowed to contest a will, unless lie
return the legacy received.^ Nor will the revocation of probate
on the motion of one having been under disabilit}', inure to the
benefit of one who is barred by the lapse of tirae.''^ And if a will
be annulled after the distribution of the estate, the decree of dis-
tribution is not thereby made void, but it will protect and remain
valid as to subsequent purchasers from the distributee;^ but
the heir may pursue the property distributed in the hands of the
distributee.'^

§ 228. Effect of the Probate. — It has already appeared ^ that
at common law, without the constat of the probate court, no other
court can take notice of the rights of representation to ^ ,. ,

^ ^ English statute

personal property,*^ and that wills devising real estate requirini,' pro-
must be proved in the common law courts. By the before they
statute of 20 & 21 Vict. c. 77, § 13, all wills, whether ^'-^^^ ^'^^^f-
of real or personal property, are required to be proved in the
court of probates. Similar statutes had long before existed in
most of the American States, and the constat of the probate court
is necessary to the validity of wills of personalty in all, and of
wills of realty in most of them. In Arkansas," Mary- states allowing
land,8 New York,^ Pennsylvania,!^ South Carolina," rstatel'be^
and probably in other States, the probate of the pro- P'^^^et^ J"

, 7 r sr common law

bate court is neither essential nor conclusive as to the comts.
validity of wills in proving title to real estate : such will may be
contested, if it has been admitted to probate in the probate court,!^
or proved originally if not, in all common law courts in which the
title to land thereby affected is in issue. With these exceptions,

1 Hamblett v. Hamblett, 6 N. H. 333, 8 Darby v. Mayer, 10 Wheat. 465, 470.
337, citing Bell v. Armstrong, 1 Add. » Jackson v. Le Grange, 19 John. 386,
365; Brahani v. Burciiell, 3 Add. 243. 388.

But tliis rule does not apply to the exec- ^ Smith i'. Bonsall, 5 Rawle, 80, citing

utor, who may move to set aside a pro- numerous earlier cases.

bate although he has proceeded to act ^^ Crosland v. Murdock, 4 McCord,

under the will : Gaither v. Gaither, 23 217.

Ga. 521, 528. i- The decree of a register admitting

2 Samson v. Samson, 64 Cal. 327. a will to probate is held, in Pennsylvania,
^ Thompson v. Samson, 64 Cal. 330; to be a judicial act, conclusive in all re-
but see Hughes v. Burriss, 85 Mo. 660. spects as to personal, and presumptive as

■* Tliompson v. Samson, supra. to real property : Cochran v. Young, 104

8 Ante, § 215. Pa. St. 333, 336, citing earlier cases ; and,

^ Wms. Ex. [550]. if uncontroverted for five years, becomes

"^ Janes v. Williams, 31 Ark. 175, 182. conclusive also as to realty : Broe v.

And see Arrington v. McLemore, 33 Ark. Boyle, 108 Pa. St. 76, 82.

759, 761.

502 THE PROBATE OF THE WILL. § 228

Otherwise iu however, neither courts of law nor of equity will take
other States, coguizauce of testamentary papers, or of the rights
depending upon them, until after probate in the probate court.^
That such probate is conclusive, unless appealed from, set aside,
or annulled, in the method pointed out by the statute, has already
been stated.^ It may be mentioned, in connection with this sub-
ject, that the efflux of time, in some instances, operates to confirm
a probate otherwise assailable for informality, or renders the
probate conclusive after a certain period.^

It has already been remarked that it is the function of a court
of probate to determine whether the instrument propounded has

been executed by the testator and attested by the sub-
Difference in •' . . "^

the fimctious scribiug witncsscs in accordance witii the statutory
probate and of requirements, and whether he possessed sufficient
construction, testamentary capacity to make a valid will.* It is no
part of the proceeding on probate to construe or interpret the will
or any of its provisions, or to distinguish between valid and void,
rational and impossible dispositions ; if the will be properly exe-
cuted and proved, it must be admitted to probate, although it
contain not a single provision capable of execution, or valid under
the law. Hence the probate does not establish the validity of any
of its provisions : this is to be determined by the courts of con-
struction, when any question arises requiring their interposition.^

1 Wood V. Matthews, 53 Ala. 1, citing held sufficient after twenty years ; Brown
numerous earlier cases ; Pitts v. Melser, i-. Wood, 17 Mass. 68. In Pennsylvania
72 Ind. 469, with a list of Indiana cases ; the probate becomes conclusive as to real
Kerr v. Moon, 9 Wheat. 665, 572 ; Wil- estate after five years : Kcnyon v. Stew-
lamette Co. v. Gordon, 6 Or. 175, 180; art, 44 Pa. St. 179. Where notice of
Dublin V. Chadbourn, 16 Mass. 48.3, 4.36 ; probate is required by statute, the omis-
Fotheree v. Lawrence, 30 Miss. 416, 419 ; sion in the record of proof of such notice
State V. Judge, &c., 17 La. An. 189. In was not allowed to be shown in deroga-
Louisiana a will is without effect until it tion of the probate fifteen years subse-
ts proved and ordered to be executed ; quently : Portz v. Schantz, 36 N. W. Rep.
Aubert V. Aubert, 6 La. An. 104 ; Ochoa (Wis.) 249. 253 ; S. C. 70 Wis. 407.

V. Miller, 59 Tex. 460, citing earlier * Ante, § 222, and authorities there

Texas cases, p. 461. cited; McLaughlin's Will, Tuck. 79;

2 Ante, § 227. Among the cases so Lorieux v. Keller. 5 Iowa, 196, 201.
liolding, see Hegarty's Appeal, 75 Pa. St. ^ Bent's Appeal, 35 Conn. 523; Lusk
50.3, 513 ; Hilliard v. Binford, 10 Ala. 977. v. Lewis, 32 Miss. 297, 300 ; Waters v.
983. Cullen, 2 Bradf 3-54 ; Jalliffe v. Fanning,

3 Dickey v. Vann, 81 Ala. 425, 432. 10 Rich. L. 186; Broe v. Boyle, 108 Pa.
Thus, a will requiring two witnesses and St. 76, 83; McArthur v. Scott, 113 U. S.
attested by only one was held conclusive- 340, 386. See, to the contrary, the case of
ly proved after the lapse of seven years : Kenrick v. Cole. 61 Mo. 572, mentioned
Parker v. Brown, 6 Gratt. 5-54. So where ante, § 222, p. 485, note 5.

three were required, proof by two was

229 HOW THE EXECUTOR IS CONSTITUTED. 503

CHAPTER XXV.

OF THE GRANT OF LETTERS TESTAMENTARY.

§ 229. How the Executor is constituted. — Upon probate of the
will, letters testamentary may be granted to such of the executors
named by the testator as are willing to assume the Letters testa-
trust.i The court has no discretion in this respect, LTgSed tf
but must grant the letters to the person or persons ^''® testator's

'^ i- r nominees if

nominated, unless such person is disqualified by law. quaiitied.
There need be no appointment by the testator in direct bvThefeSor''
terms ; it is sufficient if a person is desis-nated to dis- s"*fic'ent to

, ' ^ appoint

charge those duties which appertain to the office of executor.
executor, or that any language is used from which the intention
of the testator may be inferred to invest such person with the
character of executor.^ He may also delegate the appointment of
an executor to some third person, and letters testamentary will be
granted to the person by him named.^ But the grant of letters
testamentary to a person not named or indicated by the testator is
erroneous, and has in South Carolina been held void.*

The test of a constructive appointment as executor, or of an
executor according to the tenor of the will, may be found by con-
sidering whether the acts to be done or the powers to instances of
be exercised by the person are such as pertain to the a°"oh"ment
office of an executor. Thus, the testator's declaration ^^ executor.

1 The grant of general letters of ad- Paulet, 2 Robert. Eccl. 344. So the testa-
ministration, instead of letters cum testa- tor may empower the survivor or sur-
mento anne.ro, has been held void : Fields vivors, in case of tiie death of any of the
V. Carlton, 75 Ga. 654, 5G0. executors, to appoint otherexecutors to fill

2 Carpenter v. Cameron, 7 Watts, 51, any sucli places as may be made vacant
58 ; Grant v. Spann, 34 Miss. 294, 302 ; by death, until the will shall have been
Nunn V. Owens, 2 Strobh. lOL 104 ; wholly executed, and such appointees
Bayeaux j;. Bayeaux, 8 Pai. 333, 336 ; will be clothed with the trust estate in
Ex parte McDonnell, 2 Bradf. 32; Myers the place of their predecessors : Mulford
V. Daviess, 10 B. Mon. 394; State v. v. Mulford, 42 N. J. Eq. 68, 76.
Watson, 2 Speers, 97, 106. * Blakely v. Frazier, 20 S. C. 144, 155;

3 Hartnett v. Wandell, 60 N. Y. 846 ; see also Fields v. Carlton, supra.
State V. Rogers, 1 Houst. 569 ; Jackson v.

504 THE GRANT OF LETTERS TESTAMENTARY. § 229

" that A. B. shall have his goods after his death to pay his debts,
and otherwise to dispose at his pleasure," and the like expres-
sions,! may suffice for this purpose. So too the commitment of
one's property to "the disposition" of A. B. ;2 or the direction
tliat A. B. shall pay debts and funeral and probate charges, or
shall receive the property and pay the legacies;-^ or the gift to
A. B. of all one's property, to apply the same " after payment of
debts " to the payment of legacies.^ Tiie appointment to a trust
under the will, not essential to the office of an executor, does not
constitute the trustee an executor according to the tenor, for the
offices of an executor and of a trustee are distinct, and may be
vested in different persons ; and when they are vested in the same
person, the functions of each are nevertheless to be performed by
him in the respective capacity, the probate court having jurisdic-
tion over him in the one, but not in the other capacity ; ° and an
administrator de bonis non cum testameyito a7inexo, appointed after
the death of an executor who was also appointed trustee in the
will, does not virtute officii succeed to the trust.^ But where the
testator uses the word " trustee," and imposes duties involving the
functions of an executor, this will be held a good appointment as
executor."

As a testator may nominate several executors to execute his
will jointly, so he may direct a substitution of several, one after
the other, so that, if the first will not act, the next may, and so
on.^ It is mentioned by Williams,^ on the authority of Godol-
pliin 1*^ and Swinburne,^! that the appointment may be by impli-
cation; as, " I will that A. B. be my executor if C. D. will not,"
in which case the appointment is to C. D. if he accept. Or
where the testator erroneously supposes that one whom he wishes
to appoint is dead, and says in his will, " Forasmuch as [A. B. or
C. D.] is dead, I make E. F. my executor," the person supposed

1 Wms. Ex. [239] ; Schouler, Ex. § 36. see Matter of Hawley, 104 N. Y. 250,
Both these authors cite Henfrey v. Hen- 263.

frey as authority for this announcement ; ^ Kni<rht v. Loomis, 30 Me. 204; to

but the case, as reported in 4 Moore's P. similar effect, Simpson v. Cook, 24 Minn.

C. Reports, pp. 29, 33, does not seem to 180, 187.

raise this question. ' Richards v. Moore, 5 Redf. 278, 282.

2 Pemberton v. Cony, Cro. Eliz. 164. « Edwards' Estate, 12 Phila. 85 ;

3 Pickering v. Towers, 2 Cas. Temp. Schoul. Ex. § 40, and English authori-
Lee, 401. ties.

4 Goods of Bell, L. R. 4 P. D. 85. 9 Wms. Ex. [242].
And see cases supra. i'' Pt. 2, c. 5, § 3.

5 Wheatley v. Badger, 7 Pa. St. 459 ; " Pt. 4, § 4, pi. 6.

§ 230 KESIDENCE AS A QUALIFICATION. 505

to 1)0 dead shall be executor if living. So where a man willed
that none should have any dealings with his goods until his son
came to the age of eighteen years, except A. B., the latter was
thereby appointed executor during the son's minority.^ But
where executors were appointed, with a request that they were to
serve until the testator's son became twenty-one years of age, this
was held not to be an appointment of the son to the executorship
when he should arrive at the designated age.^

§ 230. Residence as a Qualification to the Office of Executor. —
At common law non-residence of the testator's appointee docs not
disqualify him as executor ; even alien enemies have been allowed
to maintain actions as executors.^ The same rule prevails in most
American States ; "^ but in Arkansas,^ Indiana,*^ Kan-
sas,-" Kentucky,^ Minnesota,^ Missouri,^"^ Nebraska,^^ Or- non-residence
egon,^'-^ and Pennsylvania,^^ non-residents of the State '^'^"^
are not permitted to act as executors ; and if an executor removes
from the State after being appointed, his authority as such will
be revoked. In other States, also, non-residents are states in which
discriminated against in respect of the office of exec- are TfJcrlnii-^
utor. So, in Georgia, a non-resident of the State may n^ted against.
be appointed and act as such if he has an interest in the estate
and will give bond ; ^* but removal from the State does not abate
letters testamentary .^^ In Iowa the non-resident executor of a
non-resident testator may be appointed to administer ; ^^ and in
Maine,^" Michigan,^^ and Ohio,^^ non-resident executors who fail to
account and settle in the probate court when required are to be

1 Per Rhodes, J., in Brightman v. ^ Comp. L. 1885, ch. 37, § 28.
Keighley, Cro. Eliz. 43, stating that it « Qen. St. 1887, p. 594, § 19.
had been so ruled in 17 Eliz. ^ Gary, Pr. L. § 240.

2 Frisby i-. Withers, 61 Tex. 134, 138. i'^ Rev. St. 1879, § 10.

3 Wins. Ex. [229]. " Comp. L. 1887, ch. 23, § 171.
* So in Alabama (Leatiierwood v. ^'^ Code, 1887, § 1090.

Sullivan, 81 Ala. 458), California, Con- '^ Sargent, J., in Sarkie's Appeal, 2

iiecticut, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Pa. St. 157.

Illinois, Louisiana, Masachusetts, Missis- ^* Code, 1882, § 2434.

sippi, Nevada, New Jersey, North Caro- '^ Walker v. Torrance, 12 Ga. 604.

lina, Ohio, Rhode Island (Hammond v. The same of administrators : Brown

Wood, 15 R. I. 566), South Carolina, v. Strickland, 28 Ga. 387 ; Haynes u.

Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Semmes, 39 Ark. 399, 402. Post, ch.

West Virginia, and Wisconsin (see Cut- xxvi.

ler V. Howard, 9 Wis. 809). is Code, § 2368.

5 Digest, 1884, § 14 ; McCreary v. ^^ Rev. St. 1883, ch. 64, § 2L
Taylor, 38 Ark. 393. is How. St. 1882, § 5842.

6 Ewing V. Ewing, 38 Ind. 390. ^^ Rev. St. 1880, § G017.

506 THE GRANT OF LETTERS TESTAMENTARY. § 232

removed. In New York, " an alien residing out of the State " is
declared incompetent to the office of executor ; but this statute is
held not to exclude a native of the State who may reside in
another State.^ In Maryland, the executor must be a citizen of
the United States ;2 and in North Carolina, it is held that a non-
resident may renounce the office in that State, though he accept
it in the State of the testator's domicil.^

§ 231. Infancy as a Disqualification. — At Common law and in
many of the American States, infancy does not operate as a dis-
infants eligible qualification to the eventual right of executorship;
at common law ^^^^ ^jjg authority to qualify or act as such remains in

at the age of j i. j

seventeen; abeyance until the infant reach the age of majority,
or such age as may be fixed by law or statute as necessary to
qualify. Previous to the statute of 38 Geo. III. c. 87, § 6, this
age was fixed in England at the age of seventeen years,* and
so in some this is the law in several of the States;^ in others,
States; ^j^^ ^gg ^^ eighteen years ^ is fixed; in many it is

e4;hteen,^* twcnty-onc years," and in most of the others the age of
oTat maTority. ^^Jgal majority. Where an infant is appointed sole ex-
Administration ecutor, it is the duty of the probate court to appoint
until minor is g^j^ administrator durante minore cetate, cum testa-

01 requisite _ ^

age. mento an7iexo, who is to administer the estate until the

infant has reached the requisite age ; ^ but if other executors be
also named who are of full age, they may execute the will until
the majority of the infant, who may then qualify and be admitted
as executor.^ As to the rules governing the appointment of an
administrator durante minore cetate, see post^^^ in connection with
the appointment of administrators.

§ 232. Coverture as a Disqualification to the Office of Executrix.
— According to the canon law, a married woman may sue and be
sued alone, without her husband, and it was held in the spiritual
courts of England that, in the absence of a writ of prohibition,

^ McGregor v. McGregor, 33 How. "^ In Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, In-

Pr. 456. diana, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts,

2 Code, 1875, p. 443, § 60. Missouri, New York, North Carolina, and

3 Hooper v. Moore, 5 Jones L. 130. South Carolina.

4 Wms. Ex. [231], note (u), citing » See ante, § 182, as to administration
Godolph., pt. 2, c. 9, § 2 ; Swinb., pt. 5, § 1, durante minore atate.

pi. 6 ; Piggot's case, 5 Co. 29 a. ^ Gary, Pr. L. § 240 ; 3 Redf. on Wills,

5 In Colorado and Illinois. 68 ; Wms. on Ex. [479].
^ In Iowa, Maryland, and Mississippi. ^^ § 248.

See Christopher v. Cox, 25 Miss. 162.

§ 233 COVERTURE AS A DISQUALIFICATION. 507

she may take upon herself the executorship of a will without, or
even against, the husband's consent or will.^ At com- Consent of hus-
mon law, however, the consent of the husband is ^ary a'tVmnmoii
necessary to enable the wife to assume the office of l^i^e^Vbe^'''^ ^
executrix ; ^ but he cannot compel her to assume the executrix,
office against her will,^ although she will be bound, if the hus-
band administers as in the wife's right, though against her con-
sent, in so far that she cannot during his lifetime avoid or decline
the executorship.^

In many of the American States married women are not com-
petent to act as executrices, and if a feme sole execu- Coverture dis-
trix marries, her authority is thereby extinguished ; ^ many states;
while in others she can do so only with the consent so in others un-

•^ less the hiis-

of her husband, as in Alabama,*' Colorado, Delaware, baud consent.
Louisiana, Maine,'' Massachusetts,^ Mississippi, New Jersey, and
Wisconsin. In California, Nevada, and Texas, the Marriage of a
marriage of a feme sole executrix revokes her au- utrixrevok^r'
thority, but a married woman appointed as such is iier authority.
competent to act. In Iowa, Massachusetts,^ and New York, a
married woman may become executrix independently of her hus-
band. The common law doctrine, that the husband becomes exec-
utor in right of his wife upon marrying a feme sole executrix, is
recognized in some States,^*^ but does not prevail generally.^^

§ 233. Mental Incapacity, Immorality, and other Disqualifications.
— In most of the States there are statutory provisions disqualify-

1 Wentw. Ex. 375-378. court, and letters testamentary granted

2 Wentw. Ex. 376 ; Wms. Ex. [232] ; to a married woman cannot be impeached
3 Redf. on Wills, 68. collaterally, wtiether such consent appears

3 Wms. Ex. [231], citing Godolph., affirmatively or not: English r. McNair,
pt. 2, c. 10, § 1 ; Da Rosa v. De Pinna, 2 34 Ala. 40, 49, citing earlier Alabama
Gas. Temp. Lee, 390. cases.

4 Wms. Ex. [234], citing Godolphin and ^ Stewart's Appeal, 56 Me. 300.
Wentworth, supra; Wankford v. Wank- ^ Wiggins. Swett, 6 Met. (Mass.) 194,
ford, 1 Salk. 299, 306, in Lord Holt's judg- 196.

ment ; Tlirustout v. Croppin, 2 W. Bl. 801. ^ Pub. St. 1882, ch. 147, § 5.

^ For instance in Arkansas, Indiana, ^"^ Lindsay v. Lindsay, 1 Desaus. loO ;

Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Mis- Wood v. Chetwood, 27 N. J. Eq. 311.

souri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Rhode He becomes liable as co-administrator for

Island (whetlier coverture precludes a any act of administration afterwards per-

married woman, qume : Hammond v. formed by her : Dowty v. Hall, 83 Ala.

Wood, 15 R. I. 566), Vermont, Virginia, 165. In Georgia, letters granted to a

and West Virsjinia. woman abate on her marriage, but she

® Although the statute requires the may nominate her husband : Long v.

consent of the husband in writing, yet Huggins, 72 Ga. 776, 788.

this is held directory only to the probate ^^ Ellraaker's Estate, 4 Watts, 34.

508 THE GRANT OF LETTERS TESTAMENTARY. § 233

Mental and ^"g persons named as executors on account of mental
"^"'^imaition incapacity and immorality. Insane persons, persons
T convicted of infamous crime, and such as are incom-

Insane persons, '

criminals. petcut ou accouut of drunkcuness, improvidence, or
Drunkards. want of understanding or integrity, cannot be ad-
mitted as executors.^ In Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, and
New York, no person can be appointed as executor who is in
law incompetent to bind himself by contract, except.

Persons in- . . t • /-\t •

competent to in somc mstauccs, married women ; and in Ohio, no
person who is legally incapable of assuming the duties
of a trustee. It was held in New York, under a statute dis-
qualifying on account of drunkenness, improvidence or want of
Ill-regulated Understanding, that executorship should be denied
temper. upon proof of mere ill-regulated temper and want of

Professional sclf-control existing in a high degree,^ and that a
gambler. professional gambler is incompetent by reason of im-

providence ; ^ but that an executor is illiterate, of narrow means,
and has been guilty of misconduct and mismanagement, is not
cause, under the statute, for superseding him, though it may be
for requiring security.* In Kentucky the immoral character of the
nominee by the testator is held to be no bar to his appointment
by the probate court,^ and in Pennsylvania conviction as a habit-
Dissolute ual drunkard is no disqualification.^ But in Califor-
person. j^jg^ ^^^e paramour of a dissolute testatrix, who had
done no work for years, but "lived by his wits," was held an
improper person to be appointed as executor.^ Touching the
principle upon which the testator's choice of an executor is re-
spected, Mr. Schouler says (citing, however, only English cases,
except that of Sill v. McKnight^): "And so far has our law
carried this principle as to permit persons obviously unsuitable
for the trust to exercise it, to the detriment of creditors and
legatees, on the suggestion that the testator, at all events, must
have confided in such a person. Moreover, as courts have ob-

1 So provided in the statutes of Ala- afiBrming the Supreme Court, and over-
bama, California, Colorado, Delaware, ruling the surrogate, in Harrison v. Mc-
Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Mahon, 1 Bradf. 283.

Nevada, New York, North Carolina, and * Emerson v. Bowers, 14 N. Y. 449.

Texas. ^ Berry v. Hamilton, 12 B. Mon. 191.

2 McGregor v. McGregor, 33 How. Pr. ^ siU v. McKnight, 7 Watts & S. 244.
456. " Estate of Plaisance, Myr. 117.

s McMahon v. Harrison, 6 N. Y. 443, 8 7 Watts & S. 244.

§ 233 OTHER DISQUALIFICATIONS. 509

served with a touch of false logic, the office of executor being
hold in another's right, it is not tainted by his personal guilt.^
Ilcncc not only might persons attainted or outlawed for po-
litical offences become executors, but even those convicted of
felony ; crime seldom, if ever, operating to disqualify one for
the trust." 2

Idiots and lunatics are deemed incapable of becom- Wiots and
ing executors, both at the common and the civil law.^
Poverty, or even insolvency, constitutes no legal dis- quailacadon. '^
qualification.*

It is said to be settled law in England, that where a corpo-
ration aggregate is nominated as executor, it may corporations
appoint persons styled syndics to receive administra- »gs'"esate.
tion with the will annexed, who are sworn like other administra-
tors,^ because they cannot prove the will, or at least cannot take
the oath for the due execution of the office.^ In the United
States the prevalence of authority, once against the competency
of corporations aggregate to act as executors," seems now to
turn the other way. In Maryland it is held that the English doc-
trine, allowing them to designate one of their number to take
administration with the will annexed, is not applicable.^ In New
Jersey this doctrine is recognized ; ^ but whether a corporation
aggregate can act as executor when nominated is left undecided. i<^
It appears from the recital of facts in the case of Porter v. Trail,
that a corporation in Philadelphia is chartered by the legislature

1 Sinctliurst i-. Tomlin, 2 Sw. & Tr. otlier grounds of tlie last author's doubt
143. are stated to be: 1st, because tliey can-

2 Schoul. Ex. § 33, citing Wms. Ex. not be feoffees in trust, to others' use ;
[285] ; Co. Litt. 128a; 3 Bulst. 210; Kil- 2d, tliey are a body framed for a special
ligrew V. Killigrew, 1 Vern. 184; Smet- purpose."

hurst V. Tomlin, supra. 7 jt jg negatived in Maryland : Presi-

3 Schoul. Ex. § 33, giving as " a good dent, &c. v. Browne, 34 Aid. 4-50 ; and
reason at the outset " that such a person New York : Thompson's Estate, .33 Barb,
cannot determine whether to accept the 334. In Delaware, where foreign admin-
trust or not. istrators are permitted to maintain ac-

^ Wms. Ex. [235], citing Rex r. Raines, tions as such, the power of a corporation

1 Ld. Raym. 861 ; Hathornthwaite r. Rus- aggregate, as administrator, granted in

sell, 2 Atk. 126. See post, appointment another State, was recognized, the court

of administrators. inclining to the view that such power ex-

5 Goods of Darke, 1 Sw. & Tr. 516; ists at common law: Deringer i-. Derin-
Wms. Ex. [229]. ger, 5 Houst. 416, 430.

6 Wms. Ex. [228], citing 1 Bla. Coram. « President, &c. /•. Browne, supra.
477; Com. Dig. Administrator, B. 2; ^ Kirkpatrick's Will, 22 N. J. Eq. 463.
Wentw. Ex., c. 1, p. 39, and adding : " The i" Porter v. Trail, 30 N. J. Eq. 106.

510 THE GRANT OF LETTERS TESTAMENTARY. § 234

to act as executor ; so in New Jersey ; ^ and such corporations
may now be found in several States, permitted to exercise execu-
tory functions in connection with trust funds.^ It has
firm as' also bccn held that a firm may be nominated as ex-

executors. ecutors, and that in such case letters testamentary
will be granted to the individual members of the firm.^ And so
of a corporation sole : the individual composing it may be ad-
mitted as executor.*

§ 234. Acceptance or Refusal of the Office of Executor. — At
common law, and in those of the States in which the authority of
the executor is recognized as emanating from the will without a
Executor formal grant of letters testamentary, the question

nominated whether a Dcrson named in the will as executor has

may reiiise ^

the" office, qj. ^j^g ^ot acccptcd the office is sometimes difficult of

solution. He cannot, of course, be compelled to accept the ex-
ecutorship, since it is a private office of trust named by the testa-
but may be tor, and not by the law ; he may refuse, even if in the
compelled to lifetime of the testator he has agreed to accept the

accept or o i

refuse. office.^ But the ordinary was empowered by statute ^

to convene before him any person named as executor in a testa-
ment, "to the intent to prove or refuse the testament"; if he
appear, either on citation or voluntarily, and pray time to con-
sider, the ordinary in former times might grant letters ad colli-
gendum, though this practice became obsolete ; but if he appear
and refuse to act, or if he fail to appear, administration cu7n
testamento annexo will be granted to another. By a later statute,'^
it is provided that, if an executor appointed in a will die without
having taken probate, and whenever an executor is cited and does
not appear to the citation, the representation to the testator and
the administration of his estate shall be committed in like manner
Rif'ht to refuse ^s if such pcrsou had not been appointed executor.^
may be lost. rp^g v\^\t to rcfusc may be lost by the executor, if he
do any act which amounts to administration ; for if he once ad-

1 Camden SafeD.&T. Co. v. Ingham, 4 Bing. 686, 704, per Best, C. J : Dun-
40 N. J. Eq. 3, 4. ning v. Ocean National Bank, 6 Lans.

2 Schoul. Ex. § 32. So in Pennsyl- 296, 298.

vania, New York, and Missouri. " 21 Hen. VIII. c. 5, § 8.

3 In re Fernie, 6 Notes Cas. 657. ^ 21 & 22 Vict. c. 95, § 16.

4 Wms. Ex. [229], and authorities. » Wms. Ex. [275], citing Goods of

5 Wms. Ex. [274], citing Doyle v. Noddings, 2 Sw. & Tr. 15 ; Goods of Lor-
Blake, 2 Sch. & Lef. 231, 239 ; Bac. imer, 2 Sw. & Tr. 471 ; Davis v. Davis,
Abr. Executors, E. 9; Douglass v. Forrest, 31 L. J., P. M. & A. 216.

§ 234 ACCEPTANCE OR EEFUSAL OF THE OFFICE. 511

minister, it is considered that he has already accepted the execu-
torship, and the court may compel him to prove the will ; but if
the court accept his refusal, notwithstanding he may have acted,
the grant of administration to another will be valid. These two
rules are laid down in England with respect to what acts will ren-
der an executor compellable to take probate : First, „ , ^ ,

^ /■ Rules determm-

whatever the executor does with relation to the goods ing acceptance

,^ p-i I'll -ii-or refusal.

and eiiects of the testator, which shows an mtention
in him to take upon himself the executorship, will regularly
amount to an administration ; Secondly, whatever acts will make
a man liable as executor de son tort will be deemed an election of
the executorship.!

In the United States this subject is, on the one hand, of far
smaller importance than at the common law, because in most of
the States an executor has no authority to bind the estate of his
testator without a formal grant of letters testamentary ; and is,
on the other hand, more readily determined, since it is mostly
regulated by statutes .^ But since administration with the will an-
nexed can only be granted in default of an executor named in the
will, it is necessary that the court, before granting such adminis-
tration, shall be informed that the executor, or all of several
executors named,'^ have renounced the trust, or are no formality
incompetent to serve. No formality is necessary in "howacwpt-
making such proof beyond compliance with the re- ance or refusal,
quirements of the statute ; it is sufficient if the intention to
renounce is clearly expressed in writing, and filed in the court,*
at any time before he undertakes the office or intermeddles with
the estate,^ even after propounding the will for probate,*^ or being
sworn as executor.'' So it has been held, that there

. . p , Acts indicating

may be a valid renunciation of the executorship by acceptance or
matter in pais, such, for instance, as an express parol
consent to the grant of letters with the will annexed to another,
not entered of record ; ^ and where executors are appointed to

1 Wms. Ex. [278], and authorities. Stewart, 59 Mo. 491 ; Columbus Ins. Co.

2 Generally providing for acceptance v. Humphries, 64 Miss. 258, 276.
within a certain time, or renunciation of ^ Commonwealth v. Mateer, 16 Serg.
record in the probate court. & R. 416, 418.

3 For if one or more of several exec- ^ Sawj'er v. Dozier, 5 Ired. L. 97.
utors qualify, he or they have all the ^ Mitchell v. Adams, 1 Ired. L. 298.
powers which the will confers upon the ^ Miller i'. Meetch. 8 Pa. St. 417.
whole number of executors : Philips v. 8 Thornton v. Winston, 4 Leigh, 152,

512 THE GRANT OF LETTERS TESTAMENTARY. § 234

sell lands, a neglect to qualify \^ prima facie evidence of a refusal
to act, and will validate a sale made by the acting executors.^
A renunciation may be inferred from the conduct of the executor
after being informed of his nomination, without formal communi-
cation from him.^ But it will appear later on, in connection with
the subject of the appointment of administrators with the will
annexed,^ that to support the validity of such appointment the
record should show the renunciation ; * and an executor who has
entered upon the discharge of his trust cannot afterward resign
it, unless there be authority for such resignation,^ as is provided
Executor may by statutc in many of the States.^ For the purpose of
\o TovrthT^ granting letters, either testamentary or of adminis-
wiii, tration, the probate court may, at the instance of a

person interested, or perhaps upon its own motion, summon the
executor before it to prove the will ; ^ and as the executor cannot
and accept or avoid a will by refusing to accept the trust, he may thus
ex™orship. be compelled either to accept or renounce it, so that
administration with the will annexed may be granted.^
On the other hand, one who takes possession of a part of the
goods of the testator, and disposes of them, is liable as executor,
^ ,^ f although he does not qualify .^ It seems obvious that

Death of one == i ^ • -ii

named as ex- the dcatli of ouc nominated as executor in a will
grant of letters before the grant of letters, and a fortiori before the
eqSentto probate of the will, amounts to a renunciation; and
renunciation. .^ -^ j^^^pQ^t-ant to remember this only in those of the
States in which tlie executor of an executor succeeds to the ex-
ecutorship of the deceased executor's testator : for if the original
executor die before completing the probate, he is considered in
point of law as intestate witli regard to the executorship, although
he may have made a will, and appointed executors, and although
he die after taking the oath, if before the passing of the grant.^*^

157, citing earlier Virginia cases; Tlionip- Cocke, 10 Ark. 169; Springs v. Irwin, 6

sons V. Meek, 7 Leigh, 419, 428; Ayres v. Ired. 27.

Weed, 16 Conn. 291, 296 e^???. ° Haigoiul v. Wells, 1 Hill, Ch. 59,

1 Uldrick V. Simpson, 1 S. C. 283, 286 ; 61 ; Washington v. Blount, 8 Ired. Eq.
Robertson r. Gain, 2 Humph. 367, 381. 253, 256 ; Mussault's Executor, T. U. P.

2 Solomon v. Wixon, 27 Conn. 520, Charlt. 259.

526 ; Marr v. Peay, 2 Murph. 84. « See post, § 273 ; Schoul. Ex. § 531.

8 Post, § 245. "^ Ante, § 214.

4 Thompsons v. Meek, 7 Leigh, 419 ; ^ Stebbins v. Lathrop, 4 Pick. 33, 41.

Robertson v. McGeoch, 11 Pai. 640; De ^ Van Horner. Fonda, 5 John. Ch. 388 ;

Peyster v. Clendining, 8 Pai. 295 ; Jud- Worth v. McAden, 1 Dev. & B. Eq 199.

son V. Gibbons, 5 Wend. 224; Newton v. w Drayton's Will, 4 McCord, 46, 52,

§234

ACCEPTANCE OR REFUSAL OF THE OFFICE.

51 B

The common law rule, according to which the execu- states recog-
tor's executor succeeds to the executorship of the exe'"u^tor's exe-
original testator ^ is recognized in Florida,^ Georgia,^ tor^Jf origtnai'"
North Carolina,^ South Carolina,'^ and perhaps some testator.
other States ; ^ but in most of tliem this doctrine is repudiated,
either by statute or the decision of courts.'

An executor nominated in the will, who has re- Executor nomi-
nounccd, may retract his renunciation, and assume "|^[f,ie"j^eyrt
the office at any time before the grant of letters testa- graut of letters.
mentary to other executors, or of letters of administration with
the will annexed.^ So if an acting executor has been Renunciation
removed for cause,^ or died,!*^ the renunciation may "euicted on
be retracted, and letters granted as if it had not been femoUT of
made ; ^^ and, in the absence of statutory regulation fg™"J.^'^ "*
to the contrary, one of several executors named in a Q„g ^^ several
will, not taking letters testamentary when his co- ^yaHf'°rft«''
executors do, may come in at any time afterward co-executors.
and do so.^ But where there is obiection to one of P''*^ '«*"^ »f ,

«' letters must be

several executors named, the issue of letters testa- suspended as

to all if one is

mentary must be suspended as to all until the de- objected to.

quoting from Toller on Executors [49],
and authorities cited by that author.

1 Wms. Ex. [254] ; Wentw. Ex 461 ;
post, § 350.

■^ Hart V. Smith, 20 Fla. 58.

3 Bureli V. Burch, 19 Ga. 174, 183.
But see Windsor v. Bell, 61 Ga. 671, 675.

•1 Roanoke Navigation Co. v. Green, 3
Dev. 434, holding that the principle does
not apply if the original testator desig-
nated a successor in case of the death of
his executor. And the executor may re-
nounce the executorship of the original
estate, and retain tiiat of his own testa-
tor: Worth V. McAden, 1 Dev. & B. Eq.
199.

5 Drayton's Will, 4 McCord, 46 ; Lay
i: Lay, 10 S. C. 208, 220 ; Reeves v. Tap-
pan, 21 S. C. 1 ; the doctrine is now, how-
ever, regulated by statute : Laws, 1880,
p. 363, no. 309.

6 See post, § 350, where tlie subject is
more fully discussed.

' Post, § 350 ; Schoul. Ex. § 43 ; 3
Re<lf. on Wills, 240, § 33. The States of
Arkansas, Delaware, Kansas, Kentucky
(but see Carroll v. Connett, 2 J.J. Marsh.

VOL. I. — 33

195), Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hamp-
shire. New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode
Island, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West
Virginia, Wisconsin, and probably others,
have abolished the doctrine of the trans-
mission of the executorship to the exec-
utor's executor.

8 Robertson v. McGeoch, 11 Pal. 640;
Taylor v. Tibbats, 13 B. Mon. 177 ; Casey
V. Gardiner, 4 Bradf 13 ; Davis v. Inscoe,
84 N. C. .396, 402, citing Wood v. Sparks,
1 Dev. & Bat. 389. A renunciation prior
to the death of the testator, for a con-
sideration and against the testator's will,
is of no legal effect : Staunton v. Parker,
19 Hun, 55, 60.

9 Codding V. Newman, 3 Th. & C. 364.

10 Dempsey's Will, Tuck. 51.

11 Perry v. DeWolf, 2 R. I. 103, 108;
Judson I'. Gibbons, 5 Wend. 224, 227.

1^ Savage, J., in Judson r. Gibbons,
supra, citing Toller, 68. 9; Wankford c.
Wankford, 1 Salk. 299 ; 5 Co. 28 a ; 9 Co.
97. See also Matter of Maxwell, 3 N. J.
Eq. 011,614.

514 THE GRANT OF LETTERS TESTAMENTARY. § 234

termination of the objection. ^ A widow named as executrix
has bee] I allowed to renounce the executorship and

One named as ,.„ ,••,,• -ii xi ■^^ „ ^,1 .2

executrix may quality as administratrix with the will annexed ,
lakeTetTerTof aiid the act of qualifying as administrator before
administration. ^^,^^^ ^f ^^le will has been held not to constitute a
renunciation of the right to qualify as executor on production
of the will.^

1 McGregor v. Buel, 24 N. Y. 166. ^ Thornton v. Winston, 4 Leigh, 152.

2 Briscoe r. WickUffe, G Dana, 157, 1G9.

§ 235 PRINCIPLES GOVERNING GRANT OF LETTERS. 515

CHAPTER XXVI.

LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION.

§ 235. Principles governing the Grant of General Letters of
Administration. — Administration is granted upon the estates of
persons dying intestate, and, cum testamento annexo, Letters of ad-
upoii the estates of those who left a will, but no execu- may "^ue granted
tor competent or willing to assume the office. Before cin°be^ap'^°'^
letters of administration can properly be granted, there P(""ted.
must be proof to the satisfaction of the probate court that the
intestate died while domiciled within the territorial jurisdiction of
such court, leaving property ; or that he died elsewhere, leaving
property within such jurisdiction. If he left a will, it must also
be shown that there is no executor competent or willing to exe-
cute it.^ The grant of letters of administration generally, after
the death of the executor of a testate estate, instead of letters cum
testamento annexo, has been held void.^

Aside from the statutory regulations, which in every State de-
termine what persons are entitled to the administration, and which
of course must be observed in appointing an administrator to
office, the discretion vested in probate courts in this respect is to
be governed by well known general principles. The Administration
most important of these is, that administration should if committed to

^_ ' _ the ultimate

be committed to those who are the ultimate or residu- beneficiaries of
ary beneficiaries of the estate, — those to whom the
property will go after administration. To secure to them the right
to administer is the paramount object of the statutes fixing the
order of preference, and constitutes the aim and intention of courts
in the exercise of such discretion as is vested in them. It is obvi-
ous that those who will reap the benefit of a wise, speedy, and
economical administration, or, on the other hand, suffer the conse-
quences of waste, improvidence, or mismanagement, have the high-
est interest and most influential motive to administer properly.
Hence it is said that the right to administer follows the right to

' Ante, § 234 ; fost, § 245. - Fields v. Carlton, 75 Ga. 554, 560.

516 LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION. § 235

the personal property ,i — a rule the binding force of which is
recognized in America,^ as well as in England.^ The correlative
of the rule is equally true, — that administration should not be
granted to one whose interests are adverse to the estate.*

The prominence of the right of the surviving to administer
the estate of a deceased spouse, is strongly corroborative of the
validity of this rule. In England the right belongs to
Si'fii'i af the husband exclusively of all other persons, and the
conuiiu.i law. ^^^^.^ ^^ probate has no power or election to grant it to
any other.^ ''The foundation of this claim has been variously
stated," says Williams. " By some it is said to be derived from
the statute of 31 Edward III., on the ground of the husband's
being 'the next and most lawful friend ' of his wife ; ^ while there
are other authorities which insist that the husband is entitled at
common law jure mariti, and independently of the statutes.^ But
tlie right, however founded, is now unquestionable, and is ex-
pressly conferred by statute." ^ This right is said not to be an
ecclesiastical, but a civil, right of the husband, though adminis-
tered in the court of probate.^

In the United States the right of the surviving husband or wife
to administer on the deceased spouse's estate is generally, but not
Husband or universally, accorded by statute ; and whether the rea-
widowhas first ^^^^ ^^ ioMwdi in the husband's marital right to the

rii^iit to 3.0."

miuister. wife's personalty, extending in some States to her

choses in action,!*^ (^, j^ any of the other causes suggested,!^ it is

1 The inclination of English courts is Owings v. Bates, 9 Gill, 463, 466 ; see post,

so strong in this direction, that they per- § 242.

niitted the spirit of this rule to prevail & Wins. Ex. [409], citing Humphrey r.

over the letter of a statute preferring the Bullen, 1 Atk. 458; Sir George Sands's

next of kin to the residuary legatee: Case, 3 Salk. 22; Elliott v. Gurr, 2

Thomas v. Butler, 1 Ventr. 217, 219. Phillim. 16.

•i Thornton v. Winston, 4 Leigh, 152 ; « 3 g^lk. 22, supra; Elliott v. Gurr,

Sweezey v. Willis, 1 Bradf. 495 ; Leverett supra.

V Disniukes, 10 Ga. 98 ; Long v. Huggins, '^ Com. Dig. Administrator, B. 6; Watt

72 Ga. 776 ; Cutchin v. Wilkinson, 1 Call, v. Watt, 3 Ves. 244. 247.

1, 6; Anderson v. PoUer, 5 Cal. 63; 8 29 Car. II. c. 3, § 25.

Bieber's Appeal, 11 Pa. St. 157, 161 ; Lan- » Wms. Ex. [410J, and authorities,

gan V. Bowman, 12 Sm. & M. 715, 717 ; ^^ Before the recent sweeping changes

Cottle V. Vanderheyden, 11 Abb. Pr. n. s. in the law respecting the property of

17, 20 ; Jordan v. Ball, 44 Miss. 194, 201 ; married women : Whitaker v. Whitaker,

Kirkpatrick's Will, 22 N. J. Eq. 463; 6 John. 112, 117; Hoskins v Miller, 2

Dalrymple v. Gamble, 66 Md. 298, 306, Dev. 360, .362 : Doniiington v. Mitchell, 2

307 ; .Tohnson v. Johnson, 15 R. I. 109. N. J Eq. 243 ; Byrne v. Stewart, 3 Desaus.

3' Wms Ex. [418], citing Goods of Gill, 135, 143; Olmsted v. Keyes, 85 N. Y.

1 Haeff. .341, 342. 593, 602.

* Estate of Heron, 6 Phila. 87, 89; 11 Mr. Williams says, in note (e), p.

§ 236 THE husband's right to appointment. 517

undeniable that they have, beside their personal interest in the
estate, the control of the interests of the minor heiis, where there
are such, being the natural guardians of their persons and estates,
and thus unite in themselves, as the surviving centre and head of
the family, a greater interest in the estate than any other single
person ; in all cases, at least, where the deceased leaves minor
children. The exceptions to the right of husband or wife to ad-
minister still further corroborate the principle upon which the
rule is founded. It is held, in several States, that Unless the

• 1 i 1 X r j-i propurtv, bv

where by ante-nuptial agreement the property o± tlie ante-nuVtiai
husband or wife does not pass to the survivor, he or de'cenciTto
she is not entitled to the administration ; ^ but if it "'''*'''*•
gave the wife a power of disposal of her separate property which
she has not executed, or where a devise to a trustee for the wife's
use ends with her death, the husband's right to administer is not
affected.2 So, too, in Louisiana, the beneficial heir, whether pres-
ent or represented, is entitled to administration in preference to
the surviving husband or wife ;" but the natural tutor has as such
the right to administer the estate of the deceased spouse, unless
creditors or adult heirs demand the appointment of an adminis-
trator;'* and this although the surviving spouse has the usufruct
of the community property during life."

§ 236. The Husband's Right to Appointment. — It appears from
the preceding section that in England the husband's right to admin-
ister on the estate of his deceased wdfe is absolute, being expressly
confirmed by statute.^ The statutes of many of the American

[410], that otliers have siipposetT tliat the ^ i^art r. Soward, 12 B. Mon. 391 ;

husband is entitled as next of kin to the Payne v. Payne, 11 B. Mon. lo8.

wife, and cites Fortre v. Fortre, 1 Show. 3 Oode, art. 1121 ; Succession of Wil-

351, and Kex i>. Betteswortli, 2 Stra. 1111, lianison, 3 La. An. 202.

1112 ; " but," he adds, " it seems clear that * Labranche v. Trepagnier, 4 La. An.

the husband is not of kin to his wife at 5o8.

all." Tliere are numerous American ^ Succession of Brinkman, 5 La. An.

cases holding that husband and wife are 27.

not of kin to each other: Green r. Hud- ^ 29 Car. IL c. 3, §25, which enacts that

son R. H., 32 Barb. 25, 28 ; Lucas >: N. Y. the Statute of Distributions (22 & 23 Car.

Central R. R., 21 Barb. 245; Wil,«on r. IL o. 10) " shall not extend to the estates

Frazier, 2 Humph. 30; Storer r. Wheat- of femes covert tiiat shall die intestate,

ley, 1 Pa. St. 506 ; see cases cited by Per- but that their husbands may demand

kins in Wms. Ex. [410], note (e). Post, and have administration of their rights,

§ 423, and cases cited. credits, and other personal estates, and

1 Fowler v. Kell, 14 Sm. & M. G8 ; Ward recover and enjoy the same as they might

I'. Thompson, 0 Gill & J 349 ; Bray r. Dud- have done before the making of said

geon, 6 Munf. 132 ; Maurer v. Naill, 5 Md. act": Wms. Ex. [410].
824 ; Govane v. Govane, 1 Har. & M. 34(5.

518 LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION. § 236

States embody the same or siiuilar ])rovisioiis ; but in others the
principle that administration should follow the right to the per-
sonal property prevails over the husband's absolute right. Thus,
Statutes of the liusband is not entitled to administer the wife's
depi^ve'hus- estate to the exclusion of her children, if they inherit;^
bami of n-iit j^^^. jf j^g jg excluded from any share in her estate ; ^

to aaiiiinister '' '

in certain cases, but unlcss the statute cxprcssly or by necessary impli-
cation deprive him of this right, it cannot be denied him ;3 and if
any other person shall administer, he is considered in equity, with
respect to the residue after paying the debts, as a trustee for the
husband or his representatives.*

It has been held that the right of the husband to administer
Husband mav ^^^^J ^^ transferred by him to another, and that letters
transfer iu9 ^^r\\\ j^g p-i'anted by the probate court to liis nominee ;^

rif;ht to ad- " jf ^ '

minister. and that upon his death, while administering upon

^mUii'strator ^^^^ estate of his pre-deceased wife, his executor or ad-
preferred to ministrator is entitled to administration de bonis non

wife s next of

kin. of the wife's estate, in preference to her next of kin.^

So the husband is entitled to administer although he be a non-
resident,^ and to retain the wife's personal property without
administration,^ whether a resident or not.^

That a marriage was voidable, does not militate against the
husband's right to administer the wife's personal estate, unless
Hnsband is sentcncc of nullitj was pronounced before her death ;^'^
thou^iirthe but a marriage absolutely void ah initio confers no
been voidabir riglits upon the husband.^^ So, also, notwithstanding
but not if void. ^ divorcc tt meusa et thoi'o,^^ or his abandonment of

1 Randall f. Shrader, 17 Ala. 333, .335 ; be witliin the discretion of the court.

Goodrich 1-. Treat, 3 Col. 408, 411. That he is entitled, although a non-resi-

^ See authorities, § 235, p. 517, note 1. dent, in those States in which nnn-resi-

3 Fairbanks I'. Hill. 3 Lea, 732 ; Sliuin- dence is a disqualification, as indicated

way V. Cooper, 16 Barb. 556, 560; Clark by Redfield (3 Redf. Wills, 81, note 8),

V. Clark, 6 W. & S. 85. is not borne out by the authority cited:

* Hoppiss V. Eskridge, 2 Ired. Kq. 54; Sarkie's Appeal, 2 Pa. St. 157, 159.
Weeks y. Jewett,45 N. H. 540 ; Williams's ^ Robins r. McClure, 100 N. Y. 328.

Appeal, 7 Pa. St. 259; Allen i-. Wilkins, ^ Willis v. Jones, 42 Md. 422: Hub-

3 Allen, 321. bard /-. Barcus, 38 Md. 175.

^ Patterson v. High, 8 Ired. Eq. 52, i" Wms Ex. [410] ; Elliott v. Gurr, 2

54. By statute in California: Code Civ. Pliillim 19; Whiter Lowe, 1 Redf. 376;

Pr. § 1.365. Parker's Appeal, 44 Pa. St. 309 ; Smitli

6 Hendren v. Colgin, 4 Munf. 231. v. Smith, 1 Tex. 621.

' Weaver r. Chace, 5 R. I. 356. It " Browning i-. Renne, 2 Phillim, 69.
should be noted, however, that the ap- ^^ Clark v. Clark, 6 \V & S. 85
pointment of a non-resident was held to

§ 237 THE widow's eight to appointment. 519

the wife, he is entitled to administer himself, or nominate to the
register a fit person to be appointed.^

§ 237. The Widow's Right to Appointment. — Under the English
statute,^ the ordinary is directed to grant administration " to the
widow or the next of kin, or to both," at his discretion ; and al-
thongh, by the seventy-third section of the Court of Probate Act,^
the power of the probate court in making grants of administra-
tion, and deciding to whom they shall be granted, has been much
enlarged, yet even under it the court is precluded from making a
joint grant to a widow and one of the persons entitled to distribu-
tion (but not next of kin).* If a joint grant is to be made to
the widow and one of the next of kin, all the other next of kin
must consent thereto ; ^ and the modern English practice is to
favor the widow under ordinary circumstances.''

In the United States, the widow is usually preferred to all
others as administratrix of her deceased husband, but her claim
is neither so generally recoirnizcd, nor based upon the „,.

*- "^ ^ ' \V iciow gener-

same ground, as that of the husband to the estate of a ally preferred
deceased wife, but has its basis in the division of inter-
ests between her and the kindred." Where the widow and next
of kin are placed in one class, as for instance in Massachusetts,^
Nebraska,^ and Pennsylvania,^^ administration may be granted, in
the discretion of the court or register, to the widow alone, or to
the widow and one or more of the next of kin, or to one or more
of the next of kin without the widow.

As the husband's right to administer on the deceased wife's
estate depends upon a valid marriage, so the widow, to entitle her
to administer her husband's estate, must be the sur- widow of law-
viving wife of an actual marriage.^^ Hence, one who onh^entlued to
cohabited with a man who had a wife living from administer.
whom he was not divorced, although unknown to her, and although

1 Coover's Appeal, 52 Pa. St. 427, 30; Goddard r. Goddard, 3 Phillim.
430; to similar effect, Nusz v. Grove, 27 637.

Md. 391 ; Altemus's Case, 1 Ashm. 49. " Ante, § 235 ; Schoul. § 99.

2 21 Hen. VIII. c. 5, § 3. » Cobb v. Newcomb, \o Pick. 336 ;

3 20 & 21 Vict. c. 77. McGooch v. McGooch, 4 Mass. 318.

* Wins. Ex. [416], citing Goods of 9 Comp. St. Neb. 1887, ch. 23, § 178.

Browning, 2 Sw. & Tr. 634. w McClellan's Appeal, 16 Pa. St. 110,

5 Goods of Newbold, L. R. 1 P. & D. 115;Gyger's Estate, 65 Pa. St. 311,

285. 313.

•5 Stretch v. Pynn, 1 Cas. Temp. Lee, " Byrnes v. Dibble, 5 Redf. 383, 385.

520 LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION. § 237

Divorced ^vife shc fullj bolicved liorsclf to be his lawful wife, is not
not entiiieci. entitled to administer;^ nor one divorced a vinculo?
A divorce a menaa et thoro does not, as appears from the prc-
Divorce (T Ceding scction, deprive the husband of the right to

viensa et iiinro administer, nor destroy the relation of marriage, but

does not dis- ■> j » 5

qualify. merely suspends some of the obligations arising out

of that relation ; and the right of succession is not impaired.^ It
seems, therefore, that in such case, and where the marriage was
voidable, but not dissolved during the husband's lifetime,* the
widow's right to administer is not affected ; and such right is
restored by the annulling of a decree of divorce a vinculo after the
Abandonment husband's dcath.^ But whcre a widow had left her
of husband, husbaud, renouncing all conjugal intercourse with
him, a considerable time before his death, her right was held to
and divorce a b^-vc been abandoned ; ^ and a wife, divorced a mensa
mensa for adui- g^ tliovo for adultery on her part, forfeits, it should

terv held to ^ '' . . . ^ .

disquaiif}'. scem, her right to the administration.''' And it has
already been remarked, that where, by ante-nuptial agreement, or
for any other reason, the widow is not entitled to any of the prop-
erty of the husband, she also loses her right to administer it.^

Where discretion is vested in the court granting letters of ad-
ministration, it is generally exercised in favor of the widow.
Discretion is unless some good rcason be shown demanding a differ-
generaiiy exer- ^^^ coursc.^ If the onc of those entitled be compe-

cised ni favor ^

of widow. tent, and the other not, the appointment will of course
be confined to the one competent ; but if neither the widow nor

1 O'Gara v. Eisenlohr, 38 N. Y. 296. 2 Dobson v. Butler, 17 Mo. 88 ; Ejan

But see Smith v. Smith, 1 Tex. G21, f. Ryan, '2 Piiillim. 832.
granting letters to a widow who had in- ^ pgr Rogers, J., in Clark v. Clark, 6

nocently married a man who had a wife W. & S. 85, 87 ; Nusz i". Grove, 27 Md.

then living. The decision is based upon 391, 400, citing Slatter v. Slatter, 1

a provision of the Spanish law, according Younge & C. 28; Lambell v. Lambell, 3

to which a person marrying in good faith Hagg 568 ; Chappell v. Chappell, 7 Eccl.

shall enjoy the rights of a legitimate R. 451.

spouse; and "putative matrimony may * Parker's Appeal, 44 Pa. St. 309;

be converted into a true marriage, if, after White v. Lowe, 1 Redf 376.
the celebration, the impediment ceases to ^ Boyd's Appeal, 38 Pa. St. 246.

exist. In the case, for example, that a ^ Odiorne's Appeal, 54 Pa. St. 175.

man be married to a second wife, the first "^ Pettifer v. James, Bunb. 16 ; Goods

living, if afterward this one die, the sec- of Davies, 2 Curt. 628.
ond wife, who was ignorant of the first ® Ante, § 235, and authorities under

marriage of her husband, may, at her p. 517, note 1.
pleasure, select either to live with him, ^ Sclioul. Ex. §§ 99, 100.

or be separated and marry another " :
lb., p. 629. See also, ante, § 107.

§ 238 RIGHT OF NEXT OF KIN TO APPOINTMENT. 521

next of kill be under legal disability, their personal suitableness
is to be considered : if the widow is evidently unsuitable, some
other person (within the class from which the court may select)
will be appointed.^ Coverture disqualifies a woman c„^,gr(„re jjg
as administratrix: in some of the States ;2 where it qualities in

isoine States.

does not, the remarriage of the widow is not fer se an
objection to lier appointment;-^ but if administration be also de-
manded by a child, the second marriage might be a circumstance
inducing the court to give pveferencc to the child.*

§ 238. Right of Next of Kin to the Appointment. — It would be
unprofitable to rci)eat a statement of the rules by which the pro-
pinquity of kin is ascertained in order to designate their prefer-
ence in the right to administer. They are given very fully in
Williams on Executors,^ as applicable under the English statutes,
which are copied or substantially followed in most American
States ; and in an earlier chapter of this treatise,^ the principle is
indicated according to which the property of the intestate de-
scends, or is distributable, in so far as the course of descent is not
fixed by the statute eo nomine. Under the fundamen- j^. , ^ ^^ ^^
tal principle that the rio-ht of administration follows niinister in

^ ^ ° . next of kin.

the right of property, the rules there pointed out are
equally applicable here. The order in which next of kin are
entitled to administer in England is recapitulated by Williams as
follows, showing certain exceptions to the rule of comi)utation
respecting succession to inheritances: "In the first place the
children and their lineal descendants to the remotest degree ; and
on the failure of children, the parents of the deceased are entitled
to the administration ; then follow brothers and sisters ; then
grandfathers and grandmothers ; then uncles or nephews, great-
grandfathers and great-grandmothers, and lastly cousins." In
States where the husband is entitled to his wife's ^, , , ,

The husband

property, if the next of kin be a married woman and of a female
she renounces, the grant is made to the husband ; for entitled if she
he has an interest, and the grant must follow the in- '■^".''""*^®-

1 Smith, Pr. L. 70; Stearns ?'. Fiske, * Wms. Ex. [418], also relying on
18 Pick. 24, 27 ; Gary, Pr. L. § 267. Webb v. Needliam, supra.

2 See nnte, § 232, as to the effect of cov- ° Page [419] et seq.
ertiire upon executrices, and a list of the ^ Ante, § 72.

States in which coverture disqualifies. " Wms. Ex. [425], citing 2 Bia. Conim.

3 Schoul. Ex. § 100, citing. Webb r. 505.
Needh.nm, 1 Add. 494.

522 LETTERS OF ADMlNISTIiATION. § 239

terest, and the wife cannot, by renouncing, deprive her husband of
Error to pass his right to the grant.^ The preference given by stat-
by next of kin ^g ^^ ^j^g ^ext of kin is obligatory upon the court,

and appoint a o ^ i

stranger. and it is crror to appoint a stranger where a son, who

is eligible and qualified, asks to be appointed.^ So an adopted
child having a right of inheritance must be appointed ; but other-
wise, if it has no interest in the estate.^

It may happen that disqualification existing at the time of the
decedent's death is removed before the grant of let-
urti'So?" '' ters. In such case, letters should be granted to the
application. ^q^soii entitled to the same at the time of the applica-
tion therefor, although such person was, at the time of the intes-
tate's death, disqualified.*

§ 239. Right of Creditors to Appointment. — It foUows from the
principle, repeatedly stated above, of committing administration
In some States, to thosc who havc the ultimate interest in the estate,
creditorsen- ^| ^ crcditors or their nominees are preferred when

titled in insol- "'^ "' i re • . .

vent estates; i\^q asscts of an estate are not more than sufficient to
pay the debts, and funeral and administration expenses. They are
accordingly preferred to the next of kin in some States,^ in others
rditer in other their right is subordinate to that of the next of kin.
States. |3^t superior to that of other persons,^ and the right of

a creditor is generally recognized where neither husband or wife,
nor any of the next of kin, will qualify ; ' and it is error to refuse
to appoint a creditor on the ground that the debt is barred by
limitation ; ^ but if those who are preferred by statute are willing
to qualify, it is error to appoint a creditor.^ It has been held in

1 Haynes v. Matthews, 1 Sw. & Tr. 460. 6 Hoffman v. Gold, 8 Gill & J. 79, 84.

2 Hayes v. Hayes, 75 Ind. 395, 398. In California, the court, in its discretion,

3 Estate of McCully, 13 Phila. 296, may appoint the nominee of the next of
holding that the statutes of Pennsylvania kin in preference to a creditor : Estate
relating to the adoption of children, while of Wyche, Myr. 85. So m Nebraska :
conferring the right to inherit, do not Comp. St. 1887, ch. 23, § 178.

create relationship, and citing on this ' Mitchel v. Lunt, per Parsons, C. J.,

point Commonwealth r. Nancrede, 32 Pa. 4 Mass. 654, 659; Royce v. Burrell, 12

St 389 and Shaper v. Eneu, 54 Pa. St. Mass. 407, 411 ; Arnold v. Sabin, 1 Cush.

OQ4 ' 525 ; Lentz i-. Pilert, 60 Md. 296.

4 Griffith V. Coleman, 61 Md. 250. » Ex parte Caig, T. U. P. Charlt. 159.

5 Cutlar y. Quince, 2 Hayw. 60; Long But see Succession of Sarrazin, 34 La.
V. Easly, 13 Ala. 239, 243 (in Alabama, An. 1168; Beauregard y. Lampton, 33La.
when an estate is reported insolvent, the An. 827.

administrator is removed and the cred- ^ Haxall v. Lee, 2 Leigh, 267 ; Carthey

itors appoint a person to wind up the es- v. Webb, 2 Murph. 268.
tate) ; Sturges v. Tufts, R. M. Charlt. 17.

§ 240 RIGHT OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR. 523

North Carolina, that the assignment of a debt after the death of
the debtor does not constitute the assignee a creditor authorizing
him to take administration/ and in Massachusetts that a cause of
action which does not survive the debtor does not support a claim
to administer on the debtor's estate ; - but in Maryland a niece by
marriage, having paid the funeral expenses and taken an assign-
ment of the claim from the undertaker, was held entitled to admin-
istration as the sole creditor.^ In Texas ^ and Virginia^ creditors
have no preference. In Louisiana the creditor first applying has
preference over one applying subsequently, without regard to the
dignity or magnitude of their respective claims;^ but in Georgia
the statute preferring him who had the greatest interest was con-
strued as giving to a creditor of superior dignity, whose claim
would sweep the estate, preference over those who would get noth-
ing, although having claims greater in amount." The Administrator
administrator of one to whom the deceased was in- °* ^ creditor.
debted is a creditor, and may be appointed to administer the estate
of the deceased debtor, although another creditor is recommended
by the widow, and by creditors representing more than half the
indebtedness of the deceased.^

§ 240. Right of the Public Administrator to the Administration. —
It appears from the consideration of the functions of pul)lic ad-
ministrators in a previous chapter,^ that they are public officers in
a sense different from that in which executors or administrators
are also considered public officers, in this, that they are elected or
appointed directly by the people, or the political appointing power,
and assume the administration of estates ex officio, or, pubiic admin-
when they receive their authority over a particular ,\ii™ltere^
estate from the probate court, the grant to them is (>ffic^o.
virtute officii}^ It has also been remarked that in two of the

1 Pearce v. Castrix, 8 Jones L. 71. ^ Ex parte Ostendorff, 17 S. C. 22.

The reason assigned is, that to allow such ^ Ante, § 180.

creditor to administer would be to tempt ^'' In Alabama it was lield that the

him to abuse the administrator's right of general administrator's miglit be a quasi

retainer. office, with none of the attributes of a

- Stebbins i". Palmer, 1 Pick. 71, 78; municipal office; but if viewed as an

Smith V. Sherman, 4 Cush. 408, 412. office, it belongs to the class of minor

3 Lentz V. Pilert, 60 Md. 296, citing offices essential to the proper conduct of

English authorities. the government and convenience of the

* Cain V. Haas, 18 Tex. 616. people which was not disturbed b}' the

5 McCandlish v. Hopkins, 6 Call, 208. reconstruction of the State after the sup-

^ Succession of Beraut, 21 La. An. 666. pression of the rebellion: McGuire v.

7 Freeman i-. Worrill, 42 Ga. 401. Buckley, 58 Ala. 120, 131.

524 LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION^. § 241

States^ the public administrator takes charire of estates, under
circumstances pointed out by the statute, without judicial order,
thus conferring upon him quasi judicial authority, subject, how-
ever, to the control of the probate court; while in other States his
authority in each particular estate is derived from appointment by
the probate court.

The circumstances under which the public administrator is
entitled to appointment, or is preferred in the discretion of the
court, have been fully discussed in connection with the statement
of the functions of his office.

§ 241. Disqualifications excluding from the Right to Appoint-
ment. — The persons entitled to the grant of administration ac-
cording to the rules above set forth may be disqualified by
statutory provision, such as infancy, coverture of a female, non-
residence, etc., in which case letters of administration must be
Disquaiifica- granted to some other person. It is safe to assume
office of exec- that what will disqualify one from acting as executor
"luiimesar" will equally defeat the right to administer ;2 but not
administrator. r^\\ persous Competent as executors are likewise cora-
, , petent as administrator. Thus, insolvency has been

Insolvencv. '■ , . .

held to disqualify one for the office of administrator,
on the ground that the beneficiaries of the estate arc entitled to
the security of an administrator's personal liability, as well as
that of his bail ; ^ illiteracy, because one who can nei-
ther read nor write Avould l)e forced to trust to agents,
and would be at the mercy of designing persons, thereby exposing
the interests of the estate to danger of loss from mismanagement
„ , . ,. , and corruption ; ^ and so subjection to undue influ-

Subjection to ' ' •' _ _

undue infiu- eucc of ouc charged with fraudulent designs against

ence. ^ -k-t -it ^ i

the estate.^ rv either poverty nor illiteracy, however,
is ordinarily deemed to deprive one, otherwise preferred, of the
right to administer an estate.^ Another disqualification in ad-

1 Missouri and New York. * Stephenson v. Steplienson, 4 Jones

2 As to disqualifications of executors, L. 472.

see ante, §§ 230-233. ^ Stearns v. Fiske, 18 Pick. 24.

3 Cornpropst's Appeal, 83 Pa. St. 537. « Nusz v. Grove, 27 Md. 391 ; Grecg
"Insolvency is the state of a person who, i>. Wilson, 24 Ind. 227; Estate of Pa-
froni any cause, is unable to pay his debts clieco, 23 Cal. 476; Ballard v. Charles-
in the usual course of trade"; a poor worth, 1 Bern. 501 ; Bovversox's Appeal,
person is not necessarily insolvent: Le- 100 Pa. St. 434, 437, followed in Wilkey's
van's Appeal, 112 Pa, St. 294, 300, Appeal, 108 Pa. St, 567.

§241

DISQUALIFICATIONS.

;25

ininistrators, though nut in executors, or in a loss Adverse in-
degree, is that of adverse or inconsistent interest. ^'"■^■^'■
Whore, for instance, one person re[)rescnts two estates between
which litigation ensues: in such case, he woukl necessarily be
both i)laintiff and defendant, to the manifest detriment of justice,
and the jeo[)ardy of the interests of one or both the estates.^ And
so it would be highly impi-oper to appoint one, whether (^,.^i„,ants
next of kin or not, who claims in his own right assets aj;aiiistuie

' ... estate.

of the estate, or which were in possession of the intes-
tate at the time of his death, or whoso interests are in antagonism
to the estate.^ Such considerations are not permitted to interfere
with the right of the executor.^ But in Indiana it is held that
the law does not forbid the appointment of the same person to
administer two or more estates, although there be conflicting
interests.'^

What has heretofore been said concerning the statutory dis-
qualifications of executors,^ applies with equal force to adminis-
trators. In most of the States an infant can neither infancy.
act as, nor nominate, an administrator ; ^ married Coverture.
women are in many of the States disqualified,'^ and likewise iiou-

1 In some of the States tlie statute
inhibits sucli iiiuoiisistent appointments ;
in otiiers, courts decide tiietn to be im-
proper and reprehensible : State u. Bid-
lingmaier, 2G Mo. 488 ; State v. Rein-
hardt, 31 Mo. 95. A surviving partner
should not be appointed administrator of
the deceased partner's estate : Heward l:
Slagle, 52 111. 336 ; Cornell v. Gallaher,
16 Cal. 367. Tiie statutory e.xclusion of
a surviving partner extends, in California,
to one who iiad formerly been a partner
of the deceased, if any partnership ac-
counts remain unsettled : Garber's Es-
tate, 16 Pac. R. (Cal.) 23.3.

2 Bieber's Appeal, 11 Pa. St. 157, 162 ;
Heron's Estate, 6 Phila. 87 ; IMckering v.
Pendexter, 46 N. H. 69 ; Owings v. Bates,
y Gill, 463 ; Moody v. Moody, 29 Ga. 519.

3 Tlie English doctrine of executor-
ship by reason of being tlie executor's
executor assigns the unadministercd ef-
fects of the first testator to the same cus-
tody as his executor's effects, and the
liability to account and the duty to en-
force the accounting are united in the
same person. So, in some of the States,

tlie right of the Iiusband's executor to
letters de bom's non on the pre-deceased
wife's estate, on whicli the husband had
been administering, is still recognized as
superior to the rigiit of the wife's next of
kin: Ilendren v. Colgin, 4 Munf. 231;
Matter of Harvey, 3 Redf. 214, 217, citing
authorities ; while the husband's admin-
istrator has no such right : Matter of
O'Niel, 2 Redf. 544. See also Perry r.
l^e Wolf, 2 R. I. 103, as to an executor's
uniting different inconsistent interests in
his person.

* Wright r. Wright, 72 Ind. 149.

5 A)ile, § 2.33.

^ And this is so whether there is, or
is not, any other next of kin capable to
administer: Rea v. Englesing, 56 Miss.
463 ; and the marriage of a female infant
does not quality her to receive tlie ap-
pointment : Briscoe v. Tarkington, 5 La.
An. 692.

' It is held that married women may
be appointed administratrices in Mary-
land: Binnerman v. Weaver, 8 Md. 517 ;
Pennsylvania : Gyger's Estate, 65 Pa. St.
311 ; Texas, but not without the hus-

526 LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION. § 241

Non-residence, rcsitlciits.^ Uiidei" stututes excluding persons con-
(^riminais. victcd of infamous crime from the I'igiit to be ap-
pointed, no degree of legal or moral guilt is sufficient to disqualify,
short of conviction after indictment or other criminal proceeding ^
Lack of im- witliiii the State.''^ " Want of understanding " must
derstanding. aiiiouut to a lack of Intelligence, and cannot be pre-
sumed from a lack of information or misinformation

Improvidence. „,, a -, ,, • • -t 11 ^ c

of the law ;* and " improvidence, as a ground of ex-
clusion, is such a want of care and forethought as would be likely
to render the estate and effects liable to be lost or diminished in
value ; ^ it refers to such habits of the mind and body as render
a man generally and under all ordinary circumstances unfit to

serve.'' An applicant for letters of administration

Intemperance. * * c 1 • • j

will not be denied them by reason of his intemper-
ance, unless it be of such gross character as would warrant over-
seers of the poor to designate him as an habitual drunkard, or a
jury to adjudge him so.''

It need hardly be mentioned, that the appointment of himelf by
a judge of probate would be void, since the essential element of
Interest of the justicc to the parties interested would thereby be jeop-
judge. arded ; ^ and it has been held that a judge of probate

interested in an estate cannot grant administration thereon.^ The

hand's consent : Nickelson v. Ingram, 24 64 Iowa, 343 ; and in Wisconsin the

Tex. 630. In Massachusetts marriage choice of a non-resident hy one preferred

extinguishes the authority of a joint, hut to administer should he disregarded : Sar-

not of a sole administratrix : Barber r. gent's Estate, 62 Wis. 130. In California

Busii, 7 Mass. 510. In some States, the non-residence is a disqualification: Estate

husband marrying an administratrix is of Beech, 63 Cal. 458 ; and so in Pennsyl-

investcd witli her powers during their vania : Trick's Appeal, 114 Pa. St. 29.
joint lives : Pistole r. Street, 5 Port. 64. 2 Coope v. Lowerre, 1 Barb. Ch. 45.

It was so in Arkansas before the revision ^ a conviction in another State will

of the statutes: Ferguson v. CoUins, 8 not disqualify. O'Brien's Estate, 3 Dem,

Ark 241. 150 ; s. c. 67 How. Pr. 503.

1 It was held in Maryland : Ehlen * Shilton's Estate, Tuck. 73.

V. Eiilen, 64 Md. 360 ; South Carolina ; ^ Coope v. Lowerre, supra ; O'Brien's

Jones V. .Tones, 12 Rich. 623 ; New York : Estate, supra ; Matter of Cutting, 5 Dem.

Matter of Williams, 44 Hun, 67; and 456.

Virginia: Ex parte Barker, 2 Leigh, 719, ^ Emerson v. Bowers, 14 N. Y. 449.

that non-residence does not disqualify. '' Elmer ». Kechele, 1 Redf. 472.

In Iowa, while non-residence does not ^ Schoul. Ex. § 114.

disqualify, a non-resident ouglit not to be ^ Sigourney v. Sibley, 22 Pick. 507, cit-

appointed unless it be made to appear mg earlier Massachusetts cases : Thorn-

that tlie interests of the estate, and of ton v. Moore, 61 Ala, 347, 354. Under

heirs and creditors, will he as well pro- the Maine statute, a probate judge is not

tected as by the appointment of a res- interested in an estate, so as to disqualify

ident: Chicago, B. & Q. Railroad y. Gould, him from acting, because his aunt by

§ 242 CONSIDERATIONS GOVERNING THE IJISCRETION. 527

appoiiitnient of a son of the judge was held to be a
manifest violation of judicial delicacy and propriety,
but not void, in Alabama ; ^ but in Massachusetts the aj)poiutment
of the brother of the judi>-e's wife was held void.^

§ 242. Considerations governing the Discretion. — It is obvious
that, in the exercise of the power of appointing administrators, the
court is limited to the selection of such persons as Desii^'nation bv
arc competent under the statute, in the order therein '.'.'^iipllisorv on
])ointed out. Thus, if the widow constitute a class by ti>e court,
herself, as she does in many States, she must be appointed if
willing to serve, and not disqualified under the statutory regula-
tions of the subject,'^ no matter what objections exist to her ad-
ministration, or how plausible they be. There is, in such case, no
discretion.'*

So where the statute makes a distinction of sex between
those otherwise equally entitled, the individuals composing the
favored class must be appointed, if they apply, no matter how
desirable the appointment of one of the other sex might be to the
majority of those interested,^ unless the favored class are under
some statutory disability.^ And where an unmarried is preferred
to a married female, the court cannot reject the application of the
former, although it is objected against her that she is a professed
nun, and the inmate of a convent." Where the widow wi

' W mow in

and next of kin are placed in the same class as to the ^^^^ <=i^«^ ^''^

. „ . next of kin is

right ot appomtment, the widow, as has already been preferred,
stated,^ is preferred, other things being equal ; a sole Sole is prefer-
being likewise preferred to a joint administration.^ aciminisTratLn.
And if there be no next of kin competent to be appointed, the

marriage is a legatee : Marston, Petition- * Pendleton ;•. Pendleton, G Sm. & M.

er, 79 Me. 25. 448 ; Muirhead i: Muirliead, 6 Sni. & M.

1 Plowman v. Henderson, 59 Ala. 559, 451, holding tliat, wliere a son liad been
504 ; Koger v. Franklin, 79 Ala. 505. So appointed witliin sixty days after tlie in-
of a son-in-law: Hine v. Hussy, 45 Ala. testate's death, his letters were properly
490, 512; Hayes v. Collier, 47 Ala 726, 728. revoked on the application of tlie widow";

2 Hall V. Thayer, 105 Mass. 219, and Matter of Williams, 5 Dem. 292, affirmed
cases cited on cognate principles. 44 Hun, G7.

3 Radford v. Radford, 5 Dana, 1-56, 6 Cook v. Carr, 19 Md. 1.

holding that residence in another State c Wickwire r. Chapman, 15 Barb. 302.

disqualifies the widow. So in Iowa, an ■ Smith v. Young, 5 Gill, 197, 203.

administrator already appointed will not ^ Ait/p, § 2;]5

be removed in order that a non-resident ^ Wms. Ex. [417] ; Schoul. Ex. § 99; 3

widow may be appointed : O'Brien's Redf. on Wills, 83, pi. 7.

Estate, 63 Iowa, 622.

528 LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION. § 242

widow has the sole right.^ It is also held, that, where the widow
has the sole right to be appointed, the court may, at
be'^asf)dut"d her desire, associate a stranger in blood with her, al-
with widow. ^j^Qugi^ ^he next of kin object thereto; 2 and may asso-
ciate the widow with an administrator already appointed, against
his protest.^

The rule which is the foundation of the preference accorded by
the statutes — i. e. to commit the administration to those who are
P 1 rr- •• o. eventually entitled to the property — is equally bind-
administration \^cr uDou thc court, in the cxcrcisc of the discretion

to tliose ulti- or 1 • T -1 1

inateiy inter- vcstcd iu it, lu clioosiug bctwcen scveral mdividuals
estate should placed by the statute in the same class of preference,
guide discie- j^ follows from this, that the court will rarely or never
be called on to decide on questions of the policy of following the
lineal or collateral direction of kinship, as would be important at
the civil law, or computing the propinquity between the lineal and
collateral kindred, as would be necessary at the common law ; *
but, having ascertained to whom the property of the intestate
devolves under the statute governing this subject,'^ its discretion
is narrowed to the individual or class of individuals so entitled.*^
If this class include the widow together with children or other
next of kin, the widow is, as we have seen before, generally pre-
ferred ; but the preference must yield where she is unsuitable, in
which case one or more of the next of kin will be entitled.^ In
selecting from among the next of kin, the preference may be
determined by the ratio in which the parties are entitled to dis-
tribution; for if one be entitled to more than another, he will
have a greater interest in the proper administration of the estate.^
And in cases of conflicting claims the applicant upon whom a
majority of the parties in interest agree will generally be pre-

1 McGooch I'. McGooch, 4 Mass. 348. the distribution thereof " : Leverett v.

2 Shropshire i\ Withers, 5 J. J. Marsh. Dismukes, 10 Ga. 98, 99 ; Sweezy i'.
210. See also Quintard v. Morgan, 4 WilUs, 1 Bradf . 495.

Dem. 168, 174, associating a stranger with ' See ante, as to the widow's disquali-

one preferred, where the interest of the fication, §§ 237, 241. Disqualification to

estate required it. take the administration under a statute

3 Kead r. Howe, 13 Iowa, 50. giving her preference would seem, a
* Sehoul. Ex. § 103. fortiori, to disqnalif}' her under a statute

5 As to which see ante, cli. viii. placing her in a class with others.

6 In some States the rule is enacted by ^ Horskins v. Morel, T. U. P. Charlt.
statute, that " the same rule shall obtain 69 ; Moody v. Moody, 29 Ga. 519, 522 ;
in regard to the granting letters of admin- Quintard v. Morgan, 4 Dem. 168.
istration on intestate estates, as regulates

§ 242 CONSIDEKATIONS GOVERNING THE DISCRETION.

529

ferred,* but not, of coiii-se, unless the nominee belong- to the same
class; for the order of preference enacted by statute cannot be
chanjred or ignored to the postponement of any person included
therein.2 Other things being precisely even, the scale oiiIlt preferred
may be inclined by the preference of an older over a nianTmaie
younger person ; ^ or of a male over a female;^ of an unma^rrS'^'
unmarried over a married woman ;^ and of one accus- "^er married

woman ;

tomed to business over one inexperienced.^ Cceteris experienced
paribuH, the fact that an applicant had twice been a rienced^:^''^'
bankrupt militates against him, to the preference of ''nlhwuT
one who had not been bankrupt ;' and so does the fact on" who'har
that one, in addition to being of the next of kin, is also a credi-
tor.s Nor will one be appointed who is in such hos-
tility to the others as will disqualify him from fairly
considering their claims.^ The antagonism in in-
terest, which in some States amounts to a statutory
disqualification,!*^ is an important circumstance to consider in
passing upon the relative claims of applicants in equal degree
under the statute, although, if such person be the only appli-
cant, the court may have no power to reject him;ii or, havino-
once appointed him, though in ignorance of his unsuitableness in

Hostility to
parties in
interest.

Antagonism
of interest.

1 Mandeville v. Mandeville, 35 Ga. 243,
247 (holding tliat in such case the ordi-
nary lias no discretion, but must appoint
tlie nominee) ; McBeth (.'. Hunt, 2 Strob.
L. 33.3, 341. Mr. Williams says that
tiiis principle was recognized as early as
1G78, in tiie case of Cartwright, 1 Freem.
258, see Sawbridge >: Hill,^L. R. 2 P &
1). 210; also Murdock v. Hunt, 68 Ga.
1G4, 100.

2 McClellan's Appeal, 16 Pa. St. 110,
115.

3 Wms. Ex. [427], citing Warwick v.
Greville, 1 Phillim. 122, 125; Coppin i'.
Dillon, 4 Hagg. 301,376.

■* That one has intermeddled with
the effects of the deceased is not suf-
ficient to divest him of this preference ;
Wms. Ex. [427], citing Chittenden v.
Knight, 2 Cas. Temp. Lee, 5-5'.). But the
rule that the grant will follow the in-
terest preponderates over the preference
of a male over a female : Iredaie v. Ford,
1 Sw. & Tr. 305. Resident adult females
are preferred to non-resident minor males
VOL. I. — 34

of the same degree: Wickwire v. Chap-
man, 15 Barb. .302.

5 Adminstration of Curser, 89 N. Y.
401, 404.

*> Williams r. Wilkins, 2 Phillim. 100;
see Atkinson r. Hasty, 21 Neb. 60.3, 007.

' Bell V. Timiswood, 2 Phillim. 22.

8 Wms. E.x. [427], citing Webb v.
Needham, 1 Add. 494 ; Owings i: Bates,
9 Gill, 463, 400.

^ Under a statute forbidding tlie ap-
pointment of an " incapable " person. It
was held that neither of the contending
parties should be intrusted with the power
of administration, because their animosity
would probably lead to an abuse of the
trust : Drew's Appeal, 58 N. H. 319.
1' See ante, § 241.

" Estate of Brown, 11 Phila. 127 ; but
the appointment of a surviving partner
as administrator of the deceased partner's
estate, even against the direct inhil)ition
of the statute, cannot be impeached col-
laterally : Estate of Altemus, 32 La. An.
364.

630 LETTERS OF ADMINISTKATION. § 243

this respect, no power to remove him except for cause arising after
his appointment.

§ 243. Renunciation of the Right to Administer. — The prefer-
ence given by statute may be waived or renounced. Unless it is,

the appointment of any other person is irregular, and
fcfmh'ifierniay will bc vacatcd upon demand of a person having the
be renounced, preference.^ The renunciation may be spontaneous,^
or upon citation by some person interested ; ^ and it will be pre-
sumed— that is, the exclusive right to administer will be deemed

— to liave been waived, if letters are not applied for
or waived. y^^ ^j^^ party preferred within the period prescribed for
such purpose by statute.* But until letters have been granted to
some one else, such person may still apply and demand letters,
although the statutory period may have expired.^ Renunciation
should be in writing and entered of record : a mere parol renun-
ciation does not amount to a waiver of the right.*^ And where
the renunciation is coupled with a condition, which condition is
not performed, the parties renouncing are not thereby bound, but
may insist on their prior right.' Citation to parties having a
prior right to administer cannot ordinarily be issued before the
expiration of the period fixed by statute within which they must
make ai)plication.^ Under an established rule of the English
ecclesiastical courts, no letters will be granted to any person in
derogation of the right of those having priority, unless such par-
ties are cited, or consent, even where the party who has the right
has no interest in the property to be administered ; ^ but this rule

1 Mullanphy !^ County Court, 6 Mo. v. Sabin, supra; Barber v. Converse, 1
563; Muirhead v. Muirhead, 0 Sm. & .M. Redf. .330.

451; Munsey y. Webster, 24 N. H 126 ; ^ AH tlie next of kin having renounced

Cobb V. Newcomb, 19 Pick. 336 ; Curtis in favor of the eldest among them, if lie

V. Williams, 33 Ala. 570; Curtis v. Burt, could find security, the appointment of his

34 Ala. 729. nominee, on his failing to obtain security,

2 McClellan's Appeal, 16 Pa. St. 110; was held void : Rinehart v. Rinehart, 27
Williams's Appeal, 7 Pa. St. 259; Cobb r. N. J. Eq. 475. So a widow, renouncing in
Newcomb, supra. favor of a particular person, is not bound

3 Arnold v. Sabin, 1 Cush. 525, 528. by the renunciation if this person is not

4 Grantham v. Williams, 1 Ark. 270; appointed: McClellan's Appeal, 16 Pa.
Forrester v. Forrester, 37 Ala. 398 ; St. 110, 116.

Wheat r. Fuller, 82 Ala. 572; Atkinson ^ So enacted by statute in Missouri:

r. Hastv, 21 Neb. 663, 666; Garrison i-. Rev. St. §§ 7-9.

Cox, 95 N. C. 353, 3-56. 9 Wms. Ex. [448], citing Goods of

5 Cotton V. Taylor, 4 B. Mon. -357; Barker, 1 Curt. 692, and Goods of Currey,
Jordan c Ball, 44 Miss. 194, 201. 5 Notes of Cas. 54, and adding in a note :

6 Muirhead ';. Muirliead, su/m/ ,• Arnold "When the next of kin is of unsound

§ 243 RENUNCIATION OF THE RIG FIT TO ADMINISTER. 531

is nut invariably npitlied to cases wlierc the selectiun is in the
discretion of tlie court. ^ In America the rule is the same.
Before any one can be appointed administrator who is not in the
preferred class, notice must be o:iven to those having Notice must be
a prior right, to appear and claim their privilege, or plefeVedl'"'^''
show cause why the ai)nlicant should not be ap- ^'-'^"^'^ '^''^/'s

J I I I are f^rantud

pointed.2 To dispense with the citation, those having to another;
the preference should renounce their claim, or signify their con-
sent to the grant of the petitionei"'s request by indorsement upon
the petition, or some other writing of record .^ But

^ . . ° . , but not bv

no notice is necessary to tiie other parties in the ai>piicaiits in
same class with the applicant ; the appointment may
be made ex parte to any of those Avho are equally eiititled.^ Ac-
cordingly, letters granted to strangers, or to persons having no
preference under the statute, without notice to those being pre-
ferred, will, upon the a[)plication of those having the right, be
revoked, in order that the grant may be made in accordance
with the statute ; ^ but such grant is no ground for revocation if
the party applying therefor had notice of the original grant, either
constructively in the mode prescribed by the statute,^ or actually
in any method,'' or failed to apply within the time required by the
statute,^ or actually renounced the right ; ^ nor can there be such
revocation, except for cause otherwise, where the court has made

mind, the practice is that his next of kin * Peters v. Public Administrator, 1

must also he cited, in order that tiiey may Bradf. 200.

talte administration for his use »nd ben- ^ Kollin v. Whipper, 17 S. C. 32;

efit if tliey think proper " : VVindeatt v. Estate of Wooten, oti Cat. o22. .'J^U ; 0\\-

Sliarland.L. R. 2 P. & D. 217. incrs r. Bates, 9 Gill, 46:5, 4t)7 , Keliy v.

1 Wms. Ex. [448], citing Goods of Wt-st, 80 N. Y. 189, 145: Gans >: Daber-

Rogerson, 2 Curt. G56 ; Goods of Souiii- gott, 40 N. J. Eq. 181. Such letters are,

mead, .3 Curt. 28; Goods of Widger, 3 however, not void ; lience there is no error

Curt. 55 ; Goods of Mardinge, 2 Curt. 1)10. in refusing to grant letters to one who

^ Sclioul. Ex. § 112; Ramp ?•. Mc- liad a prior right, until tiie administrator

Daniel, 12 Oreg. 108, 113. Tiie citation previously appointed be removed : Jones

maybe by personal service, or by post- i: Hittinger, 110 Ind. 470; Garrison v.

ers, or newspaper publication, as i)re- Cox, 05 N. C. 353, 355.
scribed by statute or the rule of court. In " Per Waldo, C. J., in Ramp v. Mc-

Soulh Carolina it lias been published by Donald, 12 Oreg. 108, 116.
being read in church by an officiating "^ Davis v. Smith, 58 N. H. 16.

clergyman. Sargent i'. Fox, 2 McCord, ^ Grantham r. Williams, 1 Ark. 270;

309; Succession of Talbert, 16 La. An. Cotton v. Taylor, 4 B. Mon. 357; Jordan

230: Torrance r. McDougald, 12 Ga. »-. Ball, 44 Miss. 194, 201; Forrester r.

526; Matter of Batchelor, 64 How. Pr. Forrester, 37 Ala. 398; but see Gans i'.

350. Dabergott, supra.

3 Schoul. Ex. § 112. 9 Estate of Keane, 56 Cal. 407, 409.

532

LETTERS OF ADMINISTKATION.

§244

the appointment in the exercise of its statutory jurisdiction in
selecting one or more from a class equally entitled.^ In Mary-
land no notice is required to a party preferred if he be out of the
State ; ^ and in New York the public administrator need only
notify such relatives of the decedent as are entitled to a share of
the estate.^

§ 244. Effect of Renunciation or Waiver. — If the {)Crson, or all
of a class of persons, entitled by preference, have waived or
renounced their privilege, it becomes the duty of the court to
Same rules appoint the onc, or one or more of a class, having the
next right, if there be such ; * the discretion to select
between several equally entitled being governed by
the same considerations as if no renunciation or waiver had
occurred,^ limited, however, to the applicants before the court,
because the court has no right to reject an applicant on the mere
ground that there may be others equally entitled who are better
qualified.^

Where the husband, widow, or next of kin resides
abroad, it is usual, in England, to grant administra-
tion to his attorney ; ' and this rule is followed in the
United States, where the statutes do not prohibit it.^
So a stranger may be appointed at the request of one

applicable to
next class in
preference.

Nominee of
one preferred
find renoun-
cing may be
appointed, if
ttiere be no
otlier having
preiereuce.

1 Brubaker's Appeal, 98 Pa. St. 21,
24, citing Sliomo's Appeal, 57 Pa. St.
356 ; Hawkins v. Robinson, 3 T. B. Men.
143, 145.

2 Eiilen V. El.len, 64 Md. 360, 362.

3 And failure to give notice can only
be taken advantage of by tbose entitled
to the notice : Matter of Brewster, 5 Dem.
259.

4 Latbrop v. Smith, 24 N. Y. 417, 420;
Atkins V. McCormick, 4 Jones L. 274.

5 Ante, § 242.

6 Halley r. Haney, 3 T. B. Mon. 141,
142; Wright v. Wright, Mart. & Y. 43.
One who applies first must be appointed,
unless the later applicant has a better
right : Succession of Petit, 9 La. An. 207 ;
Succession of Nicolas, 2 La. An. 97.
But the application need not be a direct
personal one ; the appointment may be,
after citation, to another, without a new
citation : Mandeville v. Mandeville, 35 Ga.
243, 246.

7 Wms. Ex. [438].

8 Smith r. Munroe, 1 Ired. L. 345, 351,
citing liitcliie v. McAuslin, 1 Hayw. 220;
Estate of Robie, Myr. 226, and Estate of
Cotter, Myr. 179, affirmed in 54 Cal. 215
(both these California cases preferring
the non-resident widow's nominee to the
public administrator) ; Little v. Berrj',
y4 N. C. 433, 437. In California the nom-
inee of a non-resident wife is preferred
to a brother of the decedent : In re
Stevenson, 72 Cal. 164 ; but the nominee
of a resident brother, whose appointment
was contested by the public administra-
tor, who was found to be a foreigner bj'
birth, not able to become a citizen of the
United States, not intending to reside
permanently in the State, who does not
speak our language, having nothing in
common with our interests except to be
protected and acquire property, and the
brother nominating him held to be in the
same class of preferment with the public
administrator, was held, in the exercise
of discretion vested in the court, not en-

§ 244 EFFECT OF RENUNCIATION OR WAIVER. 533

liaving himself the preference, if there be no others having prefer-
ence over the stranger so appointed, or if all there be of such
acquiesce.^ But the ridit given bv the statute can- ^
not be delegated ; "^ the widow, or any of those entitled ence cannot Ue

,.".,,, delegated.

by preference, may renounce their right, but wlicn
they do so, the power to ajjpoint, under the regulations of the
statute, and the duty to exercise the discretion thereby conferred,
is still in the probate court : hence the person renouncing cannot
substitute another person and demand his appoint- The wishes of
ment.^ But while the court is in no wise bound by fen-«fwfi/be
the nomination of the party having renounced, yet the thrcourt'to^^
wishes and preferences of those whom the statute gu'^iethc

^ _ _ exercise of its

points out as the fittest persons to administer the discretion,
estate will have great weight in guiding the discretion of the
court.*

Agreements to transfer the right of administration from those
entitled under the statute to other parties, for a consideration, —
for instance, of receiving from sucli party the commissions to be
allowed by the court, — are against public policy and will not
be sustained ; ° an agreement between two parties, both equally
entitled, to take joint administration, and, where the principal
labor and responsibility would fall on one, that the other would
take such portions of the commissions as his associate would

titled as against the public administrator : Estate, 81* Pa. St. ^>62 ; Triplett v. Wells,

Estate of Yee Yun, Myr. 181. One not Litt. Cas. 49; Matter of Cresse, 28 N. J.

entitled to administer, by reason of non- Eq. 236; In re lioot, 1 Kedf 257; Sar-

residence, has no authority, in the absence gent's Estate, 62 Wis. 130, 135.
of statutory provision, to select another ■* MoBetli r. Hunt, supra ; Muirheafl

to represent him : Long r. Huggins, 72 v. Muirhead, 6 Sm & M. 451 ; Ellmaker's

Ga. 776, 790; Sutton v. Public Adniinis- Estate, 4 Watts, .34; and see authorities

trator, 4 Dem. 33 ; but in Prick's Appeal, sujira, p. 532, note 6 ; McClellan's Ap-

114 Pa. St. 29, 35, the court says: peal, 16 Pa. St. 110 ; Halliday r. Du Bose,

" Generally, it is the duty of the register 59 Ga. 268; Prick's Appeal, 114 Pa. St.

to regard the expressed will of the parties 29, 35.

entitled to the estate, whether they re- ^ Owings i: Owings, 1 Har. & G. 484 ;
side within or without the State, and if Brown ;•. Stewart, 4 iMd. Ch. 368 ; Bowers
they are incompetent the trust should be v. Bowers, 26 Pa. St. 74 ; EUicott v. Cham-
committed to their nominee, if a fit per- berlain, 38 N. J. Eq. 604, 609. But an
son." agreement whereby one joint executor

1 Patterson v. High, 8 Ired. Eq. 52, 54. renounced his right to letters testamentary

2 President, &c. i: Browne, 34 Md in favor of his co-executor, in considera-
4-50, 4.55 ; McBeth r. Hunt, 2 Strobh. 335, tion of being paid one half commissions,
341 ; Ex parte Young, 8 Gill, 285. was held a valid agreement : Ohlendorf i7.

3 Cobb r. Newfomb, 19 Pick. 336; Kanne, 66 Md. 495.
Shomo's Appeal, 57 Pa. St. 'doG; Guldiu's

534 LETTEllS OF ADMIJSISTIIATIOX. § 245

think fair, is valid ; ^ but there can be no partnership in the oflice
of administrator.^

§ 245. Administrators cum Testamento annexo. — The distinc-
tion between an administrator generally and an administrator
T.T , .^ cum testamento annexo is, as the name implies, and as

No letters cum ' i- ^

testamenio an- has already been remarked,^ that the former distributes

ncxo will be

granted with- the effects according to the law of descent and distribu-
there'irno ex- tion, wliilc tlic latter is bound in this respect by the
or^wiiUug to "^ provisions of the will. Since administration with the
'^^^- will annexed is granted only in default of an executor

named in the will, it is necessary, before such grant can be made,
that the court be fully satisfied that the executor named, if any,
or, where several are named, all of them,* have renounced the
trust, or are unwilling to serve, or incapable. No formality is
necessary in making such proof,^ beyond the compliance with the
statutory requirements on this subject ; but it is necessary that
the record show the renunciation, or waiver, otherwise letters
cum testamento annexo may be declared void.^

In granting letters cuju testamento annexo, the court is gov-
erned by the same principles which determine the appointment
of general administrators, chief among which is, tliat.

Same consider- c '_ _ °

ations govern in the abscucc of regulation, the right to administer

tlie appoint- . . ■' ,^

nientofanad- follows the right to the personal property, hieiice
auTiestnmento rcsiduary legatees are preferred, in the grant of let-
geneTaVldmtn- ^crs cum testamento aymexo, to the next of kin^ or
istrator. widow ; ^ and this preference extends to the repre-

1 Brown v. Stewart, 4 Md. Ch. 368; quiring jurisdictional facts to be recited in
see also Bassett v. Miller, 8 Md. 548. As the record is now much relaxed, and if
to agreements concerning commissions, the circumstances exist which autliorize
gee post, under accounting. the appointment, they may be proved by

2 Seely v. Beck, 42 Mo. 143, 148. parol : see Peebles v. Watts, 9 Dana, 102 ;
8 Ante, § 178. Tliompsons v. Meek, 7 Leigli, 419, citing
* For one of several executors qualify- Geddy v. Butler, 3 Munf. 345, and Nelson

ing has all the power vested in the several v. Carrington, 4 Munf. 332, as showing

executors : Phillips v. Stewart, 59 Mo. that renunciation might be valid, though

491. And an executor has power to not shown of record ; also authorities

administer all the property of the testator, under § 234, ante, and the subject of col-

though a part of it has not been be- lateral impeachability of the judgments

queathed by the will : Landers v. Stone, of probate courts, ante, § 145.
45 Ind. 404. See on this latter point, ^ Bradley v. Bradley, 3 Redf. 512,

ante, § 178. citing Ward in re, 1 Redf. 254 ; Russell

5 See ante, § 234. v. Hartt, 87 N. Y. 19.

6 Vick V. Vicksburg, 1 How. (Miss.) » Ante, § 235. But if there be a jmr-
379, 439. But the rigidity of the rule re- tial intestacy, the right to the adminis-

§ 245 ADMINlSTKATOnS CUM TEBTAMKNTO ANNEXO. 635

sentatives of residuary legatees who survive the testator and
have a beneficial interest, such representatives being entitled to
letters cum testamento annexo in pi-cference to the next of kin/ un-
less otherwise determined by statute.^ TIius, in Massachusetts,
neither the next of kin, nor any other person, has a claim to ad-
ministration de honis 'nan cum testamento annexu upon the death
of a sole executor.3 In New York, under a statute providing that,
" if any person, who would otherwise be entitled to letters of ad-
ministration with the will annexed as residuary or specific legatee,
shall be a minor, such letters shall be granted to his guardian,
being in all other respects competent, in preference to creditors or
other persons,^' it was held that, as against the guardian of an in-
fant legatee, but neither residuary nor specific, the widow or other
relative has preference^ So where the legatee named is incom-
petent to administer, tlie next person named is entitled ;^ and the
cestui que trust, not the trustee, is the real party in interest, and
therefore entitled to letters cum testamento annexo.^ In Penn-
sylvania the husband of an heiress is not entitled to letters cum
testamento ; ^ and a power of attorney from a surviving executor,
which is ten years old, was held to be too stale to authorize a
grant of letters with the will annexed.^ In North Carolina, the
court of ordinary formerly had discretionary powxr to appoint ani)
proper person administrator with the will annexed where there is
no executor competent or willing to serve ; ^ now in this State,^"
as well as in South Carolina, the ordinary is bound to observe the
same order of preference in such case as in the case of intestacy ;^^
and if he improperly grant letters to a stranger, he will revoke
the appointment at the request of one preferred.^^ In Maryland it

tration remains in tlie next of kin, since vvliere tlie statute applies, the surrogate

tliey are entitled to the unbequeatlied has no discretion : Blanck v. Morrison, 4

property : Ellniaker's Estate, 4 Watts, Dem. 297.
34, 38 5 Tliompson's Estate, 33 Barb. o:;4

1 Wins. Ex. [464], and authorities ; *> Ibid.

Hendren v. Colgin, 4 Muiif. 231, [)ref'erring ^ Eilmaker's Estate, 4 Watts, 34.

tlie husband's executor or administrator 8 Bleakley's Estate, 5 Wiiart. 361.

to the next of kin of the wife ; Cutchin y. ^ Suttle v. Turner, 8 Jones L. 403;

Wilkinson, 1 Call, 1, 6 ; Clay v. Jackson, but this case seems overruled in Little v.

T. U. I\ Charlt. 71. Berry, 94 N. C. 433.

2 Williams's Appeal, 7 Pa. St. 259 ; i'' Little i'. Berry, supra.
Spinning's Will, Tuck. 78. " Smith v. Wingo, 1 Rice, 287.

'^ Russell V. Hoar, 3 Met. (Mass.) 187, i- Smith v. Wingo, supra, relying np-
190. on Thompson v. Hucket, 2 Hill, (S. C.)

■1 Cluett V. Mattice, 43 Barb. 417. But 347.

536 LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION. § 246

seems that the widow is first entitled to letters cum testamento,
next the residuary legatee, and then the next of kin; should
these decline or refuse to act, and the creditors or more remote
kindred do not apply, the court may use its discretion.^ In Eng-
land one named as executor cannot take letters cum testamento^
because courts will not make a grant in an inferior character to
one entitled to it in a superior character ;2 but in Missouri it was
intimated that one named as executor in the will, but disqualified
by reason of being one of the subscribing witnesses, may in a
proper case be appointed as administrator with the will annexed.^
So in New York an administrator with the will annexed may be
appointed to succeed to the duties and trust of a deceased execu-
tor, including a trust not separable from the functions of an ex-
ecutor ; '^ and one who unites the character of testamentary trustee
with that of executor may be removed as trustee, and continue to
act as executor.^ Where the testatrix named no executor, it was
held that oral expressions of a preference by the testatrix were
entitled to weight in making the selection, other things being
equal.^

§ 246. Administrators of Estates of Non-Residents. — It appears
from the chapter on Domiciliar and Ancillary Jurisdiction,' that,
in consequence of the extra-territorial invalidity of letters testa-
mentary and of administration, the authority to sue or defend as
executor or administrator must be conferred by the law of the
forum in which they appear.^ It has also been mentioned under
what circumstances wills of non-residents obtain valid-

Appointment . .

of an admiiiis- jty in the Several States,^ and that it is not necessary
eS of anon- that the will of a non-resident testator should be first
denufinde-" provcd in the State of his domicil,io q^ that adminis-
?rantTf domf- tratiou should first bc granted there before the ap-
ciiiar letters, pointnieut of an administrator in the State where
administration may be desired. The powers of one so appointed
are in no manner impaired or affected by the previous grant of
administration in the State of the domicil.ii Since the law of the

1 Dalrvmple v. Gamble, 66 Md. 298, " Matter of Powell, 5 Dem. 281.
308. ' ^ A"'e. §§ 157-169.

2 Wms. Ex. [469], and English author- » Taylor r. Barron, 35 N. H. 484, and
itjes. numerous authorities cited on p. 495;

3 Murphy v. Murphy, 24 Mo. 526. Naylor r. Moffatt, 29 Mo. 126.

4 Matter of Clark, 5 Hedf. 466. ^ Ante, § 226.

5 Quackenboss r. Southwiek, 41 N. Y. " See also ante, § 205.

117 ; Hallock v. Kumsey, 22 Hun, 89. " Henderson f. Clarke, 4 Litt. 277 ;

§ 247 ADMINISTRATORS DE BONIS NON. 637

domicil at the time of an intestate's death governs the dcvohition
of personal property, the selection of an administrator will be
affected, to some extent, by sucli law ; but in other respects there
is no essential difference in the rules governing the grant of
letters on the estates of deceased residents and non-residents.
It has also been pointed out, that by the comity of States the
person who obtains administration in the State of the domicil, or
his attorney, is entitled to a similar grant in any other jurisdic-
tion where the deceased has personal property,^ unless such person
is disqualified by the law of the ancillary forum.

§ 247. Administrators de Bonis Non. — If a sole or all of several
executors or administrators die, or resign, or be removed from
office before the estate is fully administered, it becomes necessary
to a{)point an administrator de bonis non — simply, or with the
will annexed, as the case may be — to complete the administration.
The circumstances under which such letters are granted, as well as
the powers and duties of the ofhcers so appointed, have been fully
considered in connection with the sul)ject of administrators gen-
erally ;2 it is sufficient, therefore, to recapitulate, in Xo admii.istra-
this connection, that there must be an estate remain- J",')^''''-,f/,""^'
ino; unadministered,-'^ and a vacancy in the ofTice of there buunad-

^ . ninustereu

executor or administrator,"* otherwise there can be no assets and a

, , , r,i, . T , . vaeaiicv in the

grant of letters de bonis non. 1 he considerations office of udmin-
governing the preference in ordinary cases govern '^'^'■'^''""•
also in respect of administrators de bonis non, whether of testate
or intestate estates,^ except as otherwise indicated by statutory
rules. In New York, for instance, the statute is held to provide

Cosby V. Gilchrist, 7 Dana, 206; Pond v. eery, for tlie allowance of a fraudulent

Makepeace, 2 Met. (Mass.) 114. And item of credit, tiie administration must

see cnfe, § 158; Burnley v. Duke, 1 Rand, be completed by the appointment of an

108, 112. administrator de bonis non in the probate

1 Jnte, § 158. court : Byerly v. Donlin, 72 Mo. 270.

2 Ante, § 179. To same effect, Neal v. Charlton, 52 Md.

3 It is not sufficient that tbere was no 495, citing numerous Maryland cases,
re^idar final seUlement and discharge of * Tlie grant of letters de horn's no,, upon
the executor or administrator. Where tlie the deatli of an executor, pending an
property of an estate was turned over to appeal from the probate of the will, is
a legatee, the executor removed, and six- erroneous, but not assailable in a coUat-
teen years elapsed, an application for eral proceeiling ; but such appniniment
administration de bonis non by one show- before the death of the executor would
ing no interest in the estate, and resisted be void : Finn v. Hempstead, 24 Ark.
l)y the le'jatee, will be refused : San 111, 116.

Roman V. Watson, 54 Tex. 254, 259. But '^ Schoul. Ex. § 129, citing Wnis. Ex.,

if a final settlement be set aside in chan- and 2 Hagg. Appendix, 169, 170.

538 LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION. § 248

that, upon the deatli of a sole executor after having qualified, the
widow or next of kin is entitled to letters de bo7iU non ; but if he
died before qualifying, then the residuary legatee is entitled as
against the widow and next of kin.^ In Maryland, the female
cousin gernian on the father's side is preferred to the male cousin
german on the mother's side, for general letters as well as for
letters de bonis non? In Massachusetts, upon the death of a sole
executor or administrator, neither widow nor next of kin has a
right to the administration de botiis 7ion, but the judge of probate
appoints in his discreiion;^ but the reverse is held in Maryland,
where the Orphan's Court is governed by the same rules of pref-
erence which govern in the original grant of administration.* In
Mississippi, upon the resignation of an executor or administrator,
the court may appoint his successor at once, without citation to
the parties in interest.^ In California, it is held that one who was
rejected as not being entitled to administration originally may
nevertheless be granted administration de bonis non, after the
removal of the original administrator.^

§ 248. Administrators with Limited Powers. — It will appear
from a previous passage,*^ that limited administrations may be
granted under certain circumstances, although discouraged by
courts and text-writers in America,^ because here the tendency
is to commit administration at once to those who may be under
no present disability, with full authority to complete the settle-
ment of the estate without disturbing the course of administration
by placing it in the hands of persons claiming a superior right.
But the authority to appoint administrators ad colligendum, ad
litem, durante absentia, durante minore estate, or for some special
The rule in purpose, IS sometimcs resorted to.^ The rules govern-

ordinary cases, . , , , • i , • c • ,

that the ap- mg the court m selectmg proper persons for appoint-
shou?dsoto meiit in such cases are necessarily different from
the ultimate thosc Controlling the appointment of general adminis-

benenciarv, is o i i o

not applicable trators, becausc the fundamental principle of having

to special ad- i . . • en • i p

ministratois. the administration follow the right of property is

1 Bradley v. Bradley, 3 Redf. 512. < Thomas v. Knighton, 23 Md. 318,
But if no one having superior right apply, 325.

the next of kin may in such ease be ^ Sivley v. Summers, 57 Miss. 712, 731.

appointed : Cobb v. Beardsley, 37 Barb. « Estate of Pico, 56 Cal. 413, 420.

192. ■' Ante, § 184.

2 Kearney v. Turner, 28 Md. 408, 423. » 3 Redf. on Wills, 11.3, pi. 5.

3 Russell V. Hoar, 3 Met. (Mass.) 187. ^ Ante, §§ 182-184.

§ 248 ADMINLSTKATOKS WITH LIMITED POWERS. 539

iiiapplicahle. Tlu- discretion of the court seems to be limited
only by tlie bounds of propriety, and extends to any discreet,
qualified person. It is held in New York, that the surrop-ate may
limit the authority of an administrator appointed to do certain
acts, and no others, although the statute did not expressly author-
ize such limitation.! It is evident, however, that a general admin-
istrator regularly appointed succeeds to all the rights and powers
of a special administrator, as much so as an administrator de
bonis non succeeds to the unadministered effects of the intestate.^
In Missouri, where the statute authorizes the probate court to
appoint an administrator to take charge of the estate during a
contest of the will,-'^ it is held that this authority implies the power
to suspend, during such contest, the authority of an administrator
cum testamento anwxo, as well as that of an executor ; that au-
thority to grant letters ''to some other person" means the ap-
pointment of a person other than the one charged with the
execution of the will, whether named in the will or not ; and that
the statute preferring the widow in the grant of administration
generally has no application in such case.*

1 Martin v. Dry Dock, 92 N. Y. 70, 74. 8 Rogers v. Dively, 51 Mo. 193.

2 Cowles V. Hayes, 71 N. C. 230, citing * Lamb v. Helm, 56 Mo. 420.
Eure r. Erne, 3 Dev. 200, aud Cutlar v.

Quince, 2 Hayw. 60.

540 THE ADMINISTRATION BOND. § 249

CHAPTER XXVII.

OP THE ADMINISTRATION BOND.

§ 249. Origin of the Law requiring Administration Bonds, — The
English statute,^ requiring bond to be given to the ordinary upon
English statute Committing administration of the goods of any person
Car."ii., sub- dying Intestate, is incorporated into the statutes of
ado"\'edTa cvcry "State In the Union. So great has at all times
all States. been the anxiety of legislators and judicial tribunals
in this country to protect the just demands of creditors, on the
one hand, and to vindicate the lawful inheritance and dower to
the widow and next of kin, on the other, and so appropriate and
efficient in accomplishing this desired end is the administration
bond considered to be, that not a single State has ever ventured
upon the experiment of substantially changing the law in this
respect. The form of such a bond, enacted " anno vicesimo se-
cundo et tertio Caroli II.," corresponds substantially to the form
required by our modern statutes, even to the " two or more able
sureties " demanded. The only noticeable change made in Eng-
land, as embodied in the Probate Court Act,^ is the provision fixing
the minimum of the penalty, in recognition of the American pre-
cedent on the subject, at double the value of the estate. The law
„ , .,, in the several States is uniform on this point, requir-

I'enalty of the _ .

bond double ing the administrator, whether with the will annexed,

the amount of i i • i i

the property de ooms non, temporary, or permanent, to give bond

administered: •,^ , m • l j_- • j.ij_

except in With two or morc sumeient sureties, in a sum at least

Louisiana. double the value of such personal property as may
come into his possession belonging to the estate of the decedent;
with the exception of Louisiana, where the minimum is fixed at
" one fourth beyond the estimated value of the movables and
immovables, and of the credits comprised in the inventory exclu-

1 21 Henry VIII. c 5, § 3; 22 & 23 2 20 & 21 Vict. c. 77.

Car. II. c 10," § 1.

§ 250 BONDS OF EXECUTORS. 541

sive of bad debts," ^ and Mississippi, where it must equal the value
of the personal estate at least.^ In Pennsylvania, an administra-
tion where no bond is a-iven is by statute declared , ,

" •' _ I'rfinate jiidife

void,^ and there, as well as in South Carolina, the liable for ..mit-
register or ordinary neglecting to take the "adminis- administration
tration bond is liable for all damages; and although
the damages do not appear to result from the neglect, yet the
law will presume so.'*

§ 250. Bonds of Executors. — But under the English law exec-
utors derive their authority from the will, and not No bond ro-
from the grant of the ordinary, or probate court; mitors^in'^"'^
hence in England executors are not required to give '"o'^"^-

1 o same in several

bond.^ The same rule, perhaps for the same reason, States.
prevails in Florida,'^ Georgia," Louisiana,^ New York,^ North Caro-
lina,^*^ Pennsylvania,^^ and South Carolina,^^ in which States ex-
ecutors are permitted to administer on the estates of their testators
without giving an administration bond. In other States, no dis-
tinction is made in the matter of requiring bonds between admin-
istrators and executors, unless the testator expressly direct, by
provision in the will, that the executors by him appointed shall
not be required to give bond, in which case the desire of the testa-
tor is complied with, unless the court, upon complaint of some
creditor, legatee, or other person interested, or even upon its own
knowledge, suspect that the estate would be fraudulently adminis-
tered or wasted, when it is made the duty of the court to cite the
executor to show cause why bond should not be given, and in its
discretion compel it, or refuse letters. Such is the states in which
law in Alabama,^'^ California,^* Colorado,^-^ Connecticut,^^ dtrect'thaTex-
Illinois,i7 Kansas,i8 Kentucky,i9 Mainc^^*^ Mississippi,2i b^.^eli'T'
Missouri (since November 1, 1879), 2" Nevada,^-^ Ohio,-* give bond.

1 Civ. Code, art. 1048. 12 Kev. St. 1873, p. 448 pt xpq.

2 Code, Miss. 1880, § 1995. ^3 Code, 1886. §§ 2024, 2025

8 Act of March 15, 1832, § 27. " Code Civ. Pr. §§ I0S8, 1396.

* Boggs r. Hamilton, 2 Mill, (S.C.) 381. i^ Gen. L. 1883, § 3519.

5 Loma.x, Ex. & Adm. 171 s. p. ; 4 i« Gen. St. 1888, § 548 ; double the

Burn's Ercl. L. 176. amount of debts.

« Dig. 1881, p. 79, § 11, p. 80, § 12. i' Rev. St. 1885, p. 195, § 7.

7 Code, 1882, § 2447. i^ Dassler's St. 1885, ch. 37, §§ 3, 4.

8 Civ. Code, art. 1677. i9 Gen. St. 1887, p. 587, § 4.

9 Code Civ. Tr. § 26.38 ; Demarest's 20 Rgv. St. 188.3, ch. 64, § 9.
Estate, 1 Civ. Pr. Rep. 302. 21 Rev. Code, 1880, § 1982.

15 Rev. Code, 1883, § 1515. 2-2 Rgv. St. 1879, § 12.

11 Brightly's Purd. Dig. 1883, p. 510, -'^ Comp. L. 1873, §§ 553, .559.
§ 21, p. 511, § 23. 24 Kev. St. I80O, §§ 5996, 5997.

542

THE ADMINISTRATION BOND.

§250

Oregon,^ Rhode Island,^ Tennessee,^ Texas,* Vermont,^ Vir-
^ ^ dnia,^ West Viryinia,^ and Wisconsin.^ It is obvi-

Such exemp- <=> ? o ?

tion applies ous that the exemption in these States is based upon
tors noiniiiatcd the testator's right to dispose of his property in the
y le testator. j^-,r^j^j-^gp deemed best by him, saving the rights of cred-
itors and of those having legal claims upon him ; which includes
the power to exempt from the necessity of giving bond, as a
method of gift to the executor. From this it follows, that the
exemption in such cases is personal to the executor named in the
will, becoming inoperative on the failure or refusal of such person
to accept the trust, and has no application to otlier executors or
States in which administrators.^ But in other States the requirement
r^quileTto'^ to give boud bcforc an executor can lawfully take
give bond. charge of an estate, is as imperative and absolute as
it is upon administrators; so in Arkansas,!^ Delaware,^^ lowa,^^
Indiana,^'*^ and Maryland.^* In several of the States where resident
executors are not required to give bond, a discrimination is made
against non-resident executors, requiring them to give bond and
account, in default of which administrators with the will annexed
are appointed, either originally, or, after removal of the executor,
de bonis non}^

1 Code, 1887, § 1088.

2 Pub. St. 188:^, cli. 184, § 14.

3 Code, 1884, §§ 3063, 3066.

4 Rev. St. 1^88, art. 1880, 1803.

5 Felton V. Sowles, 57 Vt. 882.

6 Code, 1887, §2642.

7 Kelley's IJev. St. 1878, cli. 146, § 7.

8 Rev. St. 1878, §i? 3704, 3795.

9 Langley r. Harris, 28 Te.x. 564, 570.
See also Fairfax v. Fairfax, 7 Gratt. 36, in
wliicli it is held that the exyiression of
confidence in connection with the appoint-
ment of executors in the body of the
will, exemptins: them from the require-
ment to give bond, and the appointment
of a furtlier executor in a codicil, did
not constitute an exemption to the last
named executor. The same principle is
involved in Ex parte Brown, 2 Bradf. 22;
Commonwealth v. Forney, 3 AV. & S. 353,
357.

i-J Code, 1884, §§ 18, 20. But in this
State it was nevertheless held, that, al-
though the clerk could not issue letters
without taking bond, yet there might be
cases where the court might dispense

witli it : in the case, for instance, of a sole
heir or legatee being apjjointed executor
when tliere are no debts, because waste
or mismnnngcment of the estate would
be guarded against by motives of self-
interest, and in any event could injure
no one but himself: Bankhead r. Hub-
bard, 14 Ark. 298, 300. It will be ob-
served that this reasoning applies as fully
to intestate estates, where there is but one
heir, as to residuary legatees.

" Kev. Code, Amended, 1874.

1-^ Code, §§ 2362, 2347.

13 St., Rev. of 1881, §2242.

» Laws, 1878, p. 439, § 40.

15 So in Louisiana : Rev. St. 1876,
§ 1461 ; Succession of Davis, 12 La. An.
399; Succession of McDonogh, 7 La.
An. 472 ; Yerkes v. Broom, 10 La. An.
94 ; Succession of Bodenlieimer, 35 La.
An. 1034. In New Jersey, Rev. of 1877,
757, § 25, the testator may exempt a
resident, but cannot a foreign executor.
Ill New York : Code Civ. W. § 2638. In
North Carolina: Rev. Code, 1883, § 1515.
In Pennsylvania : Brightly's Purdon's

§ 252 CIRCUMSTANCES RENDERING BOND NECESSARY. 543

§ 251. Power of Court to order Bond. — Tri tlioso of tho States
in wlii(;h an executor is permitted to administer without giving
bond, whether the exemption arise under the statute court may
or by express direction of the testator, his office is i',e j^Tve'n"
one of special trust and confidence, for which reason "'']'|l''7','ii',Jct
no bond is required of him. But if a court become otherwise,
satisfied that the executor, who was solvent when named in the
will, is likely to become insolvent, and that there is danger that
he may abuse his trust, or lias ground to susi)ect that he will
indirectly and frauihilontly administer the estate to the prejudice
of creditors or legatees, he will be ordered to give bond with
sufficient surety to i)rot(^ct the estate.^ In such case any person
who has an interest in the estate may interpose to move for an
order requiring security,^ and when the interest is averred jiosi-
tively and under oath it cannot be questioned on the trial of an
application for security.^ And a bond given by an executor with-
out sureties, although approved by the judge of probate, is not
such a bond as the law contemplates.'*

§ 252. Circumstances rendering Bond necessary. — It is not pos-
sible to define with accuracy the precise circumstances which
should induce the proliate court to demand sureties Facts deemed
from an executor who is otherwise exempt under the courtsTo ^
law or the direction of the testator. Of these the •;!^'^|;;;;',^fent
probate judge must necessarily be the primary, and oi bond.
in most cases the sole arbiter, since an appellate court will not
interfere with the exercise of his discretion unless his decision be
plainlv in conflict with the letter or spirit of the law.^ The sev-
eral statutory provisions on the subject have been elucidated in
a slight degree only by judicial interpretations, which are usually
paraphrases of the statute, and announcements that each case

T>\^. 1883, p. 510, § 21. In Texas, a res- will who is executrix and legatee under

ident, but not a nonresident, executor an alleged later will than that admitted to

niay be exempted by the testator from probate : Cunningham i: Souza, 1 Redf.

giving bond : Rev. St. 1888, art. 1^70. 4C>-2 ; and n fortiori, a legatee : Sullivan's

1 Per Rogers, J., in rominonwealth v. Will, 'Puck. 94; Felton r. Sowles, 57 Vt.
Forney, 3 W. & S. 353, 355 ; Clark v. 382, 383.

Niles, 42 Miss. 460; Atwell n. Helm, 7 ^ Merchant's Will, Tuck. 17; Smitli

Bush, 504 ; Wood v. Wood, 4 Pai. 299 ; v. Philips, supra ; Cotterell v. Brock, 1

Holmes V. Cock, 2 Barb. Ch. 426 ; Mande- Bradf. 148.

ville V. Mandeville, 8 Pai. 475; Colgrove * Aberorombier. Slieldon,8 Allen. 5:'2.

V. Hortnn. 11 Pai. 201 ; Freeman v. Kel- ^ Hempstead, J., in Bankhoad <•. Huh-

logg, 4 Redf. 218, 224. bard, 14 Ark. 208, 300 ; and in Vermont

2 For instance a creditor: Smith i\ is not appealable: Felton r. Sowles, o7
Phillips, 54 Ala. 8; tlie proponent of a Vt. 3^;2.

544 THE ADMINISTRATION BOND. § 252

presented must depend upon its own peculiar features and cir-
cumstances, of which the probate court is the appropriate judge.
The single object to be achieved is the safety of the estate in the
executor's hands, and its faithful administration according to the
intention of the testator so far as the same is sanctioned by law.
If the probate judge is satisfied that this will be accomplished
without bond, then no bond is required. But if lie have reason
to suspect the integrity, the mental capacity, or even the financial
ability of the executor, he should protect the estate and the inter-
ests of those concerned in it by an order requiring bond with

sufficient sureties. The mere poverty of an executor,
of^exe^'^tor not wliich cxistcd at the time of the testator's death,
sufficient. without maladministration or loss or danger of loss

from misconduct or negligence, does not authorize the require-
ment of a bond;i nor the fact that an executor is not possessed
of property of his own equal in value to that of the estate he is to
administer, if there is no ground to fear that the trust funds in
his hands are in danger from improvidence and want of pecuniary
responsibility .2 An application to compel security from an exec-
utor ui)on the ground of his pecuniary irresponsibility should not
be entertained, unless it states particulars from which it will
privia facie appear that the estate of the testator w\\\ not be sate

in the executor's liands.^ Insolvency is not per se a
notVer"? '^ sufficient ground to require bond from executors,
sufficient. ^q^eii it has not arisen since the appointment by the

testator.4 In the New York statute, the word "precarious" is
used; " if the circumstances of the executor are &o precarious as
not to afford adequate security for the administration of the
estate," etc. This word is held not to be applicable to the wealth
or poverty of the executor, although it might be to his bank-
ruptcy .^ On the other hand, it is held that the solvency of the

1 Where, umler sncli circumstances, a * Willsnn r. Wliitfield, 38 Ga. 2G9 ;
court of equity requi.ed l)ond from an Bowmnn v. Wootton, 8 B. Mon. 67.
executor, the Supreme Court of Nortii &" Tlie experience of tiie world," says
Carohna'annulled the order, and dire(;ted Potter, J., delivering the opinion of the
the bond to be surrendered: Fairbairn v. Supreme Court of New York in Shields
Fisher, 4 Jones Eq. .390. v- Shields, 60 Barb. 5G, 60, " if appealed to,

2 The surrogate's decree, requiring would demonstrate the truth, that it is not
bond under these circumstances, was re- those who have most means in possession
versed by Chancellor Walworth : Man- that are found to be the safest and best
deville V. Mandeville, 8 Pai. 475. trustees." To the same effect, Cotterell

3 Colgrove v. Horton, 11 Pai. 261, re- v. Brock, 1 Bradf. 148.
versing order of surrogate requiring bond.

§ 253

INVALIDITY WITHOUT BOND.

545

But where other ^r.Sxe^utor

a sufficictit
reason why

iiiile>s it
arises after
iiomiiiaticjii by
the testator.

executor is no reason why bond should not be exacted Nor is the
if he is guilty of mismanagement.^
circumstances concur, and insolvency ai-ises after the
apnoinlment by the testator, it mav become decisive on b"'"! shaif not

>■ ^ •' I ^ • n -w be rerniired,

the question of ordering security to be givcn.^ In

Oregon it has been decided that executors in whom a

legal estate is vested merely for the purpose of sale

and conveyance are not required to qualify fully, or to report their

proceedings to the probate court.^

§ 253. Invalidity of Administration without Bond. — Neither
the office of administrator, nor, in cases where the executor is
required to give bond, that of executor, can be re- Authority of
garded as filled until the administration bond is actu- Jhe n^Jt'Sln-'^'^'
ally given ; * and they cannot act as such until they piete until bond
have qualified themselves by taking the oath of ofiice
and giving the necessary bond.^ If the bond is not given when
required by the probate court, although the will direct that no
bond shall be taken, the court may revoke the letters testamen-
tary.^ And one who, having been appointed administrator, fails

1 McKennan's Appeal, 27 Pa. St. 237 ;
Shieltls V. Shields, supra.

" Thus, where two of the tliree exec-
utors appointed by the testator had died,
and the tliird had become insolvent, the
order of tlie surrog.ate requiring security
in double the value of the personal prop-
erty, including tlie possible proceeds of
real estate which the executor had power
to sell, was affirmed : Holmes v. Cock, 2
Barb. Ch. 420. And where an executrix
married a man who was insolvent, and
wlio had conveyed by deed to liis own
children all the property he had, and had
mortgaged a negro, belonging to the es-
tate his wife was administering, for a
private debt of his own, the decree of
the chancellor dismissing the bill to com-
pel security was reversed unanimously,
and security ordered to be given : Powel
V. Thompson, 4 Desaus. 162. So where
the executor was a single man, without
visible property except a claim against
the testator's estate for services rendered
his father after reaching majority, where
the trust was to continue for nearly twenty
years and the executor was about to re-
move out of the State, the chancellor
reversed the decision of the surrogate
VOL. I. — 3-3

permitting administration without secu-
rity on the ground that these circumstan-
ces were sufficient to require security
for the faithful administration of the es-
tate independent of the statutory pro-
vision requiring security in cases where
the executor was, or was about to be-
come, a non-resident : Wood v. Wood, 4
Pai. 290, 302. See also Felton v. Sowles,
57 Vt. 382.

3 Hogan V. Wyman, 2 Oreg. 302.

4 Feltz r. Clark, 4 Humph.' 70; O'Neal
V. Tisdale, 12 Tex. 40 ; Commonwealth v.
Fornev, .3 W. & S. 353 ; F.s parte Brown,
2 Bradf. 22; Gardner v. Gantt, 10 Ala. G66 ;
Drane '•. Bayliss, 1 Humph. 174; Succes-
sion of Bodenlieimer, 35 La. An. 1034.

5 Cleveland v. Ciiandler, 3 Stew. 489;
Echols r. Barrett, 6 Ga. 443 ; the refusal
of an executor to qualify is prima facie
evidence of his refusal to act : Uldreck

. V. Simpson, 1 S. C. 283. Letters are not
invalid because the bond is made and
signed before appointment : Morris v.
Ciiicago, R. I. & P. R. R., 65 Iowa, 727.

« Post, § 270 ; Clark v. Niles, 42 Miss.
460. But such order is not final until it
is enforced, and hence cannot be appealed
from : Atwell i-. Helm, 7 Bush, 504.

546 THE ADMINTSTEATION BOND. § 254

to give the bond, cannot afterward intervene in a contest between
creditors for administration.^ In Pennsylvania this rule has
been so rigorously construed, that one who acted under letters of
administration otherwise properly granted, but who had given
bond with one surety where the law required two, was held to
act as administrator of his own wrong, the bond being held void,
and the letters likewise.^ And so where an administrator de bo-
nis non gave bond containing the conditions of an administrator's

„ , , . . , bond in chief, it was held void.^ But usually the fail-
But admimstra- ' _ _ _ •' _

tion is not ure of the administrator to give bond does not avoid

usually void „,.. .,

for want of the letters oi admmistration, but only makes them
voidable ; * nor does the cancellation of the bond per
se revoke the appointment, or disqualify the administrator from
bringing suit.^ In Louisiana, an executor is required to settle
up the estate in one year, and if he does not, to give bond at the
end thereof, in default of which he should be dismissed, and an
administrator de bonis non with the will annexed — there called
dative executor — appointed.^

§ 254. When Additional Bond may be ordered. — Whenever it
becomes apparent that the sureties of an administration bond
^ , have become insolvent, or that the penalty in the

Court may ' .

order addi- boud is in too Small an amount, or that the bond is
whenever from any cause insufficient or inadequate, the execu-

necessary. ^^^ ^^ administrator should be ruled to give other or
further security.''' For failure to comply with such an order, the
executor or administrator may be removed from office by the
Any person j^i^c^ of probatc.^ Any person in interest may peti-
interested may ^jq^ ^j^q probatc court for an Order to compel addi-

move lor addi- ^ '■

tionai bond. tioual or better security, and on the trial of such

1 Howard v. Worrill, 42 Ga. 307. 6 Peale v. White, 7 La. An. 449.

2 Mc Williams v. Hopkins, 4 Rawle, ^ Killcrease v. Killcrease, 7 How.
382; Bradley v. Commonwealth, 31 Pa. (Miss.) 311; Ellis v. McBride, 27 Miss.
St. 522. And in Picquet, Appellant, 5 155; Atkinson v. Christian, 3 Gratt. 448.
Pick. 65, 76, Parker, C. J. intimates that " A new bond may always he required,
probably the administration would be if the original bond appear at any time to
void where no bond is given. be inadequate " : Wells, J., in Hannum v.

3 Small u. Commonwealth, 8 Pa. St. 101. Day, 105 Mass. 33, 38. Gary, in his work
* Sullivan v. Tioga R. R., 44 Hun, 304, on Probate Law, bases this authority of

307; Leatherwood v. Sullivan, 81 Ala. probate courts on their inherent powers

458 ; Ex parte Maxwell, 37 Ala. 3G2 ; to prevent a failure of justice : p. 113, n.

Jones V. Gordon, 2 Jones Eq. 352 ; Spen- 20 ; but it is expressly conferred in most,

cer V. Gaboon, 4 Dev. L. 225; Slagle v. if not all, of the States by statute.
Entrekin, 44 Oh. St. 637. 640. ^ National Bank of Troy v. Stanton,

5 Clarke v. Rice, 15 R. I. 132. 116 Mass. 435.

§ 255 LIABILITY OF SURETIES. 547

motion it is sufficient, as already indicated, that their interest
be alleged under oath.^ The service of notice upon the executor
or administrator in such proceeding is generally prescribed in
the statutes of the several States ; in Louisiana it has been
held that service upon the attorney at law of the executor, in the
absence of the latter from the State, was sufficient.^ On the
trial of a motion for new bond, on the ground of the insufficiency
of the sureties, the sureties may prove their sufficiency by their own
oath, and then it will devolve upon the other party to show their
insuffiicicncy.3 As to the statement of facts necessary statutes deter-
to authorize the probate court to order additional f^its^wiif*^
security, it is sufficient to refer to the provisions of »"fi^f""'=^*^

•' ' t" requirement of

the statutes upon the subject, which generally indi- new bond,
cate the circumstances under which further or other security may
be required with sufficient clearness. Insolvency, death, or re-
moval from the State of the sureties, and inadequacy of the pen-
alty, are the most usual. The insolvency of the principal in the
bond, while the sureties remain solvent, is no ground for increas-
ing the amount of the bond.* In California the powers of the
executor may be suspended until the application for an order to
give new bond can be heard.^

§ 255. Liability of Sureties, and Effect of New Bonds. — It re-
sults from the nature of the obligation entered into by sureties on
administration bonds, that the refusal or neglect of g^,reties are
the principal to obey or comply with the judgment or concluded by
decree of a court of competent jurisdiction constitutes agamst their
a breach rendering the sureties liable ; and that there- '

fore the sureties are bound and concluded by the judgment
against the principal,^ unless there was collusion or fraud be-
tween the principal and those who seek satisfaction unless oh-
out of the sureties, which must be established in a or collusion,
direct proceeding.' It is for this reason that sureties, though not
parties to the record, nor beneficially interested in pro- But may appeal
ceedings by or against executors or administrators, are memi against
allowed the right of appeal from judgments against ^^^ principals.

1 Ante, § 251. Martin v. Tally, 72 Ala. 2.S, HO ; McClel-

2 Succession of Bobb, 27 La. An. 344. Ian i\ Downey, 6-3 Cal. 520 ; Morrison v.
8 Ross V. Minis, 7 Sm. & M. 121. Lavell, 81 Va. 519; Slajrle v. Entrekin,
1 Sharkey's Estate, 2 Phila. 276. 44 Oh. St. 637 ; post, § 412.

5 Estate of White, 53 Cal. 19. '' Wolff v. Schaeffer, 4 Mo. App. 867,

6 Speer v. Richmond, 3 Mo. App. 572, 875; s. c. 74 Mo. 154, 158; Scofield ».
573; People v. Stacy, 11 111. App. 506; Churchill, 72 N. Y. 565, 570.

548 THE ADMINISTRATION BOND. § 255

their principals.^ But the judgment, to bind the sureties, must
self-evidently be one that is enforceable against the principal ;
unless there be judgment de bonis propriis, the sureties are not
liable ; ^ nor does proof that assets came into the administrator's
hands make out a. prima facie liability for devastavit.^

It is obvious that the purpose of a new or additional bond

ordered by the court ex mero motu, or moved by some interested

person for the better protection of the estate, or vol-

Additional ., . . . , . ... „

bond is cumu- untarily given by the principal m anticipation oi such

qliired by'^the ^n ordcr, is to add the security resulting from the

mS,'oVr'" new to that afforded by the old bond. Hence the es-

motion of some ^qXq is protected, after the giving of the new bond, by

one interested j- 7 00 7 j

in the estate as both scts of surctics ; thosc Oil the first bond remain-

beneticiary. . titi • tii

mg, and those on the second bond becoming, liabie
for any breach happening after the new bond is given.* Where
And original the Condition of the bond is that the principal shall
bontTsmeVare " account for, pay, and deliver all money and property
both liable. q£ ^^:^^ estatc," the sureties on the last bond are liable
for the loss following any defalcation, conversion, or devastavit
committed by the principal, whether before or after the giving of
the last bond, because the non-payment after an order by the court
having jurisdiction constitutes a distinct breach of the bond ; ^
tlie same result follows where tlie terms of the bond are to " do
and perform all other acts which may be required of him at any
time by law." ^ In such case both sets of sureties are liable : the
first, because the conversion or other misconduct leading to the
loss of the assets occurred during the time when they were sureties ;
the last, because the nonpayment constituted a breach while they

1 McCartney v. Garneau, 4 Mo. App. himself to be a surety, an ineffectual de-

566, 567; People v. Stacy, 11 111- App. cree was made discharging him, and an-

506, 508; Bush's Appeal, 102 Pa. St. 502, other bond was given, it was lield that

504. both bonds were valid ; and that each

^ Wilbur V. Hutto, 25 S. C. 246 ; Ben- set of sureties was responsible, inter sese,

nett V. Graham, 71 Ga. 211. in proportion to the amount of the bonds

3 State V. Huether, 4 Mo. App. 575. and the liabilities incurred : Brooks v.

* " The plain intent of these acts was, Whitmore, 142 Mass. 399.
that the security should be accumulative, ^ Wolff v. Schaeffer, 74 Mo. 154, 158,

and not an entire substitution of the one affirming the Missouri Court of Appeals,
bond for the other" : Per Holmes, J., in ^ Pinkstaff v. People, 59 111. 148, 150.

State V. Drury, 36 Mo. 281, 286; see To same effect, Scofield i'. Churchill, 72

Wood V. WiUiams, 61 Mo. 63; State v. N.Y.565; Lacoste r. Sphvalo, 64 Cal. 35;

Fields, 53 Mo. 474, 477 ; Haskell v. Far- Foster v. Wise, 16 N. East. (Ohio), 687,

rar, 56 Mo. 497. So where, upon appli- and authorities cited,
cation of one who erroneously supposed

§ 255 LIABILITY OF SURETIES. 549

were such.^ But the sureties themselves are entitled Ori-inai sure-
to relief in case of the insolvency of either principal emttTirnew
or co-surety on the bond, or when any of the co-sure- oli't^iefr^''^*""
ties have died or left the State, or when the principal motion.
is wasting or mismanaging the estate. Provision is made by stat-
ute in many States enabling sureties to protect themselves against
future liability on their bonds by moving for an order against
their principal to give counter security, or a new bond, and in
default thereof to revoke his authority .^ In Missouri the statute
distinctly points out the effect of a new or additional bond : if
given in response to the complaint of a person bound as security
in the bond, the sureties on the first bond are discharged from
any misconduct of the principal after the new bond is accepted and
filed ; if given in compliance with an order of court made " when-
ever it shall appear necessary and proper," ^ the new bond is simply
cumulative, and the old sureties remain liable. In some States a
surety on an administration bond is entitled to be re- Surety may be
lieved from future liability under it on his own motion, [jabjiitv for'"
by simply alleging that he conceives himself to be en- fauiTbv'^hL'^^'
dangered by his suretyship, without making any proof own motion.
whatever ; * while in others proof is required of one or more of the
facts named in the statute as authorizing such surety's release.^

Before any such order can be made, there must be notice or
citation to, or an appearance by, the administrator ; ^ but he can-
not be cited for the purpose of accounting and taking

Notice must

bond for the balance that may be found in his hands." be given to the

m T J- • 1 T !• ji i administrator.

ihe proper relief is an order directmg the executor
or administrator to give a new bond with additional sureties, or
to revoke, in default thereof, the letters granted, and appoint an
administrator de bonis non.^ An order to pay the money found

1 State V. Berning, 74 Mo. 87, 97, af- 242, 245 ; Jones v. Ritter, 56 Ala. 270,
firming 6 Mo. App. 105 ; Lewis y. Gambs, 280; People v. Curry, 59 111. 35; Allen
0 Mo. App. 138, 141. V. Sanders, 34 N. J. Eq. 203.

2 Brooks i'. Whitmore, 1-30 Mass. .3.56. & Valcourt v. Sessions, 30 Ark. 515 ;

3 Wood V. Williams, 01 Mo. G3 ; State Sanders v. Edwards, 29 La. An. 696 ; see
zj. Wulff, 10 Mo. App. 95, 98 (holding the Missouri cases, supra, p. 548, note 4;
provision discharging former sureties in- Succession of Bouttc, 32 La. An. 556 ;
applicable to the public administrator). Sifford ;-. Morrison, 63 Md. 14.

■1 De Lane's Case, 2 Brev. 167 (Bay, 6 Gilliam i-. McJunken, 2 S. C. 442, 440.

J., dissenting) ; affirmed in McKay v. ' Waterman v. Bigham, 2 Hill, (S. C.)

Donald, 8 Rich. L. 331 ; Lewis v. Watson, 512.

3 Redf. 43; Johnson v. Fuquay, 1 Dana, ^ Owens v. Walker, 2 Strobh. Eq. 289;

614 ; Harrison v. Turbeville, 2 Humph. Waterman v. Bigham, supra ; Gilliam v.

550 THE ADMINISTRATION BOND. § 255

to be due from the administrator into court, is self-evidently void,
as well as a commitment for contempt of court in refusing to obey
such order.i But if the surety himself be appointed administrator
de bonis non, his liability on the bond constitutes a debt which
becomes assets in his hands, although the amount has not been
fixed by any account or judgment rendered, and for which his
sureties are liable.^

If upon revocation of the letters of an administrator for want
of a new bond ordered on the motion of his surety, letters de bonis
Original sure- Hon be granted to the same person, the former sure-
iruie'formef^ tics are thereby fully discharged, because the adminis-
be'appotiueT trator and his successor are the same person, so that
de bonis non. there Can be no accounting between the old and the
new administration, and it must be presumed that the administra-
tor de bonis non has received from himself all the assets belonging
, , to the estate.^ But where a new bond is given, and

How liable if . . f . ,. .,.

there is no rev- there is no rcvocation of authority, the liability con-

OCation of au- .. •,i in n • J^ !• -I

thority, but a tmucs HI the old as well as in the new sureties, and
new ou . • j^ g^^i^ case, as between themselves, the new sureties
are primarily, the old collaterally liable. If the first sureties are
made to pay, they are entitled to be reimbursed in full from the
second sureties ; but if these pay, they are not entitled to recover
from the former. And hence, if the former sureties are released,
the latter are not thereby affected ; but if the latter are released,
this will discharge the former also.* In Tennessee it is held that
ill such case the second set of sureties are primarily liable to the

McJunken, supra ; Morgan v. Dodge, 44 sureties on the first bond are therebj' re-

N. H. 255, with a collection of numerous leased : Modawell v. Hudson, 80 Ala. 265.

autliorities. * Field v. Pelot, 1 McMullen Eq. 309,

1 Gilliam r. McJunken, s?(pm. 387. But see dissenting opinionb of Clian-

2 Choate v. Thorndyke, 138 Mass. 371. cellors Dunkin and Johnson, both hold-

3 Enicks v. Powell, 2 Strobh Eq. 196, ing that in such case the sureties on the
206 ; Whitworth v. Oliver, .39 Ala. 286 ; first bond were discharged : p. 389 et seq.
Steele v. Graves, 68 Ala. 17, 21 ; Lingle v. To the same effect, Trimmier v. Trail, 2
Cook, 32 Gratt. 262. It was held in Ala- Bai. L. 480, 486 ; Joyner v. Cooper, 2
baraa, that where an administrator re- Bai. L. 199; People v. Curry, 59 111. 35;
signed, and was again appointed, with People v. Lott, 27 111. 215. Tiie second
new sureties, the beneficiaries may hold bond becomes the primary security, even
either set of sureties for a balance decreed to such of the sureties on the first bond
against him for the first administration ; as did not petition ; but where, by an
but where, both administrations being set- error, the balance is shown to be much
tied on the same day, the balance ascer- smaller than the true balance on the ap-
tained on the settlement of the first admin- plication for new security, the first bond
istration is carried, at the instance of the is primarily liable to the extent of such
distributees, as a debt into the second, the error: Bobo v. Vaiden, 20 S. C. 27L

§ 255 LIABILITY OF SURETIES. 651

extent of their bond, and, if they prove insufficient, the first sure-
ties arc lialjle for any conversion before their release ; the second
sureties account first for any default after their suretyship, then
for any that may have been committed before.^ In Illinois the
sureties may, if the executor or* administrator, on their motion,
give a new bond relating back to the time of the original grant of
letters, be discharged from all liability for past as well as future
acts ; but unless the new bond be given in such form, the release
can only be as to future default.^ In the absence of statutory
provisions on the subject, the surety discharged from further lia-
bility is clearly liable for all breaches of the bond during the time
he was surety .^ In Virginia and West Virginia the statute pro-
vides that a new bond, without any express provision therein to
that effect, shall bind the obligors therein to indemnify the sure-
ties in the former bond against all loss or damage in consequence
of executing the former bond.'*

It is sometimes of importance to ascertain in what capacity a
principal, who has given bond as executor or administrator, and
also as guardian, trustee, or other fiduciary, with different sure-
ties, is chargeable with assets. In such case it is to be remem-
bered that, where the obligation to pay and the right to receive
are united in the same person, the law operates the appropriation
of the fund to the discharge of the debt.^ Hence, where an ad-
ministrator who is also guardian of a minor distributee, has made
final settlement, and there is an order directing the payment of
the distributive shares, such order will operate to charge him in
his capacity as guardian, and relieve his sureties on the adminis-
tration bond ;^ but until such final settlement is made, or the as-
sets accounted for, the former sureties remain liable.' But where
an administrator has no further use for assets as such, and is also
guardian of a distributee, he will be treated as holding them as
o-uardian, even if he has not made final settlement.^ An insolvent
fiduciary cannot, however, transfer his indebtedness in one, to him-
self in another capacity, so as to exonerate one set of sureties and
charge another, without some act in manifestation of the transfer.^

1 Morris r. Morris, 9 Heisk. 814. ^ Ruffin v. Harrison, supra, affirmed in

2 North, Prob. Pr.'§§ 262, 263; People s. c. 86 N. C. 190 ; Bell v. People, 94 111.
V. Lott, supra ; People v. Curry, supra. 230 ; Seegar v. Betton, 6 Har. & J. 162.

3 MeKim v. Blake, 132 Mass. 343. "^ Ruffin v. Harrison, 81 N. C. 208, 217.

4 Lingle v. Cook, 32 Gratt. 262, 274; ^ United States v. May, 4 Mack. 4,
Hooper v. Hooper, 29 W. Va. 276, 299. citinti numerous Maryland cases.

5 Ruffin V. Harrison, 81 N. C. 208, 212, » See post, § 311, note at close of
citing earlier cases. section.

552

THE ADMINISTRATION BOND.

§256

§ 256. Technical Execution of the Bond. — The form in which
bonds are to be taken from executors and administrators is gen-
erally prescribed by statute, and errors may be avoided by the
exercise of ordinary care and attention on the part of the probate
Bonds con- judgc or clcrk. In some instances, these bonds have
ag^nst^oua-^ ^^Gn construcd with technical strictness against the
s^^®* obligees, and held void as statutory bonds where they

deviated from the statutory form ; i but the general rule is to
General rule to construc them vigorously against the obligors, and
strictly against witli the utmost liberality in f aver of the parties to be
0 igors. protected by them.^ Bonds have been held good and

sufficient although not signed by the administrator ^ (but this
must not be understood as applying to an ordinary administration
bond, which is void even as to the sureties when not sigued by the
principal^) ; although the names of the sureties did not appear in

^ As in the cases of McWilliams v.
Hopkins, 4 Rawle, 382; Bradley v. Com-
monwealth, 31 Pa. St. 522; Picquet, Ap-
pellant, 5 Pick. 65, and Small v. Common-
wealth, 8 Pa. St. 101, cited under § 253,
ante ; also Arnold v. Babbit, 5 J. J. Marsh.
665 ; Cowling v. Nansemond Justice.'', 6
Rand. 349, holding that the omission of
the names of the obligees, of the executor,
and of the court made the bond fatally de-
fective ; Koberts v. Colvin, 3 Gratt. 358, de-
ciding that no action can be brought on an
administrator's bond containing no pro-
vision for the benefit of creditors ; Frazier
V. Frazier, 2 Leigh, 642, and Walker v.
Crosland, 3 Rich. Eq. 23, holding the bond
of an administrator with the will annexed
in the form of an ordinary administrator's
bond, containing no reference to the will,
bad as a statutory bond ; to same effect,
Frye v. Crockett, 77 Me. 157 ; also Morrow
V. Peyton, 8 Leigh, 54. In some of these
cases it is intimated that the bonds were
nevertheless good common law bonds.
But in Ohio bends are construed with the
utmost rigor against the obligees ; Ran-
ney, J., in McGovney v. State, 20 Ohio, 93,
which was a suit on an executor's bond,
adopts and indorses the language of the
majority of the court in State v. Medary,
17 Ohio, 554, 565: "The bond spealcs
for itself, and the law is that it shall so
speak, and that the liability of sureties is
limited to the exact letter of the bond.
Sureties stand upon the words of the

bond, and if the words will not make them
liable, nothing can. There is no construc-
tion, no equity against sureties. If the
bond cannot have effect according to its
exact words, the law does not authorize
the court to give it effect in some other
way, in order that it may prevail." It
was accordingly held that parol evidence
was inadmissible to show that the name
of the testator was inserted in the bond
as James L. Findley instead of Joseph L.
Findley by a mistake of the clerk, and
that on account of the variance there
could be no recovery under the bond.
The decision in the case of State v.
Medary, referred to above, was rendered
against the dis;^ent of Hitchcock, J., who
contended for a more liberal construction,
and cited Gardener v. Woodyear, 1 Oluo,
170, State v. Findley, 10 Ohio, 61, and
Reynolds v. Rogers, 5 Ohio, 169, 176, in
support of his position and as inconsistent
with that of the majority opinion.

2 Rose V. Winn, 51 Tex. 545 ; Ordinary
V. Cooley, 30 N. J. L. 179; Gerould v.
Wilson, 81 N. Y. 573, 577.

3 Where a new surety was required, a
bond reciting the former bond and exe-
cuted by the single new surety was held to
be in proper form : Patullo's Case, Tuck.
140. The bond may be signed before
the appointment is made : Morris v. Chi-
cago, R. L & P. R. R., 65 Iowa, 727.

* Wood V. Washburn, 2 Pick. 24.

256

TECHNICAL EXECUTION OF THE BOND.

'>5Z

the body of tlie bond,' when no amount of penalty is mentioned ;2
or the name of the decedent is omitted ;3 and a blank left in a bond
at the time of signing may afterward, before approval or accept-
ance, be filled in.* And an executor's, guardian's, or administra-
tor's bond will be obligatory and effective, although its conditions
arc not strictly in accordance with the requirements of the statute,
but provide, in different and more general terms, for the faithful
execution of the trust.^ Thus, a bond conditioned that the exec-
utor shall administer according to the tvill was held valid :^ so a
bond of an administrator de bonis non expressed to be " with the
will annexed," although otherwise in the form of an ordinary ad-
ministration bond ;'' and where a residuary legatee gave the bond
as executor, containing conditions not required of a residuary
legatee and omitting an important condition required by law, it
■was held that this was a good common law bond, and sufficient to
support the grant of letters.^ It is also held that a bond payable

1 If the sureties signed, sealed, and
delivered it, they are bound : Joyner r.
Cooper, 2 Bai. L. 199, resting on tlie au-
thority of Stone V. Wilson, 4 McCord,
203.

2 In such case the bond will be con-
strued with reference to the law in pursu-
ance to which it is given, and the sureties
are liable for the amount for which the law
directs such bonds to be given. And it is
immaterial that at the time of the execution
of the bond no inventory had been filed :
Soldini r. Ilyanis, 15 La. An. 551, and au-
thorities cited in Mason v. Fuller, 12 La.
An. 68 ; Shaker's App.,43 Pa. St. 83, 87.

'^ Since the grant of letters and the
execution of the bond are parts of one
and the same transaction, the letters may
be referred to, to explain the ambiguity
of the bond in which the name of the
decedent is left out : State v. Trice, 15
Mo. 375.

4 Rev. St. Ohio, 1880, § 6. But in an
official bond the penalty cannot be in-
serted by a third person, in the absence
of the obligor, without express authority
under his hand and seal : State v. Boring,
15 Ohio, 507, approved in Famuiener v.
Anderson, 15 Oh. St. 473.

5 Probate Court v. Strong, 27 Vt. 202 ;
Lanier v. Irvine, 21 Minn. 447 ; Judge of
Probate ;■. Claggett, 36 N. H. 381 ; Pettin-
gill V. rettingill, 60 Me. 411 ; Casoni v.

Jerome, 58 N. Y. 315 ; Ordinary v. Cooley,
30 N. J. L. 179, and authorities ; Hol-
brook V. Bentley, 32 Conn. 502 ; Peebles
V. Watts, 9 Dana, 102; Newton v. Cox,
76 Mo. 352; McFadden v. Ilewett, 78 Me.
24, 28.

•5 Where the statute prescribes that
executors shall give bond " in the same
manner administrators are by law obliged
to be bound," it is not necessary that the
executor's bond should be in the precise
form of an administrator's bond ; and the
condition in the administrator's bond to
" administer according to law " is prop-
erly stated in an executor's bond to
" administer according to the trill," the
law requiring the executor to administer
according to the will : Hall v. Gushing,
9 Pick. 395.

■^ Hartzell v. Commonwealth, 42 Pa.
St. 453.

8 Cleaves v. Dockray, 67 Me. 118, con-
taining a list of authorities in support of
the doctrine, that a bond may be good at
common law although not in conformity
with the statute : Ware r. Jackson, 24
Me. 166 ; Lord v. Lancey, 21 Me. 408 ;
Clap V. Cofran, 7 Mass. 98; Sweetser v.
Hay, 2 Gray, 49; Stephens r. Crawford,
3 Ga. 499 ; Williams v. Shelby, 2 Oreg.
144 ; in such case however, the bond
cannot be sued in the mime of a successor
to the judge to whom it is given : Frye

554 THE ADMINISTRATION BOND. § 256

" to the Governor," instead of, as the statute required, " to the
State," is not for that reason void.^ A bond may be voidable at
the option of the obligees, but binding on the obligors ;2 and one
defective by reason of the mistake or ignorance of the clerk will
be aided in equity as against the sureties.^ So it is said that the
conjunction " or " should be construed as " and," if necessary to
give validity to the bond ; * and that a strict and technical con-
formity to the statute is not essential to the validity of the bond,
if it substantially conform thereto, and does not vary in any mat-
ter to the prejudice of the rights of the party to whom or for whose
benefit it is given.^ Where a bond contains more than the statute
prescribes, the stipulations not required by the statute may be
rejected as surplusage, and the bond still be regarded as a statu-
tory bond, and sued on as such.*^ Although the statute require
two sureties, the bond is valid if signed by only oneJ But the
alteration of an administration bond executed by the principal
and two sureties, by increasing the amount of the penalty with
the consent of the principal, but without the knowledge of the
sureties, discharges the latter ; and the execution of such bond
by two additional sureties who did not know of the alteration is
void.^

V. Crockett, 77 Me. 157 ; the writ in a i Sikes v. Truitt, 4 Jones Eq. 361. To

suit on such a bond may be amendeJ by the same effect, Johnson v. Fuquay, 1

inserting the name of a person as prose- Dana, 514; Wiser y. Blachly, 1 John. Ch.

cutor : Waterman v. Dockray, 70 Me. 607; Farley v. McConnell, 7 Lans. 428,

149. And also in support of tlie proposi- 430.

tion, that a bond is not in all cases void ^ Cohea i\ State, 34 Miss. 179.

as a statutory bond merely because it ^ Armistead v. Bozman, 1 Ired. Eq.

does not in all respects conform to the 117 ; Sikes v, Truitt, supra.
statute: Van Deusen v. Hay ward, 17 * Outlaw r. Farmer, 71 N. C. 31.

Wend. 67; Morse ?'. Hodsdon, 5 Mass. 314; ^ Farley v. McConnell, supra; Casoni

Proprietors of Union Wharf v. Mussey, 48 v. Jerome, 58 N. Y. 315.
Me. 307 ; Commissioners v. Way, 8 Ohio, ^ Woods ?'. State, 10 Mo. 698, citing

103; Postmaster General v. Early, 12 Grant v. Brotherton, 7 Mo. 458, as an-

Wlieat. 136 ; Commonwealth v. Laub, 1 nouncing the doctrine that a bond given

Watts & S. 261 ; Baldwin v. Standish, 7 under a statute is valid, although not in

Cush. 207. To which may be added the words of the statute, unless the stat-

United States v. Hodson, 10 Wall. 395, ute prescribe a form, and declare bonds

witli the authorities there cited. See also not in accordance therewitli void.
McChord v. Fisher, 13 B. Monroe, 193, in 7 Steele v. Tutwiler, 68 Ala. 107.

which it is held that, although letters ^ The first two sureties were dis-

granted in a county which was not the charged by the alteration of the bond

intestate's domicil at the time of his without tiieir consent; the last two, be-

death, and in which he had no personal cause their signing was upon the under-

property, were void, yet the bond given standing tiiat they were bound only with

by an administrator so appointed was a tlie first two : Howe v. Peabody, 2 Gray,

good bond at common law. 556.

§ 257 AMOUNT OF THE PENALTY. 655

§ 257. Amount of the Penalty. — The amount in which security
is to be given is necessarily left to the discretion of the probate
court, the statutes generally fixing a minimum only, Amouut of
below which the amount must not be ordered. In discretion of
Louisiana the amount of the bond is fixed by the law above tiie
at one fourth beyond the estimated value of the mov- J^"!sc"Xd by
ables and immovables, and of the credits comprised statute.
in the inventory exclusive of bad debts ; ^ and in Mississippi in a
penalty at least equal in value to such estate as the law deter-
mines shall be under his charge ; ^ in the other States, at double
the value of the personal property of any kind,^ including the
proceeds of sale of real estate, where the power to sell is given
by will, which may come into the hands of the executor or
administrator by virtue of his office.* The clerk and court tak-
ing the bond are required to satisfy themselves of the Duties of the
solvency of the sureties offered, and for this purpose the boud.
may examine the sureties themselves, the principals, or any other
person, under oath ; and the bond should not be accepted unless
signed by a sufficient number of sureties who appear to be per-
fectly solvent, owning property in excess of their debts and
liabilities, and of what may be exempt from execution under the
law ; ^ and the aggregate amount of the property so owned by the

^ Civ. Code, art. 1041 ; Voorhies, Kev. may compel him to give security, &c. in

St. § 1477 ; Feray's Succession, 31 La. sucli sums, and witli sucli sureties, as they

An. 727. may think reasonable. Wlien such a

2 Ellis V. Witty, 63 Miss. 117 ; Code, step is taken, it is the duty of the court

1880, § 1995. to have regard to the will, and especially

^ See as to rule in California : Kidd's to the value of the estate, whether real

Estate, Myr. 239. New York : Sutton v. or personal ; and when the will contains

Weeks, 6 Kedf. 353. By " value " is a power to sell real estate for payment of

meant the value as estimated by the court: debts or for other purposes, to exact bail

Williams v. Verne, 68 Tex. 414, 418. sufficiently large to cover tlie amount

* In the construction of wills, as in arising from the sale of the real as well as
equity, land directed to be sold and con- the personal property. So on the death
verted into money, is treated as money : of the executor, or when, being miwilling
Craig V. Leslie, 3 Wheat. 563, 577 ; Alii- or unable to comply with the order of the
son V. Wilson, 13 Serg. & K. 330 ; Gray v. court, he is dismissed, the same course
Smith, 3 Watts, 289. Rogers, J., in Com- may and ouglit to be pursued as regards
monwealth v. Forne}', says : " As an the administrator cum testamento annexo."
executor is appointed on a special trust 3 W. & S. 353, 355 et seq. So where the
and confidence reposed in him by the executor has power to charge the whole
testator, he is not required, in the first estate, the bond should be determined by
instance, to give security for the faithful the value of the whole estate, real and
execution of the trust. But as the con- personal: Ellis v. Witty, 63 Miss. 117.
fidence of the testator maybe abused, on ^ But the judge cannot arbitrarily re-
complaint that the executor is likely to jcct a bond as to the sufficiency of which
prove insolvent, &c., the orphan's court no reasonable doubt exists : Carpenter v.

556

THE ADMINISTRATION BOND.

§257

several sureties should equal at least the penalty of the bond.i
It is generally required that the sureties be inliabitants of the
State ; ^ and certain classes of persons are in some States for-
bidden from being received as sureties on administration bonds.^
But such provisions are considered directory merely, and not
designed to invalidate the bond where the law is disregarded.*
Under the English Probate Act,^ the court or registrar taking
bond is authorized to take more bonds than one, " so as to limit
the liability of any surety to such amount as the court or district
registrar shall think reasonable." This seems a wise and highly
beneficial measure, commending itself to the favorable considera-
tion of the legislative authorities, init seems not, thus far, to have
received any attention or favor in America.^

Prcli.ite Judge, 48 Mich. 318. Sureties
on tlie bond wlio are legatees, with no
property except as derived from the will,
are not sufficient : Ellis i'. Witty, 63 Miss.
117, 120.

1 But the acceptance of an insolvent
surety will not aifect tlie validity of the
appointment or the acts of the adminis-
trator : Herriman v. Janney, 31 La. An.
276, 280 ; nor the fact that the bond is
insufficient: Mumford v. Hall, 25 Minn.
347, 353.

2 See the statutory provisions on this
subject in the several States. But the
non-residence of the sureties, or of a
sole surety, is not a sufficient cause to
vitiate the sale of lands for the payment
of debts, after consummation and confirm-
ance: Johnson v. Clark, 18 Kans. 157, 167;
and in Massachusetts, where a bond was
signed by two inhabitants of the State
and one who was described as an inhab-
itant of another State, it was held suffi-
cient, if approved and accepted by the
probate court, to qualify the administra-
tor to act : Clarke v. Chapin, 7 Allen,
425 et seq. Nor is their non-residence in
the county where application is made a
sufficient reason for refusing administra-
tion : Barksdale r. Cobb, 16 Ga. 13. And
in South Carolina sureties are not re-
quired to be resident in the State : Jones
V. Jones, 12 Rich. L. 623. Nor in Ken-
tucky : Rutherford v. Clark, 4 Bush, 27.

3 So in Missouri no judge of probate,
sheriff, marshal, clerk of court, or deputy
of either, and no attorney at law, shall be
taken as security in any bond required

iu the probate court : Rev. St. 1870, § 21.
The reason for excluding the officers
mentioned is patent enough ; attorneys
at law, however, seem to be discriminated
against rather as a protection to tliem
from tiie annoyance of their clients than
from motives of public polic}'.

* Hicks V. Ciiouteau, 12 Mo. 341.

5 20 & 21 Vict. c. 77, § 82.

6 In Baldwin v. Standish, 7 Cush. 207,
and People v. Lott, 27 111. 215, the appel-
late courts criticise the approval, by the
probate court, of several smaller bonds
in lieu of one bond of the required amount,
but held the bonds given to be valid. It
is not clear why, if they were valid stat-
utory bonds, the practice of taking such
should be discouraged. It may be un-
wise, of course, to permit courts of special
jurisdiction, created by statute, to tran-
scend tlie limits of their statutory powers ;
anil in tliis view the substitution of several
smaller bonds for the one bond required
by tlie statute, is against the policy of
the law. But probate tribunals are more
keenly aware, probably, than appellate
courts, of the hardships connected with
the giving of bonds by executors, admin-
istrators, and guardians ; and how much
more rational it would be to permit the
taking of bonds in which the surety is
allowed to limit his liability to an amount
which he might feel able to lose without
ruin to himself and his family, — pro-
vided sucli bonds aggregate the amount
deemed sufficient to protect the estate un-
der administration, — rather than to insist
on single bonds, exceeding in amount, in

§ 258

JOINT OR SEPARATE BONDS.

557

§ 258. Joint or Separate Bonds. — When tliGt'C are several
executors or administrators, they may, in some of the States,

many cases, the total estate of eacli single
surety, ami thus compel them to assume
the risk of being reduced from affluence
to poverty. The statute alluded to in
tiic text is designed to afford the relief
by legislation which the probate judges
in the cases mentioned above undertook
to accomplish without legislative sanc-
tion, — that of allowing tlie principal to
give two, three, or even more bonds, in
limited amounts, aggregating, however,
the total penalty required, who might
find it impossible to obtain, or against
his conscience to ask, sureties to stand
each for tlie wliole amount.

Other Englisli statutes have been en-
acted, the principle of wjiich might with
profit be extended to the American law
toucliing administration bonds. Thus, by
tlie act of G & 7 Wm. IV. c. 28, it was
provided that deposits of stock or ex-
chequer bills might be made in lieu of
giving security by personal bonds. Why
could not collateral security be received
in America, — government, State, or other
safe bonds, notes secured, or even money,
to be deposited in the county treasury
and held as long as necessary to protect
the estate under administration ? or even
the administrator's or guardian's recog-
nizance, to operate as a lien on liis real
estate, if sufficient, until disciiarged by
order of the court ? This would consti-
tute unexceptional security, if regulated
by proper legislation, and would secure
the services of the most efficient and trust-
worthy persons, who, under the existing
law, refuse to serve in any fiduciary ca-
pacity, because they deem it both unwise
and unjust to their friends to ask them
to become personally liable on a bond.

The statute of 1 & 2 Vict. c. 61, pro-
viding for the acceptance of the guaranty
of the Guaranty Societ}', in lieu of bonds
veith personal sureties, from any person
required by virtue of his office to give
bond, was followed by a number of simi-
lar enactments in England and Canada,
and within a few years past Surety In-
surance Companies have been incorpo-
rated in many of the States, enabling
executors, administrators, curators, guar-
dians, &c. to assume their trusts upon

giving the bond or guaranty of a com-
pany organized and ciiartered to this
end. The rapid increase of tlie number
of tliese corporations, tlie readiness witii
which the State legislatures give them
legal existence, (they are recognized by
law in California, Connecticut, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massa-
ciuisetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska,
New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Penn-
sylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and
perhaps other States,) and tiie favor which
they enjoy at the hands of the public,
are sufficient evidence that they meet a
deeply felt want and offer a remedy for
a grievous evil. Giving bond for faitlif ul
and proper administration of estates held
in trust is by tiiem reduced to a business
question, and no longer involves the haz-
ard of ruin to confiding and generous
friends and their families ; honest, capa-
ble business men are enabled to assume
the management of trust estates without
placing themselves imder galling obliga-
tions to bondsmen, the contemplation of
wliich has hitherto deterred the very best
class of men from becoming trustees.

But the greatest benefit arising out of
the operation of Surety Insurance Com-
panies lies in the fact, — not that they
offer tiie most certain indemnity to those
whose interests have suffered in conse-
quence of lack of integrity or skill on the
part of trustees, which they unquestion-
ably do (see remarks of the President of
the High Court of Justice in Carpenter ?;.
Solicitor, L. R. 7 P. D. 23.5), — but that
they tend very greatly to prevent the
occurrence of defalcations and maladmin-
istrations. It is their interest, and they
provide themselves with the means, to
keep under surveillance and control the
conduct of the executor or guardian for
whom they stand as surety, to an extent
beyond the power of courts, personal
sureties, or parties in interest. No class
of persons will hail with profounder grati-
fication the success of these corporations,
than courts of testamentary jurisdiction,
as furnishing them with the most effi-
cient assistance in protecting the interest
of those over whom their jurisdiction
extends.

558 THE ADMINISTRATION BOND. § 258

Joint executors citlier give One joint bond, or each a separate bond.^
]"ornt,^oreach a Where separate bonds are given, each must be in a
separate bond. pQjjrj|f;j ^g high as that required for a joint bond,
eaciMmfst'^ije because each executor or administrator is lawfully
ainomit"of the entitled to take into possession and administer any
penalty. qj. g}! Qf ^j^g asscts, and the court cannot control

Sah^pHucSs them in this right.2 But if a joint bond be given,
are liable to the qyqyi though cxcmpt in the will from giving bond, its

obligees for all or e o 7

assets coming effect is to make them both liable to the obligees, as

to their joint .

possession. trustccs for Creditors and others havnig an interest in
the estate, to the extent of the assets vs'hich come into their joint
possession.^ At common law, under which executors were not
required to give bond, an executor was not liable for the mal-
feasance of a co-executor, unless it could be shown that he had
concurred therein, or that there had been joint possession of the
estate, from which it would be inferred that one executor had
yielded to the control of the other, who squandered it.* The same
rule is adhered to in America as to co-administrators

Not as T • •

executors, and co-cxccutors ; the executor or administrator, as
such, is not liable for waste committed by his co-executor, nor for
assets which the latter received and misapplied, without his own
knowledge or fault.^ But it is held in most States that the effect
but as sureties of giving a joiiit boud is to make the principals liable
for each other. ^^^ g^p|-j other as suretics, so long as the joint admin-
istration continues;^ while in some of them this doctrine is
denied, and it is asserted that they are jointly liable for joint
acts, and each separately liable for separate acts, because they
signed as principals, and not as sureties.^ The principals are

1 As controlled by statutory provisions ^ Brazier v. Clark, 5 Pick. 96; New-

on this subject in the several States. comb v. Williams, 9 Mete. (Mass.) 525;

^ See post, %Sii!) et srq. Towne v. Ammidown, 20 Pick. 535 i

3 Ames v'. Armstrong, 106 Mass. 15 ; Boyd r. Boyd, 1 Watts, 365 ; Clarke v.

Braxton v. State, 25 Ind. 82 ; Prichard v. State. 6 Gill & J. 288 ; Caskie v. Harri-

State, 34 Ind. 137 ; Moore v. State, 49 son, 76 Va. 85, 93 ; Green v. Hamberry,

Ind. 558 ; in this case, Buskirk, C. J., 2 Brock. 403, 420 ; Morrow v. Peyton, 8

dissenting, says, "In my opinion, the Leigh, 54 ; Hooper ». Hooper, 29 W, Va.

cases of Braxton v. State, and Prichard 276, 299; Eckert v. Myers, 15 N. East.

V. State, should be squarely overruled " : (Oliio), 862.

p 5(32. " But the sureties are, of course, lia-

* Wms. Ex. [1820] et seq. ; post, § 348. ble for the joint acts of both, and the

5 State V. Wyant, 67 Ind. 25, 33, cit- separate acts of each : Sandford, Ch.,

ing Call V. Ewing, 1 Blackf. 301, Ray v. in Kirby >.\ Turner, reported in Hopkins

Doughty, 4 Blackf. 115, and Davis v. Ch. 309; and see State i'. Wyant, supra,

Walford, 2 Ind. 88 quoting the dissenting opinion of Buskirk,

§ 259 APPROVAL AND CUSTODY OF BONDS. 559

bound, however, to protect the joint sureties from the conse-
quences of each other's acts ; ^ but the sureties in a joint admin-
istration bond are not liable to one of the joint administrators
for the default of the other.^ An anonymous case is mentioned
in a Pennsylvania report, where an insolvent administrator was
allowed to recover against his own sureties for the benefit of the
creditors of the estate ; but the bond was not an administration
bond, and the case does not affect the principle under con-
sideration.^

§ 259. Approval and Custody of Bonds. — The administration
bond must be approved and attested or certified by the court,
judge, or clerk taking the same ; if taken by the judge ^^^^.^^ ^^ ^^^^^^
or clerk in vacation, it should be reported to and in approving

. bonds.

approved by the court at its next regular term ; it
should be recorded in a book kept for that purpose, and the origi-
nal filed with the papers pertaining to the estate, and a careful
compliance with the requirements of the statute with reference to
the taking of bonds is the duty of judges and clerks. But, while
the courts of some States require a strict and techni- jr„re strict in
cal adlierenceto the directions of the statute, and hold some states

' _ tlian in others.

bonds insufficient which are not taken in conformity
therewith,* these formalities are generally deemed to be direc-
tory only, and a variance from thein in matters not essential to
the nature of the contract of the sureties will not affect the valid-
ity of the bond.^ An administrator's bond is an official document,
and cannot be removed from the office ; if needed as evidence, a

C. J., in Moore v. The State, 49 Ind. 558, 3 Gibson, C. J., in Wolfinger v. Fors-

" He executed tlie bond as a principal, man, 6 Pa. St. 294.

and not as a surety, and he cannot be * Mathews v. Patterson, 42 Me. 257,

held liable as a surety," and overruling holding that each jirobate bond must be

the cases of Braxton v. State, supra, specifically acted on by tlie probate judge,

Pritchard v. State, supra, and Moore ;•. as required by tlie statute; see an/c, § 25(3.

State, supra, to the extent of announcing ^ Thus it is held in Missouri, that an

that under the statute of Indiana there administrator's bond is valid, tliough not

can be no joint administration bond, and approved by the court : James v. Dixon,

where such a one is given it will be 21 Mo. 538; Henry v. State, 9 Mo. 778;

treated as the separate bond of each one State v. Farmer, 54 Mo. 439 : Brown v.

of the principals. "Weatherby, 71 Mo. 152. So in Wiscon-

1 Little V. Knox, 15 Ala. 57G ; Dobyns sin : Cameron v. Cameron, 15 Wis. 1. In
V. McGovern, 15 Mo. 662 ; Stephens v. Georgia : Ford v. Adams, 43 Ga. 340. In
Taylor, 62 Ala. 269 ; Eckert v. Myers, 15 Indiana : State v. Chrisman, 2 Ind. 126.
N. East. (Ohio), 862. In Alabama it was held tliat it is suffi-

2 Nanz V. Oakley, 37 Hun, 495 ; Hoell cient to raise a violent, if not a conclusive,
V. Blanchard, 4Desaus. 21. But see State presumption that the bond was received
V, Wyant, supra. by the court as the security required by

560 THE ADMINISTRATION BOND. § 260

certified copy is sufficient.^ If it as well as the record thereof is
lost or destroyed, it may be substituted as the record of a probate
court.2

§ 260. Special Bonds. — In somc of the States special bonds
are required to be given whenever it becomes necessary to sell
Bond to sell real estate for the payment of debts or legacies, upon
real estate. ^^iq theory that the ordinary administration bond cov-
ers only the personal estate coming into the hands of the executor
or administrator. This subject is fully considered in connection
with the sale of real estate by order of the probate court, to which,
in order to avoid repetition, reference is hereby made.^ It appears
from tlie authorities there cited, that in such case the sureties on
the regular administration bond are not liable for the misapplica-
tion or loss of the funds arising from the sale of lands.*

Where a will makes the same person executor and trustee, the
Executor's cxccutor's bond cannot be construed as conditioned
ext'enciTothe' for the performance of the duties belonging to the
acts of the same trustcc ; a Separate bond should in such case be given

person as ^

trustee. aS truStCC.^

It appears from a former chapter ^ that residuary legatees may
in some States dispense with the necessity of official administra-
Bond of resid- tiou by giving bond to pay any debts that may be due
uary legatee. ^^001 the tcstator, and legacies. Such bonds, when
given by an executor who is also the sole or residuary legatee,
operate as a conclusive admission of assets, because it is condi-
tioned that the debts shall be paid, and are strongly discouraged
in a New Hampshire case."

the statute, when it is found upon the of substitution is not conclusive as to the

files without any evidence accompanying execution of the bond,

it tliat it has been rejected, and that the ^ Pust, § 472.

principal has proceeded to execute the * See also Robinson v. Millard, 133

duties of his office : McClure r. Coklough, Mass. 2-36, denying the liability, although

5 Ala. 05, 72, resting upon the authority the administrator charged himself in his

of Bank of United States v. Dandridge, administration account; Probate Court u.

12 Wheat. 64, and Apthorp v. North, 14 Hazard, 13 R. I. 3, where the sale was

Mass. 167. under a power in the will, and nuraer-

1 Miller v. Gee, 4 Ala. 359. ous authorities on the subject are re-

2 Tanner v. Mills, 50 Ala. 356. A min- viewed.

ute entry of the court, reciting the ap- ^ Hinds v. Hinds, 85 Ind. 312, 315.

pointment of tlie administrator, the ap- ^ Ante, § 202.

proval of the bond, its amount, and the ^ Schoul. Ex. § 138; Morgan r. Dodge,

names of the sureties, is competent evi- 44 N. H. 255. See authorities under

dence, and, if not rebutted, sufficient to § 202.

authorize the substitution. But a decree

I 261 PETITION FOR THE GRANT. 561

CHxVPTER XXVIII.

OP THE PROCEDURE IN OBTAINING LETTERS AND QUALIFYING FOR

THE OFFICE.

§ 261, The Petition for the Grant of Letters Testamentary or of
Administration. — There was occasion in a former chapter ^ to
point out the diversity of decisions upon the question Rule requiring
of the validity or conclusiveness of the judgments and faefstobc"''
decrees of probate courts, and to show that in some of ^|IJ,''™fi;y''J^e
the States these are assailable in collateral proceed- record,
ings, and will be held void unless the record recites all the facts
upon which the jurisdictional power of the court to render them
depends. In these States the rule is stated to be, that the record
must show the facts giving jurisdiction, or the judgment rendered

will be held void.^ In the majority of States, how- Relaxed in

,..,... .,■■ most States, and

ever, the rule is less strmgent, and jurisdiction will jurisdiction
be either presumed or inferred from such facts as ^' coiTatera"^
may be stated, or from the judgment or decree itself.^ n^^^jj^-'f^g.
So, for instance, the statement in the petition refer- ment rendered
rinse to the decedent as "late of" a countv named, is held a suffi-
cient averment of the decedent's domicil in such county at the

1 On the Nature of Probate Courts in under a sale by virtue of a surrofjate's
America, ch. xv., and especially §§ 145, order, it must be affirmatively sliown that
146. an account of the personal estate and of

2 Vick V. Vicksburg, 1 How. (Miss.) the debts was presented to the surrogate :
879,439. It was held in tliis case that the Fnrd r. Walswortli, 15 Wend. 449; in
appointment of an administrator de bonis Kentucky, that an order of tlie county
non with the will annexed was void, be- court setting aside an executor and ap-
cause it did not aver the death or removal pointing an administrator sliould show
of the executor. So it is held in Illinois, the reason for so doing : Bronaugh v.
that, before an estate can be committed to Bronaugh, 7 J. J. Marsh. G21 ; in Mich-
the public administrator, it must affirm- igan, that the appointment of an admin-
atively appear that there is no relative istrator is void, unless the record shows
or creditor in the State, and that the appli- all jurisdictional facts, i. a. the interest of
cation was made by a party in interest, the applicant : Shipman v. Butterfield,
otherwise the proceedings will be non 47 Mich. 487: Besan^on r. Brownson, 39
coram judice, and void: Unknown Heirs Mich. 388, 392.

V.Baker, 23 111. 484. In New York, to 3 See ante, §§ 143, 145; Johnston v.

give validity to a deed of land executed Smith, 25 Hun, 171, 176.
VOL. I. — 36

562 PROCEDFRE IN OBTAINING LETTERS. § 261

time of his death.^ Although the petition must be verified, and
the averment of the applicant " to the best of liis knowledge and
belief" is insufFicient,^ yet objection on this score cannot be made
in a collateral proceeding, and does not avoid the surrogate's
jurisdiction.^ So it has been held, that, while an order appointing
an administrator with the will annexed is defective in not show-
ing that the executor named in the will refused to qualify, it is
still valid if in fact he did so refuse ; and this may be shown to
support the order when collaterally questioned ; * and that prima
facie evidence that unadministered assets remain is sufficient to
support the appointment of an administrator de bonis non with
the will annexed.^

But while it may not in all cases be absolutely necessary to
support the jurisdictional power of the court by a recital of all
Wh sh uid ^^^^ facts, yet it is of the highest importance that a
be shown by rccord should bc made of all facts and circumstances

the record.

which call forth the judicial powers of the court. The

petition of the applicant for letters affords the most convenient

means for proper allegations, so that the finding upon

Contents of . ^ . ^ ^,. ,. . p „ ,

the petition it may Constitute an adjudication ot all the necessary
facts. The averments should include, among other
things, first, the death of the person whose estate is to be admin-
istered, his place of domicil at the time of his death, and whether
he died testate or intestate ; next, if he left a will, that it has been
admitted to probate, and the name or names of the persons nom-
inated executors ; third, if the application be for letters of ad-
ministration with the will annexed, that no executor has been
named, or that all so named have renounced, died, or are incom-
petent to serve, and the circumstances conferring upon the appli-
cant the right to administer the estate ; fourth, the names of the
widow, husband, next of kin, or heirs, as the case may be; fifth,
the nature of the goods, effects, or other estate left by the deceased,
and its estimated value ; sixth, if the application be for letters of
administration generally, the relation or kinship between the de-
ceased and the applicant ; seventh, if the application be for letters

1 Abel V. Love, 17 Cal. 233 ; Town- 2 Sheldon v. Wright, 7 Barb. 39 ; Rod-

send I'. Gordon, 19 Cal. 188. Tliese cases erigas v. East River Inst., 76 N. Y. 316.
were decided under a statute construed ^ Sheldon ?•. Wright, supra ; Pleasants

as requiring jurisdictional facts to be v. Dunkin, 47 Tex. 343.
shown of record to validate the judg- * Peebles r. Watts, 9 Dana. 102.

ment. ^ Pumpelly v. Tinkhara, 23 Barb 321

§ 2G2 NOTICE TO PARTIES ENTITLED TO ADMINISTER. 563

de bonis non, the death, removal, or resignation of the former
executor or administrator, or, if there were several, of all of them;
eighth, if the decedent was at the time of his death a non-resident
of the county, the existence of property within the county, or
other circumstance showing the necessity of administration ; and,
generall)/, wliatever facts may exist which, under the law of the
State and the particular circumstances, may have a bearing upon
the jurisdiction of the court to grant letters, the right of the ap-
plicant to be appointed, and the amount of the bond to be required,
or whether any bond be necessary.^

§ 262. Notice to Parties entitled to Administer. — It has already
been shown ^ that letters granted to a stranger, or to one whose
claim to the administration is inferior to that of an- No letters
other, will be revoked upon the application of one granted with-
having a superior right, unless such applicant had °ii hTving an
been notified or cited before the grant was made. The riorri°ht*^to^'
grant to one of several parties having equal claims ^^*^ applicant.
Avill not, as a general thing, be revoked for the want of notice,
on the application of another, unless there be a statutory require-
ment to give notice or issue citation to all entitled ; but it is evi-
dently wise and just that notice should be given to all who are in
the same degree of preferment, so that the most suitable person
may be selected, and possible disqualifications or objections pointed
out before the appointment is made.^ The petition of the appli-
cant must, as already stated,* show, among the other facts neces-
sary to give the court jurisdiction, his interest in the estate to be
administered ; ° on the same principle, one showing no interest
cannot intervene or object to an appointment.^ And where the
statute provides for citation, it must be served upon all of those

1 The importance of embodying in District and the Circuit Court, that the

the petition all the jurisdictional facts ap- grant of letters in response to tlie petition

pears from the language of Judge Sawyer constituted an adjudication of tiie ques-

in a case decided in the Ninth Judicial tion of residence unassailable collaterally,

District of the United States, arising no matter how clear the fraud or error of

upon the validity of letters granted by a the allegation be : Holmes v. Oregon R.

county court in Oregon. The statute of R. Co., 7 Sawy. 380.

that State provides that the applicant for 2 Ajile, § 243.

letters of administration shall set forth in ^ Schoui. Ex. § 112.

his petition the facts necessary to give •• A'ltc, § 2G1, p. .561, note 2.

the court jurisdiction ; the petition under 5 Shipman r. Rntterfield,47 Mich. 487;

consideration set forth, /. a., that the in- Bcsan^on v. Brownson, 30 Mich. 388, <392.

testate was at the time of his death an ^ Succession of Berfuse, 34 La. An.

inhabitant of the county in which letters 599; Drexel v. Berney, 1 Dem. 163.
were granted, and it is held, both bv the

564

PROCEDURE IN OBTAINING LETTERS.

§ 262

having a prior right, who have not renounced, and must conform
to the requirements of the statute.^ Failure to cite the widow, or
the next of kin, is an irregularity, for which the letters may he
revoked, but does not generally render them absolutely void;^ yet
it has been held to avoid the administration in Louisiana^ and
Georgia.* But one having such notice as would be conveyed by
the statutory mode of service, cannot complain that the statute
was not observed.^

All parties to whom citation or notice is given, or who have a
Such parties beneficial interest in the estate to be administered,
may appear and oppose the appointment of a particu-
lar applicant ; and the interest giving such a person
a standing in court may be shown at the hearing,
without having been previously adjudicated.^
Time within . The statutc, in some of the States, prescribes a
ktratLn'wiu' limitation to the right of granting administration in
be granted. ^ givcu number of years after the decedent's death.'^

Provision is made in Massachusetts, that, upon due notice to
„ ,. , , legatees and creditors, letters testamentary may be

Notice to lega- " ' j j

tees of appiica- granted to an executor without sureties on his bond ;

tion for letters
testamentary
witliout bond.

have the right
to appear and
be heard upon
the application
for letters.

and it is held that publication in the newspaper of
the executor's request is sufficient notice, although a
minor is interested who has no guardian.^

1 Hence, if the statute require the ap-
plicant to pray for the appuintment of
the petitioner, a citation conforming to an
application praying for tlie appointment
of tlie public administrator (not petition-
ing) is insufficient : Batchelor v. Batch-
elor, 1 Dem. 209, 211 ; s. c. in 64 How.
Pr. 350.

^ Kelly V. West, 80 N. Y. 139, 145;
Sheldon v. Wright, 7 Barb. 39 ; James v.
Adams, 22 How. Pr. 409.

^ King V. Lastrapes, 13 La. An. 582.

* Torrance v. McDougald, 12 Ga.
526.

5 Davis V. Smith, 58 N. H. 16.

6 Thus, a natural child pretending to
have been legally acknowledged by her
deceased parent can oppose the applica-
tion of collateral heirs for the administra-
tion of the succession ; and the proof of
parentage and acknowledgment may be
made on trial of the opposition in tlie
application for administration: Succession

of HcTiert, 33 La. An. 1099. And see
post, § 263.

'' In Connecticut administration can-
not be granted after seven years from the
death of the intestate ; but a will may
be proved at any time within ten years
after the testator's death : Lawrence's
Appeal, 49 Conn. 411, 422. In Massa-
chusetts, where administration may be
granted more than twenty j'cars after
the decedent's death upon projierty which
thereafter first comes to the knowledge
of a person interested therein, if applied
for within five years after it becomes
known, knowledge is not necessarily to
be imputed from the fact that such per-
son was the brother of the intestate and
knew of his death : Parsons v. Spaul-
ding, 130 Mass. 83. In Illinois the limit
is seven years, unless circumstances pre-
vented an earlier application for letters :
Fitzgerald r. Glancy, 49 111. 465, 469.

8 Wells V. Child, 12 Allen, 830.

§ 264 NATURE OF THE DECREE. 565

§ 263. Nature of the Proceeding. — The grant of letters is said
to be a proceeding in rem in the strictest sense,^ and in a contest
for the right of administration there are strictly no proceeding
parties plaintiff or defendant. The applicants are all said to be

IT I 'in rem.

actors, some of whom may withdraw and others come
in at any time during the progress of the cause, even after
appeal.2 Objections to the grant of letters will be Any person
heard from any person claiming under oath to be in- j" ini'iestmay

•' i ° _ be a party.

tercsted. If his right to appear is disputed, the ques-
tion will be decided upon proof,-^ and if it be found that he is a
mere stranger, and not interested as creditor, heir, or legatee, he
cannot be heard, even to object that there arc other persons having
priority over the applicant under the law.* The grant must be
during the term succeeding the publication of notice and citation
by the clerk, where such notice and citation are required ; but
the application may be continued from term to term by order
of the court, without new notice ; parties in interest are bound
to take notice of such continuances.^ This subject is more fully
considered in the chapter on the Nature of American Probate
Courts.^

§ 264. Nature of the Decree, and its Authentication. — Letters
testamentary or of administration can be granted only by the
decree or order of the probate court in term time ; "^ Letters must
but provision is made in most of the States, that dur- proWte court,
ing vacation letters may be issued by the judge or orcjeri^ln^
clerk of the court, which will be ratified by the court vacation.
at the next regular term thereof unless valid objection be made
against the appointee.^ Appointment by the clerk without action
of the court is held to be a ministerial, not a judicial act, and there-
fore its validity may be inquired into collaterally.^ Letters pur-
porting to be granted by the proper authority, in due form, and

1 Quidort v. Pergeaux, 18 N. J. Eq. 472, » Brown v. King, 2 Ind. 520. And

477. wliere in sucli case a person notifies the

■^ Atkins 0. McCormick, 4 Jones L. 274. clerk that lie is a creditor and intends to

3 Burwell v. Shaw, 2 Bradf. 322; Fer- apply for letters as soon as the law per-

ris's Will, Tuck. 15. See ante, p. 5G4, n. 0. mits, this was held not such a contro-

^ Burton v. Burton, 4 Harr. 73. verting of the riglit to administer as was

^ McGehee v. Ragan, 9 Ga. 135. contemplated hy the statute to deny the

6 Ante, § 148. authority of the clerk to appoint.
■^ Lawson v. Mosely, 6 La. An. 700. ^ Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Cragin,

As to public administrators acting without 71 111. 177, 180.

appointment, see ante, § 180.

566 PROCEDURE IN OBTAINING LETTERS. § 264

sealed with the office seal of the court, are good without the signa-
ture of the clerk until set aside for informality.^ But in Louisi-
ana, where the probate judges may appoint administrators of
estates of less value than ioOO without the notice or bond required
in other cases, when no one would give the bond, and clerks are
authorized to administer small successions, it is held that neither
of these provisions authorizes the clerk to appoint administrators.^
And letters cannot be issued by a deputy clerk in his own name.^
The memorandum of the clerk immediately following the entry
of the will of record of the qualifying of the executor, is sufficient
Failure of the fccord evidence of the grant of letters testamentary
thTorderot"'*^ and qualification of the executor ; and the failure of
appoininient the clcrk to rccord letters testamentary as required by

does not vitiate . . . "^ i

letters. the law docs not vitiate his authority.* But the au-

thority of the clerk to appoint administrators does not relieve
them of the necessity of rendering an order in making the ap-
pointment ; and until such order is rendered, the appointment is
invalid, and a party with a better right to such appointment is in
time to present his application.^

Tlie delivery of letters is not necessary.^ The order by the
Appointment proper court, that " R. be and hereby is appointed ad-
Teuel-s aK^not Hiiuistrator on giving proper bond," fixing the amount
delivered. of the boud and the surety, is an absolute, and not a

conditional grant, if the bond be filed on the same day.'^ Posses-
Evidence of sion of letters by the person to whom they purport to
authority. havc been granted, is prima facie proof of delivery ;^
and the proper proof of appointment is the letters of administra-
tion, or a certified copy thereof, or of the order of appointment.^
The words " given under my hand and seal of oflice," with date
and signature of the ordinary, constitute a sufficient authentica-
tion of letters of administration ; ^^ and a clerk's certificate, with
his signature and official seal, is complete evidence of the appoint*
ment ; ^^ but letters not authenticated by the seal of the court

1 Post V. Caulk, 3 Mo. 35. 6 state v. Price, 21 Mo. 434 ; Bow-

2 Wilson I'. Imboden, 8 La. An. 140. man's Appeal, 62 Pa. St. 166.

But see Succession of Picard, infra, reier- 1 Tucker v. Harris, 13 Ga. 1; Hoskins

ring to the act of 1880, authorizing clerks v. Miller, 2 Dev. L. 360.

to issue letters. 8 McNair v. Dodge, 7 Mo. 404; Hensley

8 Stewart v. Cave, 1 Mo. 752. v. Dodge, 7 Mo. 479.

« Wright V. Mongle, 10 Lea, .38. ^ Davis v. Shuler, 14 Fla. 4.38.

& Succession of Picard, 33 La. An. 1° Witzel v. Pierce, 22 Ga. 112.
1135. " Davie v. Stevens, 10 La. An. 496.

§ 265 OATH OF OFFICE. 567

granting them arc inoperative, and not admissible in evidence.^
A slieriff is not by virtue of his office the administrator of any de-
ceased person ; he must first be empowered to act by the probate
court.2 A widow testifying that " she was acting in the capacity
of surviving wife of her deceased luisband," does not thereby prove
that she had properly (pialified to enable her to control the com-
munity estate.^

§ 265. Oath of Office. — The oath of office which executors and
administrators are required to take before entering upon the dis-
charge of their duties is the decisive ceremony cloth- Authority is
ing them with the title to the personal property of the takifig ofTaS'
deceased testator or intestate, and all the authority of office.
and responsibility connected with their office. The refusal of an
executor to take this oath is, even in England, tantamount to a
refusal of the executorship, and must be so recorded. So the
refusal to give bond and take the oath required by the law
amounts to the refusal of the office of administrator.^ The form
of the oath is usually prescribed by statute and may who may ad-
be administered by the judge or clerk of the probate >^""*ter oath.
court ; but this is not essential ; it may be taken before any officer
competent to administer oaths, and transmitted to the probate
court.^ Unless they qualify, neither an executor nor an adminis-
trator has autliority to act ; what they attempt to do as such is
void,^ or the act of an executor de son tortJ

In some States it is necessary for the administrator to take an
additional oath before selling real estate under order of the pro-
bate court. This is treated of in connection with the sale of real
estate for the payment of debts.^

1 Tuck V. Boone, 8 Gill, 187. & Succession of Penny, 13 La. An.

'■^ Hence a judgment entered against 94. The oath may be taken before ap-

a " sheriff as administrator ex officio " pointment : Morris v. Chicago, R. I. & Pac.

cannot bind the estate : Davis v. Shuler, R. R., 65 Iowa, 727.
supra. ^ Moore i'. Ridgeway, 1 B. Mon. 234;

3 Roberts v. Longley, 41 Tex. 454. Carter v. Carter, 10 B. Mon. 327.

* Burnley v. Duke, 1 Rand. 108 ; Miin- '' Ante, ch. xxi.

roe V. James, 4 Munf. 194, 198. 8 Post, § 472.

568

REVOCATION OF LETTERS.

§266

CHAPTER XXIX.

OF THE REVOCATION OP LETTERS TESTAMENTARY AND OP
ADMINISTRATION.

Letters cannot
be questioned
collaterally,

but may be
revoked or
annulled in a
direct pro-
ceeding.

§ 266. Conclusiveness of the Decree or Order granting Letters. —
Letters testamentary and of administration, granted by a court
having jurisdiction for such purpose, are, while un-
repealed, conclusive evidence of the authority of tlie
grantees, and cannot be impeached collaterally, even
for fraud, ^ although they may be revoked or annulled
in the method pointed out by statute to that end, in a
direct proceeding, or by appeal.^ Until such revoca-
tion by the decree of a competent court, or appeal, it cannot be
questioned in either a common law or chancery court, and it fol-
lows that the acts of an executor or administrator are valid, even
though the probate of the will or the grant of letters was erro-
neous, or obtained upon fraudulent representations, or under a
forged will.^ The binding necessity of this principle has been
enlarged upon in a previous chapter, in connection with the sub-
ject of jurisdiction of probate courts,* and again when considering
the nature of the proof necessary to establish the death of the
testator or intestate.^ The effect of appeal from the grant of

1 See on this subject, ante, eh. xv.,
and especially §§ 145, 146. Among the
cases specially holding that letters testa-
mentary and of administration cannot be
questioned in a collateral proceeding may
be mentioned, Sadler r Sadler, 16 Ark.
628, 632 ; Bryan v. Walton, 14 Ga. 185,
196; Emery v. HiJdreth, 2 Gray, 228;
Fiinn v. Cliase, 4 Denio, 85 ; Burnley v.
Duke, 2 Robins. (Va.) 102, 129; Morgan
V. Locke, 28 La. An. 806 ; James v. Ad-
ams, 22 How. Pr. 409 ; Riley v. McCord,
24 Mo. 265, 269 ; Quidort v. Pergeaux,
18 N. J. Eq. 472; Belden v. Meeker, 47
N. Y. 307 ; Pleasants v. Dunkin, 47 Tex.
343, Buehler v. Buffington, 43 Pa. St.
278, 293 ; Hart v. Bostwick, 14 Fla. 162,
174 ; Succession of Lee, 28 La. An.

23, 24 ; Barclay v. Kimsey, 72 Ga. 725 ;
Plume V. Howard Savings Institution, 46
N. J. L. 211 ; Wheat v. Fuller, 82 Ala.
572.

2 As to the effect of an appeal upon
the proceedings in the probate court, see
post, § 542 et seq.

3 Peebles' Appeal, 15 S. & R. 39 ; Kit-
tredge v. Folsom, 8 N. H. 98 ; Spencer v.
Gaboon, 4 Dcv. L. 225 ; Record v. How-
ard, 58 Me. 225, 228 ; Fisher v. Bassett, 9
Leigh, 119; Price v. Nesbitt, 1 Hill, (S. C.)
Cli. 445, 461; Benson v. Rice, 2 N. &
McC. 577 ; Shephard v. Rhodes, 60 111.
301 ; Thompson v. Samson, 64 Gal. 330,
332.

4 Ante, §§ 145, 146.
6 Ante, %% 208-211.

§ 267 JURISDICTION TO REVOKE LETTERS. 569

letters will be considered in connection with the general subject
of appeals from judgments or orders of the probate court.^

Letters granted by a court having no jurisdiction, jjcing void,
gain no validity by the mere lapse of time. Sales of real estate
have been held void, and the purchaser for that reason Letters by a
held to have obtained no title, more than twenty years I'.'T-un^dSon
afterward.2 Nor can letters granied during the pen- »>■« ^"i'^-
dency of a contest of the will, which are on that account void, be
supported as a grant of letters pendente lite.^ But where the
authority is suspended by an appeal from the decree appointing
the administrator, it is revived upon dismissal of the appeal, and
dates back to the original appointment without further action.*
An appointment made by a court having no jurisdiction is a
nullity ; hence the appointment of another, by a court having
jurisdiction, as administrator of the same estate, is good without
formally annulling the first appointment.^

§ 267. Jurisdiction to revoke Letters. — The power to revoke
the authority of executors (which in England is usually termed
the revocation of probate^) and of administrators is Power to re-
in some States exercised by courts of equity, when of executors Or

, , ,,...,... , , , J • • administrators

they obtain jurisdiction over the executor or admmis-

is in some

1 Post, § 542 et seq. accurate to confound the revocation of

2 Holyoke v. Haskins, 5 Pick. 20. probate with the removal of the executor ;

3 Slade r. Wasliburn, 3 Ired. L. 557. for though the former conditions the
* Fletcher v. Fletcher, 29 Vt. 98. latter as a necessary incident, yet the
5 Ex parte Barker, 2 Leigh, 719. latter does not condition the former. So
^ The cliange introduced in most of with regard to administration : revocation

the American States, of ascribing the of adnunistmlion would seem to imply that
authority of the executor to the appoint- there is no estate liable to be administered,
ment by the probate court, rather than to and, as a necessary consequence, that no
the nomination by the testator, as in one has authority as administrator ; while
England, which has been commented on the revocation o/ /eifers granted only with-
in connection with the subject of the dis- draws the authority of the person admin-
tinction between executors and adminis- istering, wliich may be conferred, upon
trators (ante, § 171), renders it necessary some other person. — The consequences,
to distinguish between the revocation therefore, of a revocation of probate, or
of probate, — the consequence of which of administration, must be to annul the
would seem to destroy the validity of tlie will, or basis of administrntion, constitut-
will, — and the removal of the executor, ing rather a judicial declaration that the
or revocation of the letters testamentary will, or estate demanding administration,
granted to him, which leaves all the tes- never existed; while the removal of the
tamentary dispositions intact, except as executor or administrator, or the recocor
to the nomination of the person who is to tion of letters testamentary or of adminis-
executethem: Schoul. Ex. § 157, note (4). tration, is followed by the same conse-
In those States in which the authority of qucnces as would be brought on by
the executor is conditioned upon appoint- the death of the executor or adminis-
ment by the probate court, it seems in- trator.

570 REVOCATION OF LETTERS. § 268

States exer- trator, under the well known rule, that, where a court

cised by courts ' , '

of equity; of equity obtahis jurisdiction for one purpose, it will

retain it until full and satisfactory justice is rendered to all the
parties concerned. ^ Thus, in a case calling for the intervention of
chancery, an executor may be restrained from squandering and
disposing of the property of his testator, and removed, or a re-
but in extreme ccivcr appointed ; 2 . and an administrator may be
cases only, rcmovcd.^ But where this authority exists in courts
of chancery at all, it will be exercised in extreme cases only.*

In most of the States, however, the power to revoke the letters
granted, or, as it is more usually termed, to remove an executor
and is in most OT administrator, is vested exclusively in the probate
exduliVeiyln courts ; ^ supcrior courts exercising, in such cases, ap-
probate courts, pellate jurisdiction only,*^ or granting the assistance of
equitj' where the lower court is without the necessary power to
accomplish justice.'^

§ 268. Recall of Letters granted ■without Authority in the Court.
— It is evident that the judgment or decree of any court is con-
Letters prop- elusive and binding upon the court rendering it, as well
can berecaUed ^^ agaiust all the world.^ Hence, where the probate
only for cause; court lias oucc regularly conferred the appointment,
it cannot remove the incumbent except for causes recognized
by the law as sufficient, and in the manner authorized by statute.^
But it is an inherent power in every judicial tribu-

but if granted , . , . l

without author- nal to corrcct an error which it may have commit-

1 Walker v. Morris, 14 Ga. 323. The senting that the deceased died intestate,
Code of Georgia provides that " the judg- knowing that he liad left a will, was re-
inent of a court of competent jurisdiction moved upon the suit of a foreign execu-
may be set aside by a decree in chancery tor, under a statute authorizing the
for fraud, accident, or mistake, or tlie acts domiciliar executor of another State to
of the adverse party unmixed with the use all process and remedies as if he had
negligence or fault of the complainant " : qualified in Georgia.

Code, 1882, § 3595 (§§ 3537, 3514, of for- •» Randle v. Carter, 62 Ala. 95, 101.

mer codes), which is held to authorize the '^ Hosack y. Rogers, 11 Pai. 603, 606 ;

revocation of letters of an executor or Chew v. Chew, 3 Grant Cas. 289 ; Taylor

administrator by decree in chancery. v. Biddle, 71 N. C. 1, 5; Holbrook v.

2 Chappelli'. Akin,39Ga. 177 ; Cooper Campau, 22 Mich. 288; Succession of
V. Cooper, 5 N. J. Eq. 9, 11; Clemens v. Wilhams, 26 La. An. 207.

Caldwell, 7 B. Mon. 171 ; Walters v. 6 Ledbetter v. Lofton, 1 Murph. 224 ;

Hill, 27 Graft. 388, 401 ; Long v. Wortham, Wilson v. Frazier, 2 Humph. 30.
4 Tex. .381 ; Wilkins v. Harris, Winst. Eq. ' Leddel v. Starr, 19 N. J. Eq. 159,

(Part II.) 41. 163.

3 Wallace v. Walker, 87 Ga. 265. The » See ante, § 146.
administrator, who had obtained letters ^ Schoul. Ex. § 157.
of administration by fraudulently repre-

§ 268 RECALL OF LETTERS. 571

ted, when no positive rule of law Un-hhU it.i " This il^^^lVe^t-eal'ied
power," says Gray, J., "does not make the decree at any time,
of a court of probate less conclusive in any other court, or in
any way impair the probate jurisdiction, but renders that jurisdic-
tion more complete and effectual."^ It is, therefore, on motion of
the duty of the court, upon the application of any f,"["restt'ore«
party in interest, or even ex mero motu,^ to annul or ^neromotu.
revoke letters granted upon proof of the death of a person who
subsequently appears alive ; ^ or where it is shown that there was
no jurisdiction, the decedent being domiciled at the time of his
death in another county,^ or that the will was admitted to pro-
bate through fraud or error,^ or that a later will or codicil should
be admitted;' or where a will is found to have been already pro-
bated,8 o^. jg discovered after grant of letters of administration
generally ; ^ or where an administrator with the will annexed is
appointed in derogation of the executor's right,'*^ or one not
preferred is appointed administrator before the expiration of
the period during which preference is given by statute to oth-
ers ; 1^ or where administration is improperly granted, there
being no estate to administer;^ or where it is granted to a
person or by a judge disqualified,^^ or by mistake to one not pre-

1 McCabe v. Lewis, 76 Mo. 296, 301 ; v. Bradley, Si Ala. 694. If properly au-
" The power to revoke is necessarily in- thenticated it makes no difference that it
herent in the Orphan's Court, and a part is a foreign will : Dalryniple v. Gamble,
of the essence of the power delegated to 66 Md. "298.

them of granting administration " : Dal- i" Baldwin v. Buford, 4 Yerg. 16.

rymple v. Gamble, 66 Md 298, 311. " Mullanphy v. County Court, 6 Mo.

2 Waters v. Stickney, 12 Allen, 1, 15. 563 ; Mills v. Carter, 8 Blackf. 203 ;
8 County Court v. Bissell, 2 Jones L. Williams's Appeal, 7 Pa. St. 259 ; Tlionip-

387 ; Watson v. Glover, 77 Ala. 323, 325. son v. Huckett, 2 Hill, (S. C.) 347 ; Dun-

4 See ante, §§ 2U8-211, on the validity ham v. Roberts, 27 Ala. 701; Barber v.
of administration on the estate of a per- Converse, 1 Redf. 830 ; Stoever v. Lud-
son who is not in reality dead, and wig, 4 S. & R. 201 ; Skidmore v. Davies,
authorities there cited. Donaldson v. 10 I'ai. 316 ; Vreedenburgh i\ Calf, 9 Pai.
Lewis, 7 Mo. App. 403. 128 ; Proctor v. Wanmaker, 1 Barb. Cli.

5 Wilson V. Frazier, 2 Humph. 30 ; 302 ; Public Administrator v. Peters, 1
Jolmson V. Corpenning, 4 Ired. Eq. 216. Bradf. 100; McCaffrey's Estate, 38 Pa.
The grant in such case is not absolutely St. 331 ; Wilson v. IIoss, 3 Humph. 142 ;
voiil, but only voidable : Coltart v. Allen, Moore v. Moore, 1 Dev. 352 ; Kerr v.
40 Ala. 155. Kerr, 41 N. Y. 272, 278.

« Hamberlin v. Terry, 1 Sm. & M. Ch. i-^ Estate of Huckstep, 5 Mo. App. 581,

589. 582 ; Townsend v. Pell, 3 Dem. 367.

7 Waters v. Stickney, 12 Allen, 1, 4. i^ as where the probate judge grant-

8 Watson !•. Glover, 77 Ala. 323. ,ing letters is interested in the estate:

9 Edelen v. Edelen, 10 Md. 52, 56; Cottle, Appellant, 5 Pick. 483 ; Sigourney
Patton's Appeal, 31 Pa. St. 465; Kittredge i-. Sibley, 21 Pick. 101, and s. c. 22 Pick.
V. Folsom, 8 N. H. 98, 107 ; Broughton 507 ; or letters are granted to his son :

572 REVOCATION OF LETTERS. § 269

ferred,^ or who refuses to give bond;^ or where an administrator
de bonis non was appointed while there was an acting executor
or administrator.^ In all of these cases the letters granted are
either void, — in which event it is the duty of the court to revoke,
or rather to declare null, its appointment, so as to correct the
record and prevent further mischief from being done, as soon as
the true facts become known to it, whether by evidence, or other-
wise; — or they are voidable, and may be revoked upon the appli-
cation of some person having an interest in the estate, and upon
notice or citation to the person to be removed.'^

§ 269. Theory of Removal for Cause. — The grounds upon which
an executor or administrator will be removed for cause are mani-
instancesof fold, and arc commonly designated in the statutes.
cat!ses°for ^^^ Missouri thc statute provides for the revocation of
removal. letters in the following cases, which may be looked

upon as a fair and comprehensive resume of the provisions on
this subject in the several States : " If any executor or adminis-
trator become of unsound mind, or be convicted of any felony or
other infamous crime, or has absented himself from the State for
the space of four months, or become an habitual drunkard, or in
any wise incapable or unsuitable to execute the trust reposed in
him, or fail to discharge his official duties, or waste or mismanage
the estate, or act so as to endanger any co-executor or co-admin-
istrator, the court, upon complaint in writing, made by any per-
son interested, supported by affidavit, and ten days' notice given
to the person complained of, shall hear the complaint, and, if it
finds it just, shall revoke the letters granted." ^ In addition to
this, it is made the duty of the court to revoke letters of adminis-
tration whenever a will of the supposed intestate is found and
receives probate, and letters testamentary when the probate of a
will upon which they were issued shall be set aside ; *^ and also
to revoke the letters of an executrix or administratrix upon her

Koger V. Franklin, 79 Ala. 505 ; or to ferred to administer : Corn v. Corn, 4

a minor: Carow v. Mowatt, 2 Edw. Dem. 394.

Ch. 57. 2 Morgan v. Dodge, supra.

1 Morgan v. Dodge, 44 N. H. 255 ; or « Creath v. Brent, 3 Dana, 129 ;

upon fraudulent representations; ante. Springs y. Erwin, 6 Ired. L. 27; Griffith

§ 146; Marston v. Wilcox, 2 111. 60. In v. Frazier, 8 Or. 9.

New York, the "false suggestion of a * Gary Pr. L. § 314; Schoul. Ex. § 155;

material fact " authorizing the revocation see infra, § 269.
of letters must be made to tlie tribunal ^ Rev. St. 1879, § 43.

granting the letters, and not to one pre- ^ Ibid., §§ 40, 41.

§ 269 THEORY OF REMOVAL FOR CAUSE. 573

marriage,^ and of an executor or administrator becoming non-
resident ; 2 and when an executor or administrator fails, upon
service of citation, or publication of citation if he cannot be found,
to make settlement, his letters may be revoked.'^ In the nature
of things, a power which may be invoked in such a variety of
instances must largely depend upon the discretion of pj^^^^j;^^ ^^
the iudge for its proper exercise. It is easy enough be exercised

" . bv court.

to legally ascertain whether a man has been adjudged '
insane, or convicted of infamous crime, or become a non-resident
or an habitual drunkard ; or whether an executrix has married.
But it is also apparent that these facts do not in themselves
constitute incapacity to administer : they arc the mere indicia
from the existence of which the law conclusively presumes the
existence of the incapacity.'* In contemplation of law the in-
capacity may exist without these, or any specially defined symp-
toms ; hence, in its solicitude to protect estates of deceased
persons and secure efficient administration thereof, it clothes the
judge of probate with power to ascertain the incapacity from
other sources, — if he become " in any tvise incapable or unsuita-
ble to execute the trust," ^ or " fail to discharge his official
duties," or " waste or mismanage the estate," — and if ascertained,
to revoke the authority granted. Where the interest of the ad-
ministrator is adverse to the estate, for instance, it is clear that
he is an " unsuitable " person to administer it, and in such case
nothing but some controlling necessity will justify his retention
as administrator.*' So where there is such hostility between the
administrator and the legatees or distributees as will prevent a
proper management of the estate.'' The discretion vested in

1 Ibid., § 42. administrator may be removed "where,

2 Ibid., § 10. • • . from habitual drunkenness, ... lie
8 Ibid., §228. Before the late revision is rendered incapable of discharging his

revocation was compulsory in sucli case ; trust to the interest of the estate."
the word " shall " was changed to " may." " In Pennsylvania the Orphans' Court

See Wagner's Statutes, ch. 2, art. v., § 8. removed two executors on the ground

* The court's discretion will not be that one was largely insolvent, and the

reviewed unless abused : McFadden v. acts of the other were " of a character

Ross, 93 Ind. 134. In Indiana it is held so doubtful that we feel that the estate

that habitual drunkenness is cause for would be subject to risks at his hands,

the removal of an administrator, without from which it should be relieved": Estate

also showing that the administrator had of Greentree, 12 Phila. 10.
thereby become incapable of discharging ^ Kellberg's Appeal, 86 Pa. St. 129.

his duties : Gurley v. Butler, 83 Ind. 501. "< Kimball's Appeal, 45 Wise. 391.

The statute in this State proTides that an

574 EEVOCATION OF LETTERS. § 269

f judges of probate is, therefore, not an arbitrary one,

rarj, ^^ ^^ ^^^ ^.^^ .^ ^^^ supposcd to be in the ordinary

at common law,^ who might repeal an administration at his
pleasure, nor yet so narrow as to prevent him from

nor too narrow, ^. i • • - j.- x j.i •£ r. • j.-

grantmg administration to the wile alter appointing
the father, in ignorance of the existence of a wife, on the ground
that, having exercised the power of appointment, his hands are
but in further- closcd ; ^ but to bc cxcrciscd in furtherance of the
ob'ect oHhe paramount end and aim of the law. Such is the law
law. in every State of the Union, although couched in dif-

ferent phraseology, — as well as, at this day, in England.^ Yet,
while the safety and efficient administration of the estate is the
paramount object to be accomplished, courts will not permit this
consideration to control personal rights, or to lead to the
impeachment of the competency or integrity of an appointee
merely because some other person may be better qualified for the
. .... trust. Where the appointment of an administrator

An administra- ' ' p i •

tor cannot is left to the Unconditioned discretion of the judge,
the sole ground he wiU be Controlled by this consideration in making
qua\me4 may'^ the sclcction ; but having made it, the appointee can
f ^^ appointed. ^^ removcd only upon proof of such facts as constitute

/ a breach of the trust, in ascertaining which the judge may be

( aided by considering whether the conduct or acts complained of

y render the principal liable on his bond ; since, as a general propo-

sition, the liability of the surety arises only upon misconduct of
No revocation the principal. And there should never be a revoca-
withont notice. ^^^^-^ witliout duc noticc to the party, informing him of
the matters alleged against him, and enabling him to defend.* It

1 Wms. Ex. [576], who quotes Brown Cal. 343; Murray v. Oliver, 3 B. Mon. 1;
V. Wood, Aleyn, 06. Casque v. Moody, 12 Sm. & M. 153 ; God-

2 Sir George Sands' Case, Siderfin, 179. win i\ Hooper, 45 Ala. 613 ; Vaih^Civan,

3 "It is now agreed that the adminis- 55 Tnd. 59 ; Hostetter's Appeal, 6 Watts,
tration, though granted to the next of 244 ; Levering v. Levering, 64 Md. 399,
kin, may be repealed by the court, not 410. But in Mississippi tlie revocation
arbitrarily, yet where there shall be just was held proper, without notice, where,
cause for so doing ; of wliich the temporal upon the complaint of his surety, cita-
courts are to judge": Wnis. on Ex. [577]. tion issued to the administrator, which

* An administrator cannot be removed could not be served because he was a

without legal cause, defined in the statute, non-resident of the State: Hardaway v.

and after notice to him : Bieber's Appeal, Parham, 27 Miss. 103. And so in South

11 Pa. St. 157 ; Wingate v. Wooten, 5 Carolina : McLaurin v. Thompson, Dud-

Sm. & M. 245; Muirhead v. Muirhead, ley, 335, the appointment of another being

6 Sm. & M. 451 ; Hanifan v. Needles, 108 held a sufficient revocation of the au-

111. 403 ; Schroeder v. Superior Court, 70 tliority of an administrator who left the

§ 270 CAUSES JUSTIFYING REVOCATION. 575

is held in California, that the administrator has no right to have
the issues tried hy a jury ; ^ but in Indiana, this is doubted.^ In
the latter State, and in North Carolina, an answer to the applica-
tion and other pleadings may be filed.^

§ 270. Causes justifying Revocation of Letters. — There are
numerous adjudications indicating the particular acts or line of
conduct which require the removal from office of an
executor or administrator, as well as those which do fumisforpri-
not justify the revocation of their authority. The ''^'^ i'"""!'"^*^^-
most fruitful source of trouble and litigation is the unwarranted
application of the trust funds to the private use of the executor
administrator, guardian, or curator, and one which but too often
leads to their own financial ruin, as well as the destruction of the
estates committed to their care. The temptation to employ the
funds in the hands of a trustee in private speculations promising
ample returns, or even in liis own apparently safe and lucrative
business is sometimes overpowering in unscrupulous persons, but
equally fraught with most disastrous results when yielded to in
good faith, and without suspicion that it involves a violation of
the law. Absurd as it may appear, yet many of the cases under
this branch of the law concern those who in good faith believe,
find many more those who make a specious pretence of believing,
that a guardian or administrator, having been appointed to take
charge of an estate, and, it may be, given bond for its faithful
administration, may legally treat the funds as their own, being
liable only to produce them when the proper time shall arrive.
An estate in the hands of such a person is not safe, and it would
seem that he is " unsuitable to execute the trust reposed in him." *

State. In Alabama, notice by publication whole of it in a manner not authorized,

is sufficient to a non-resident executor or although for tlie benefit of the rpsfni que

administrator : Crawford v. Tyson, 46 tntst, Jones, J., of tiie Superior Court of

Ala. 299. the Citv of New York, held, that " one who

1 Doyle's Estate, Myr. 68. Ims so failed properly to underistaiid iiis

2 Phelps V. Martin, 74 Ind. 339, 341 ; duties, and by reason of such failure has
but see McFadden v. Ross, 9-1 Ind. 184. exposed the fund to the hazard of being

3 McFadden v. Ross, supra ; Edwards lost by iiis insolvency, has in fact allowed
V. Cobb, 95 N. C. 4, 9, commenting on the the corpus to be eaten up, and keeps the
method of procedure. fund still exposed to hazard and loss by

* Hence, where a trustee for minor reason of business vicissitudes, and also
children had, although with a good inten- exposed to entangling litigation in case
tion, and not throu<,di dishonesty or want of his decease, should not be retained
of fidelity, neglected to keep tlie fund in- as trustee " : Deen v. Cozzens, 7 Robt.
vested, mingled it with his own and used (N. Y.) 178. To the same effect, Clem-
it, and claimed to have appropriated the ens v. Caldwell, 7 B. Monr. 171 ; Hake v.

576

REVOCATION OF LETTERS.

§270

r

Accordingly, one who is squandering the estate,^ or is wasting,
neglecting, or mismanaging it,^ or guilty of gross carelessness in
its management,^ or refuses to inventory property pointed out to
him as having been conveyed in fraud ,4 or to redeem property at
the request of a creditor,^ or fails to make and return an inven-
tory of the estate,'^ or to perform the duties of his trust,' or the
orders of court in reference thereto,*^ or gives unauthorized prefer-
ence to creditors,^ or conveys property of the estate to his sureties
to indemnify them,^^ or fails to render his annual account when
required,^^ will be removed, and an administrator de bonis non
appointed. So where one, who was a resident of the State when
appointed, becomes a non-resident ; ^^ ^^t in Georgia it is held
that the removal from the State of either an executor or an ad-
ministrator after appointment is not a sufficient ground to revoke
his authority ; ^^ in Vermont, he will not be removed, if his non-
residence was known at the time the appointment was made,^* and

Stott, 5 Col. 140. So the sale of stock
belonging to the estate in his individual
name, without authority of court, is suffi-
cient in Maryland to justify an executor's
removal : Levering v. Levering, 64 Md.
399, 412.

1 Newcomb v. Williams, 9 Met. (Mass.)
525 ; Emerson r. Bowers, 14 Barb. 658.

2 Lucich V. Medin. 3 Nev. 93 ; Travis
v. Insley, 28 La. An. 784; Fernbacher
V. Fernbacher, 4 Dem. 227, 243 ; s. c. 17
Abb. N. C. 339 ; Gray v. Gray, 39 N. J.
Eq. 332.

3 Rogers v. Morrison, 21 La. An. 455;
Reynolds v. Zink, 27 Gratt. 29.

* Andrews v. Tucker, on the ground
that creditors have a right to try the
question of fraudulent conveyance : 7
Pick. 250 ; Minor v. Mead, 3 Conn. 289.

6 Glines v. Weeks, 137 Mass. 547, 550.

6 Oglesby v. Howard, 43 Ala. 144;
Williams r. Tobias, 37 Ind. 345 ; Estate
of Brophy, 12 Pliila. 18; Hubbard v.
Smith, 45 Ala. 516 (if the omission was
wilful) ; Matter of West, 40 Hun, 291;
McFadden v. Ross, 93 Ind. 134.

7 Marsh v. The People, 15 111. 284,
287; Chew v. Chew, 3 Grant Cas. 289;
Wildridge v. Patterson, 15 Mass. 148.

8 Wright V. McNatt, 49 Tex. 425, 429.

9 Foltz V. Prouse, 17 111. 487.

10 Fleet V. Simmons, 3 Dem. 542.

11 Taylor v. Biddle, 71 N. C. 1 ; Arm-
strong V. Stowe, 77 N. C. 360 ; Brown
V. Ventress, 24 La. An, 187 ; Colliers v.
Hollier, 13 La. An. 585.

12 Succession of Winn, 27 La. An.
687 ; Hall v. Monroe, 27 Tex. 700 ; Suc-
cession of Vogel, 20 La. An. 81 ; Craw-
ford r. Tyson, 46 Ala. 299; Harris v.
Dillard, 31 Ala. 191 ; Yerkes v. Broom, 10
La. An. 94 , Prick's Appeal, 114 Pa. St. 29,
34 ; Trumble ('Williams, 18 Neb. 144. But
in Louisiana the absence of an executor or
administrator is no cause for removal un-
less the estate shall thereby suffer ■ Suc-
cession of McDonogh, 7 La. An. 472, and
the onus to prove this is on the party
moving the revocation : Scott v. Lawson,
10 La. An. 547. In Texas the court may
temporarily suspend the authority of an
executor on account of his absence, and
appoint a receiver : Long v. Wortliam,
4 Tex. 881. In Missouri, non-residence
of an executor or administrator disquali-
fies him; but there must be an order
of court declaring his removal on that
ground: State v. Rucker, 59 Mo. 17.

13 Walker v. Torrance, 12 Ga. 604;
Brown v. Strickland, 28 Ga. 387.

1* A fortiori, if the motion comes from
one who has been sued for a debt to the
testator by the executor : Wiley v. Brain-
erd, 11 Vt. 107.

§ 271 WHAT TS INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY. 577

in Wisconsin it is held to bo discretionary willi the probate court
to remove or not on the ground of non-residence.^ The marriage
of an administratrix, in the absence of statutory provision to the
contrary, is a revocation of her authority .^ The duty to revoke
follows self-evidently from the refusal or neglect of an executor
or administrator to give the bond required by the court ; ^ but
even in this case notice and opportunity to furnish the surety
should be given.* Where an executor joined the Confederate
army and left the Federal lines, he was held to have forfeited his
trust ; ^ and in Arkansas it was held that the probate court prop-
erly appointed an administratrix in place of one who became a
soldier, and was therefore unable to give proper attention to the
estate, thereby impliedly revoking his authority.^ Acrimonious
and hostile feelings between the executor and the testator's
widow, and between him and a legatee, intercepting efficient and
prudent management of the estate, has been held sufficient cause
for removal ; '' and so the refusal of an executor to permit his
co-executors to inspect and examine the papers belonging to the
estate,^ or an attempt liy false representations and suggestions to
buy the interest of a residuary legatee for an inconsiderable sum.^
§ 271. What deemed insufficient to justify Revocation. — The
cases negativing the propriety of revocation under the circum-
stances in evidence therein are at least fully as in- causes deemed
structive as those already mentioned. So it is held a^^lh^rTzTre-*'
that, before a creditor can have the administratrix of '"o^'a'-
a succession removed, he must allege and show that he has been
injured by the maladministration complained of,^*^ and the court
has no authority to remove one upon the complaint of his co-

1 Cutler V. Howard, 9 Wise. 309. * See authorities unrlpr § 269, antr.

2 Kavanaugh v. Thompson, 16 Ala. 5 He'bert v. Jackson, 28 La. An. 377.
817 ; Duhme v. Young, 3 Bush, 348 ; ^ I'^nglish, C. J., in rendering the opin-
Tesehemacher v. Tliompson, IS Cal. 11, ion, says, "Non-management, by ah-
20. It is held in California that marriage sence as a soldier on duty in the field
does not deprive her eo insta/iti of her remote from the estate, miglit be as dis-
powers, but renders her incompetent, so astrous as mismanagement. ... It would
that she may be proceeded against for liave been more regular to revoke his
suspension and removal : Scliroeder v. letters directly in the order appointing
Superior Court, 70 Cal. 343. her, but his letters were by implication

3 Succession of De Flechier, 1 La. revoked " : Berry v. Bellows, 30 Ark. 198,
An. 20 ; Davenport v. Irvine, 4 J. J. 207.

Marsh. GO ; In re Brinson, 73 N. C. 278 ; ^ Estate of Tike, 4-5 Wise 301.

Bills V. Scott, 49 Tex. 430 ; Cohen's Ap- » Chew's Estate, 2 Parsons, 153.

peal. 2 Watts, 175 ; Garrison v. Cox, 95 ^ Lett r. Emmett, 37 N. J. Eq. 535.

N. C. 353 ; Clark v. Niles, 42 Miss. 460. ^^ Succession of Decuir, 23 La. An. 166.
VOL. I. — 37

578 REVOCATION OF LETTERS. § 271

executor who is not injured ;^ nor should an executor be removed
upon a ground rendering him unsuitable, which existed and was
known at the time of his appointment, without proof that this
ground continued to exist.^ Failure to make settlement is a cause
for removal ; but where the heirs divided the whole estate among
themselves, there being no debts, this was held a good administra-
tion, and that the failure to make returns, where there was no oc-
casion for them, was not a sufficient cause for revocation ;3 nor
where there is a mere omission, without citation, where the proof
shows no neglect or wilful default ; * nor does the failure to file
accounts constitute a forfeiture to the right of administration ip8o
facto, but must be judicially declared.^ The refusal to account for
moneys, which the executors received from the testatrix more
than twenty years before her death, and the fact that almost the
whole of her estate consists of debts due from the executors, are
not sufficient causes for their removal as unsuitable to the trust.^
In New Jersey it was decided that a court of equity has jurisdic-
tion to restrain an executor who abuses his trust from further
interfering with the estate ; but it is not sufficient to charge, in
general terms, an abuse ; the facts showing the abuse must be
stated ; and the fact that ten years have elapsed since the death
of the testator, and that the executor has not settled his account
in the orphan's court, is not sufficient, nor the additional fact that
he has failed in business, and that three years before the filing of
the bill he was discharged in bankruptcy." Bankruptcy and insol-
vency may be good cause for the removal of an administrator,
although it does not ^^^so facto impair his official authority;^ but
poverty is not,^ unless the condition of the appointee has subse-

1 Dowfly V. Graham, 42 Miss. 451, 458. him as for contempt, and for this cause

2 Lehr v. Tarball, 2 How. (Miss.) remove liim : Haiiifan w. Needles, 108 111.
905 ; Drake v. Green, 10 Allen, 124, hold- 403, 411 (two judges dissenting).

ing, also, that the existence ot such 5 jyxcCleland ;;. Bideman, 5 La. An.563.
ground at the time of tlie appointment « Hnssey v. CofBn, 1 Allen, 354; Win-
constituted no defence to the revocation, ship r. Bass, 12 Mass. 199.
if it continued to exist. "^ Cooper v. Cooper, 5 N. J. Eq. 9.

3 Harris v. Seals, 29 Ga. 585. « Edwards's Estate, 12 Phila. 85 ; Lox-
* Dowdy u. Graham, si^pra; Succession ley's Estate, 14 Phila. 317; Dwight v.

of Head, 28 La. An. 800. In Illinois it Simon, 4 La. An. 490 ; McFadgen v.

is lield that, on refusal to make settle- Council, 81 N. C. 195 ; Shields v. Shields,

nient, the next step is an attachment for 60 Barb. 56.

contempt, and if, when brought before the ^ Shields v. Shields, supra ; Freeman

court, he still refuses to make settlement, v. Kellogg, 4 Redf. 218, 224; Postley v.

the court is then required to deal with Cheyne, 4 Dem. 492.

§ 271 WHAT IS INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY. 579

quently become changed.^ An administrator should not be re-
moved on the mere ground that he can neither read nor write,
nor because he has a slight knowledge of the English language,^
if he performs his duties j)ro])erly.3 It is the duty of adminis-
trators to contest doubtful claims against the estate, and one is
not therefore liable to be removed for reasonable delay in the
administration caused by the discharge of this duty.'^ Errors of
judgment not amounting to malfeasance are not ground for re-
moval.^ Where an administrator is appointed in i)lace of one
having priority under the statute, but who fails to give the bond
or to apply within the limited time allowed him, the former can-
not be removed to make place for the latter, because he is subse-
quently able to give the bond,^ or makes the application." In
Louisiana, executors and administrators are required to deposit
the funds of the estate in the manner pointed out by statute ; but
the failure to deposit a sum but slightly greater than the amount
of the cost of administration is not a sufficient ground for removal.^
A trustee is not, at common law and under the law in most of the
States, permitted to acquire property by purchase at the trustee
sale ; but such a purchase is not in itself proof of waste or mis-
management, and hence not a ground for the removal of an ex-
ecutor.^ The court will not remove an administrator regularly
appointed, upon the suggestion of a party who was privy to the
appointment, that the administrator is indebted to the estate,
which is denied by the administrator ; the proper remedy is to
surcharge the administrator's account in the orphan's court ; '^^
but where an administrator has an adverse personal interest in an
action against himself as administrator, and made no defence to
the same, he should be removed upon proof of tiie existence of a

1 Wilkins v. Harriss, 1 Wins. (N. C.) ^ Succession of Sparrow, 39 La. An.

Eq. No. 2, 41. 696.

■^ Hassey v. Keller, 1 Dem. 577 ; Gregg ^ Williams'.s Case, 18 Abb. Pr. .3-50.

y. Wilson, 24 Iiid. 227. ^ Jinkins r. Sapp, 3 Jones L. 510;

3 Estate of Pacheco, 23 Cal. 476 ; Cole v. Dial, 12 Tex. 100 ; Mayes v. lions-
Gregg I'. Wilson, 24 Ind. 227. "As a ton, 61 Tex. 690; and tiiis although the
general rule, hovvever," says Frazer, J., letters were granted prematurely, if the
"it might be better if those wholly un- party entitled had not applied within
educated were not appointed to such the time allowed : .Sowell v. Sowell, 41
positions of trust and responsibility." Ala. 3-59 ; Markland v. Albes, 81 Ala.

* Andrews v. Carr, 2 R. I. 117, iiolding 433.

that a delay of five months to petition for ^ Peale v. White, 7 La. An. 449.

a new trial on a judgment obtained against ^ Webb i'. Dietrich, 7 Watts & S. 401.

the estate was not unreasonable. 1° Maloney's Estate, 5 Pa. Law J. R. 139.

580 REVOCATION OF LETTERS. § 271

defence, or of the bona fide belief of its existence in the distribu-
tees.^ In New York it was held that an executor's letters would
not be revoked at his own request, on the ground that he has in-
terests as surviving partner of the deceased, antagonistic to his
duties as executor ;2 it is no ground for removal of an executor
that the will was contested subsequently to his appointment,^ nor
that he fails to sell land, although the direction in the will is im-
perative, where the time of selling is left to his discretion.* And
so, although the payment by an administrator of his own del)t out
of the estate is a breach of trust, for which he may be removed,
yet if the interest of those concerned has not been imperilled by
the amount used, the sum being small in comparison with the
funds remaining in his hands, and no improper or dishonest mo-
tives can be imputed to him, he should not be removed.^ " An
executor may commit errors in his accounts, or make mistakes in
his construction of the will ; these the court will correct, but will
not remove the executor, unless there is wilful misconduct, waste,
or improper disposition of the assets." ^

§ 272. Who may move for Revocation. — Courts will not per-
mit one who has no direct interest in the estate, or who cannot
Parties having he benefited by the order which he prays for, to prose-
not'demand'*"" ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ removal of an executor or administrator.
tiie removal of Heucc it is required that in the petition or motion the

an executor or ^ '^

administrator, interest of the party presenting it shall be stated, and
wherein it has been or is about to be affected by the party to be
removed. And it is not sufficient to charge mismanagement,
misapplication of funds, or maladministraton in general terms,
but the facts must be stated which constitute the alleged cause
for removal, and must be supported by affidavit." Nor will a
Nor can one be motion for rcmoval be heard in a collateral proceed-
coi'ia'terarpro- ^^^?' ^^^^ ^^^J ^J direct action,^ upon petition and cita-
ceeding. tion,^ the scrvicc of which is a jurisdictional fact, and

1 Simpson v. Jones, 82 N. C. 323. 18 S. C. 396, 422, citing Stairly v. Rabe,

2 Because the surrogate's court has McMull. Eq. 22. To similar effect. Car-
ample jurisdiction to adjust equities: penter v. Gray, 32 N, J. Eq. 692; Mc-
Becker v. Lawton, 4 Dem. 341. Fadgen v. Council, 81 N. C, 195-

3 Elvvell V. Universalist Church, 63 " Neighbors v. Hamlin, 78 N C, 42;
Tex. 220. Vail v. Givan, 55 Ind, 69; Succession

* If he acts 6ona _;?c?e: Haight y. Bris- of Calhoun, 28 La. An. 323; White v.

bin, 96 N. Y. 132. Spaulding, 50 Mich. 22.

6 Killam v. Costley, 52 Ala. 85. 8 Succession of Boyd, 12 La. An. 611.

6 Aldrich, J., in Witherspoon i-. Watts, ^ Succession of Williams, 22 La. An. 94.

§ 272 WHO MAY MOVE FOR REVOCATION. 581

must affirmatively appear from the record to give validity to the
order of removal.^ Having appeared, however, he cannot subse-
quently object that he had no notice.^ The motion ^yj^^^^^^^
mav be made by a creditor for the removal of an ad- (icmaiid the

. , • , 1 • i^ J.- c removal.

mmistrator who was appointed in contravention ot
the creditors' right within the time during which they have pri-
ority over strangers,^ or when he has been injured by the mal-
administration alleged;* by the widow of the decedent;^ by a
legatee under a will, when the judgment declaring it null has
been appealed from ; '^ by the assignee of a devisee or legatee ; ^
by sureties conceiving themselves in danger from the conduct
of the administrator ;S and, a fortiori, by any of the heirs of a
solvent estate.^ So a railroad company, against whom the ad-
ministrator has brought an action for negligence causing the
death of the intestate, may test the validity of the administra-
tor's appointment, because a judgment obtained upon the action
brought would not constitute a bar to a further suit on the same
cause of action if the appointment were void,^*^ but not where the
appointment is only voidable." But only next of kin may con-
test the appointment of an administrator on the ground that he
is not next of kin ; ^^ and where a stranger and a next of kin
applied contemporaneously for letters, and the stranger was ap-
pointed upon the withdrawal of the application by the next of
kin, he has no right to ask for the removal subsequently.^^ One
not of the next of kin has no right to ask for the removal of the
authority of the public administrator.^* One whose appointment
as administrator is void because an administrator had already
been appointed by a court whose appointment was voidable but

1 People I'. Hartman, 2 Sweeny, 570, 2G Ind. 477. To same effect, DonaMson
579. V. Lewis, 7 Mo. App. 403.

2 Ferris ?•. Ferris, 89 III. 452. ^^ Since payment to tlie de facto ad-

3 Ward r. Cameron, 37 Ala. G91. niinistrator will protect: Chicago, 13. & Q.
* Succession of Uecuir, 23 La. An. R. R. v. Gould, 64 Iowa, 343.

166. ^- Edmundson v. Roberts, 1 How.

5 Evans v. Buchanan, 15 Ind. 438. (Miss) 3-J2.

^ Nowliouse r. Gale, 1 liedf. 217. ^'^ Having renounced liis right by im-

•? Yeaw V. Searle, 2 R. L 1G4; Susz v. plication : Cole r. Dial, 12 Tex. 100.

Forst, 4 Dem. 316. " Estate of Carr, 25 Cal. 585. Nor

8 De Lane's Case, 2 Brev. 1G7 ; Hard- has the public administrator authority to
away r. Parham, 27 Miss. 103. And see, provoke the removal of an executor or
as to the right of sureties to be relieved, administrator : Succession of Burnside,
ante, § 255. 34 La. An. 728 ; Tittman v. Edwards, 27

9 i^eo-l r Crofker, 12 La. An. 445 M... App. 492.
1" Jeft'ersonville R. R. Co. v. Swayne,

582 REVOCATION OF LETTERS. § 273

not void, has no sucli interest in the estate as to enable him to
move for revocation of the voidable appointment.^ An illegiti-*,
mate child has no right to ask for the removal of his mother as
administratrix on the ground that she was not lawfully married
to the intestate, because he would have no right to administer.^
Where a non-resident is disqualified, he is incompetent to petition
for the revocation of letters granted to others.^ The creditor of
an executrix, but not of the testator, has no interest in the estate.*
If the application for the removal is on the ground of premature
appointment, it must be made within such time after the party in
priority learns of the appointment as the statute gives him origi-
nally after the death of the intestate.^ The judgment of the pro-
bate court granting letters testamentary cannot be collaterally
assailed by a motion to remove the executor on the ground that
he was not named in the will.^ An application, made in proper
time, for the removal of an administrator appointed upon the
widow's relinquishment within the time allowed to the widow to
qualify, is not waived by a subsequent application for the removal
of the widow, who was appointed upon the resignation of the ad-
ministrator first appointed."

It seems that any person interested in the estate may prosecute
for the removal of an executor or administrator, independently of
other parties having a like interest, unless the court should re-
quire such other parties to be brought in.^

§ 273. Resignation of Executors and Administrators. — At the
common law, any act of intermeddling with the effects of an
Executor not Gstatc by the person nominated as executor bound him
allowed to re- j^g q^^ acccptancc of the executorship, and he could

sign at com- '■ _ '■

mon law. not Subsequently renounce his character as executor,^

nor resign the trust. ^^ So with regard to the office of administra-
Nor an admin- tor ; the probatc court has no power to accept the
istrator. resignation of an administrator once duly appointed

and qualified, without statutory authorization.^^ It was so held in

1 Coltart V. Allen, 40 Ala. 155. with a citation of English authorities ;

2 Myatt V. Myatt, U 111. 473. ante, § 234.

3 Frick's Appeal, 114 Pa. St. 29. i" Mitchell v. Adams, 1 Ired. L. 298;
* Carroll v. Huie, 21 La. An. 561. Haigood v. Wells, 1 Hill, Ch. 59, 61 ;

5 Edwards v. Bruce, 8 Md. .387. Washington v. Blount, 8 Ired. Eq. 258,

6 Grant v. Spann, 34 Miss. 294. 256; In re Mussault, T. U. P. Charlt. 259 ;
■? Curtis V. Burt, 34 Ala. 729. Driver v. Riddle, 8 Port. 343 ; Thomason

8 Estate of Pike, 45 Wis. 391. v. Blackwell, 5 St. & P. 181.

9 Sears v. Dillingham, 12 Mass. 358, " Elinn v. Chase, 4 Denio, 85,90. In

§ 273 RESIGNATION OF EXECUTORS. 583

Wisconsin 1 before the autliority was given by statute.^ In Illi-
n(jis iind Nebraska, it was held that, wliilc there was no law
allowing an administrator to resign, yet the acceptance of his
resignation by the probate conrt amounts to a revocation of his
authority ; ^ and in Minnesota it is said that a resignation tendered
might be a good ground for removal, and, if accepted by the court
and entered in the form of an order in the record, might be taken
to have the effect of a removal.*

The reservations against the validity of the resignation of exec-
utors and administrators will be foimd, in most of the cases above
cited, to be directed against a liability incurred, generally to ac-
count, etc. ; for it would be absurd to permit one wlio has wasted
or converted the estate, or in any way made himself liable to
creditors, legatees, or distributees, to escape responsibility by res-
ignation,'^ or by declaring his possession that of a legatee, and
not of the executor.^ It is now generally provided by ^^^^ j^ .^^^^^^^^
statute in the several States, that for reasons deemed ^y statute in

most otiiLtis*

sufficient by the probate court it may accept the resig-
nation of an executor or administrator, and relieve him, after set-
tlement of his account, from the trust.' It was held in Illinois ^
and in Massachusetts, in the absence of a statute authorizing
resignation, that, wliere the interest of the estate collided with

the case of Comstock r. Crawford, 3 Wall. * Rumrill v. First National Bank, 28

39;), 401, Mr. Justice Field says: " Tlie Minn. 202 ; followed in Balch v. Hooper,

power to accept tlie resignation and make 32 Minn. 158.

the second appointment, under the circum- '" It was held in California, that the
stances of this case, were necessary inci- statute allowinjr an administrator to re-
dents of the power to grant letters of ad- sign after settling ids accounts excluded
ministration in the first instance"; the his right to do so without having settled :
circumstances alluded to being that the Haynes v. Meeks, 10 Cal. 110. So in
first administrator never took possession Driver v. Riddle, supra, the statute of Ala-
of tlie effects, nor attempted to exercise bama is alluded to as granting the right
any control over them, and informed the to resign, expressly providing, however,
probate court that he could not act. This the continuing liability of the adminis-
case would not seem, therefore, to go to trator and his sureties for any assets not
the extent of establishing the power of duly accounted for. To same effect,
a probate court to accept the resignation Coleman v. Kaynor, 3 Coldw. 25, 29;
of an administrator appointed and quali- where the resignation is accepted pend-
fied, and who had entered upon the dis- ing the settlement of his accounts, the
charge of his duties, without statutory court may nevertheless settle his ac-
authority to that end. counts, and hear and determine excep-

1 Sitzman v. Pacquette, 13 Wis. 291, tions thereto, and ascertain the amount
306. due from him, as if he had not resigned:

2 At least by implication : Rev. St. Slagle r. Entrekin, 44 Oh. St. 637, 639.
1878 § 3804. ^ I^ird v. Jones, 5 La. An. 643, 645.

3 Vlarsh V. The People, 15 111. 284, 286 ; ^ Schoul. Ex. § Vo(\
Trumble v. Williams, 18 Neb. 144, 148. ^ Marsh v. The People, supra.

584 REVOCATION OF LETTERS. § 274

that of the executor, tlie acceptance of the resignation of the latter
by the probate court constitutes an order of removal on the ground
of " unsuitableness." ^ So in Missouri the duty of the adminis-
trator of two estates, one of which it was contended was indebted
to the other, to resign one of them, was indicated by the Supreme
Court.^ In Alabama, it was ruled that, where an administrator
accepted the office of probate judge, he did not thereby vacate his
office as administrator ; ^ but the propriety of a voluntary resigna-
tion by the judge of his previous office of administrator was not
questioned.

The right to resign is not, however, an absolute or arbitrary
right ; it can only be accorded upon proof of circumstances show-
Right to resign "ig it to bc cousistcnt With the interests of the estate.*
is not absolute, jjencc the parties interested in the estate should have
notice of the intended resignation, either by publication or other-
wise. The method of notice is generally provided by statute ; '"
and it is held in Georgia, that, if not complied with, the order
granting a discharge is void ; ^ and so in New Jersey."^

§ 274. Consequences of the Revocation of Letters. — The effect
of the revocation of letters testamentary and of administration,
and of the resignation of the executor or administrator, is neces-

1 Whore, for instance, the executor * In New York it is held that an alle-

sliows that the prosecution of his per- gation that tlie petitioner " is too busy

sonal claims against the estate conflict with her own private matters, and no

with his duties as executor: Tiiayer v. longer desires to he busied" with her

Homer, 11 Met. (Mass ) 104. trust, is not a "sufficient reason" to au-

■■^ State r. Bidlingmaier, 26 Mo. 483, thorize the resignation of an executrix,

affirmed in 81 Mo. 9.5. under tlie statute: Baier v. Baier, 4 Dem.

3 Whitworth v. Oliver, 39 Ala. 286, 16'2. An executor, although he may re-

290. The question arose in a suit against sign, cannot retract a renunciation : Mat-

the administrator's sureties, and for the ter of Suaroz, 3 Dem. lt)4.

furtherance of justice in that case it may ^ In Missouri, by publication in a news-

not have been necessary to appoint an paper for four consecutive weeks before

administrator de boitis non. But for the the beginning of the term at which the

ordinary purposes of administration the application is to be made : Rev. St. 1879,

election of an administrator to the office § 44.

of judge of probate with jurisdiction over '^ Head v. Bridges, 67 Ga. 227, 232,

the estate admini^^tered by him, seems Speer, J., dissenting, 2.39, on the ground

to be highly suggestive of the pro- that there was no proof in the record that

priety of resignation or removal as there had been no service, in the absence

administrator. A litigant claiming ad- of which the recital of service must be

versely to the adminhtrator would be deetned conclusive. Also Barnes i-. Un-

at some disadvantage before tlie judge, derwood, 54 Ga. 87.

who would so much more readily under- '^ Vail v. Male, 37 N. J. Eq. 521, the
stand and appreciate the force of the rule of court requiring at least thirty
administrator's position than that of his days' notice, unless the court order other-
opponent, wise.

§ 274 CONSEQUENCES OF THE REVOCATION. 585

sarily mentioned in connection with the subject of jurisdiction of
probate courts,^ executors de son tort^ and of the powers and
duties of administrators de bonis non;^ and on several other
occasions the principle upon which the validity of the mesne acts
of an executor or administrator after appointment and before
revocation depends, has been discussed.* It may nevertheless
be of utility to add, in this connection, some considerations on this
subject, although, perhaps, to some extent in recapitulation of
what has been said before.

Mr. Williams, in his great treatise on Executors and Adminis-
trators, says on this subject, that the first important distinction to
be considered is between grants which are void, and ,,. .. ,. ,

o ' Distinction be-

such as arc merely voidable, — the mesne acts of an twuenactsofan

. . . adinmistrator

executor or administrator between the grant and its under void,
revocation being, in the former case, of no validity, under voida-
The necessity of this rule is self-evident : a void grant ^ etter>.
is no grant, and acts depending for tlieir validity upon official
authority in the actor are wholly void in the absence of such au-
thority. So far, then, as the original appointment of an executor
was made by a court having no power to make such an appoint-
ment,— whether for want of jurisdiction generally or in the par-
ticular case that may be in question, — all that the person so
appointed has done under color of his appointment must be treated
precisely as if done by a stranger. The revocation in such case
amounts simply to an official declaration of the nullity of what
has l)een done, " for the sake of correcting the records and pre-
venting further mischief." ^

Mr. Williams then proceeds to cite and quote from a number
of English cases, showing that many sucli acts were held void
under circumstances which seem to make the ruling incompatible
with principles of strict justice and wise policy ; thus all acts per-
formed by an administrator who obtained letters on the conceal-
ment of a will,^ or by one appointed before the executor had
renounced," or by an executor who obtained probate, knowing

1 Ante, ch. xvi. 5 Schoul. Ex. § 160.

^ Ch. xxi. 6 Wins. Ex. [586]. citinsr Abram v.

3 Ante, § 179. Cunningham, 2 Lev. 182 ; Graysbrook v.

* See as to the validity of the admin- Fox, Plowd. 276.
istration on the estate of a person not " Abram v. Cunningham, supra : Bax-

actually dead, ante, §§ 208-211: also ter and Bale's Case, 1 Leon. 90; and see

ante, § 266. Throckmorton v. Hobby, 1 Brownl. 51.

586 REVOCATION OP LETTERS. § 274

that there was a later will by the same testator,^ have been held
void, so that the later appointed executor or administrator was
allowed to maintain trover or detinue to recover property from
one who had purcliased of the former appointee.^ The justice and
wisdom of this principle would seem to be limited to such persons
as acted with knowledge or notice of the invalidity of the author-
ity of the executor or administrator. But to visit upon one who
has no means of detecting it the consequences of a fraud practised
upon the court granting letters, or of a mistake in the effect of
the evidence produced before it, and who relies upon the validity
of the unreversed decrees and judgments of a court created by the
law for the purpose of rendering them, seems a mockery of justice
and the conversion of law into a snare. As if in melioration of
the harshness, not to say injustice, of the rule applied in these
cases, the privilege accorded to executors de son tort to recoup,
in damages, payments made in due course of administration, is
extended to the vendees of an executor or administrator under
void letters.^ But this privilege does not extend to an executor
knovvMngly acting under a void probate ; in the case of Woolley
V. Clark,"^ such an executor was not allowed to give evidence
of the administration of assets. In this case, the distinction is
broadly drawn between one who acts with knowledge or notice of
the defect in the authority, and one who has no such notice:
" Where a party obtains a judgment irregularly, which is after-
ward set aside for irregularity, he is not justified in acting under
it ; but the sheriff is justified." And this view seems to be recog-
nized in many English cases, even in that in which Justices Ash-
hurst and Buller uttered the unfortunate dictum, that the case
of a probate of a supposed will during the life of a party may
be distinguished from a case where a party acts under the au-
thority of a court of law.^ " Every person is bound to pay defer-

1 Woolley V. Clark, 5 B. & Aid. 744. sale would have been indefeasible for-

2 Or he might bring assumpsit for the ever."

proceeds, waiving the tort and treating * 5 B. & Aid. 744.

the sale as if made with his consent for ^ Wiiich, being repeated a few years

his use : Wms. Ex. [587]. afterward by Chief Justice Marshall, in

3 Wms. Ex. 1588], citing Graysbrook Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, gave rise to a
V. Fox, supra, in which " it was laid number of American decisions holding
down by the court, that if the sale had the grant of letters and all acts resting for
been made to discharge funeral expenses their validity upon tiiem void, if itsubse-
or debts, wluch the executor or admin- quently appeared that the person adjudl-
istrator was compellable to pay, the cated to be dead was not in reality dead.

§ 274 CONSEQUENCES OF THE REVOCATION. 587

encc to a judicial act of a court having competent jurisdiction,"
says Justice Ashhurst.^ And Justice Buller : " I am most clearly
of oi)ini()n that it [probate of a will] is a judicial act ; for the
ecclesiastical court may hoar and examine the parties on the
difl'ercnt sides whether a will be or be not properly made ; that
is the only court that can pronounce whether or not the will be
good. And the courts of common law have no jurisdiction over
the subject." Secondly, " The probate is conclusive till it he
repealed; and no court of common law can admit evidence to
impeach it." ^ It was held in the early reign of Queen p]lizabeth,
that a sale or gift by an administrator, whose authority was sub-
sequently vacated, stood unaffected thereby. ^

The cases giving rise to the application of this principle in
America turn mostly upon the question of the residence of the
decedent at the time of his death ; for it was formerly held in
many States, that the probate court has no jurisdiction to grant
probate or letters unless the decedent died an inhabitant of the
county, or leaving property therein, and that letters granted where
such was not the fact, and all acts done upon the authority there-
of, are void. This doctrine is now very generally giving way to
the safer one of holding them voidable, but good until revoked.*
It is so provided by statute in England,^ and in some of the
American States, as Massachusetts.^

If the grant is only voidable, another distinction is taken be-
tween a proceeding by citation to revoke the letters granted, and
an appeal from the judgment of the court of probate. Distinction be-

, . 1 . , 1 , c . - mi tween citation

which IS taken to reverse a former sentence.' ine to revoiie a
appeal suspends, until its termination, the powers of audapp^efr^'
the person against whose appointment it is taken, and gra",;'!"'^""^^"'^
all of his intermediate acts arc ineffectual. If any- letters.
thing is necessary to be done for the estate during the prosecution

1 Allen I'. Dundas, 3 T. R. 125, 129. ute " : Packman's Case, 6 Co. 10. To
- Ibid., pp. 130, 131, citing Kerrick v. tiie same effect, Semine v. Semine, 2

Bransby, 2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 421, pi. 4. Lev. 90.

2 " Forasmuch as tlie first administra- ■* See ante, § 145. But see the re-
tor liad the absolute property of the cent case of People's Savintis Bank i-.
goods in him, he might give them to Wilcox, 15 R. I. 258, holding such let-
whom he pleased. And although the ters void.

letters of administration be afterwards ^ 20 & 21 Vict. c. 77, § 77.

countermanded and revoked, yet that « Pub. St. 1882, ch. 132, § 15; St. 1873,

cannot defeat tlie gift. But if the gift c. 253, §§ 1-3.
be by covin, it shall be void by the stat- ' Wms. Ex. [588].

588 REVOCATION OF LETTERS. § 274

of the appeal, it is within the power of the probate court to appoint
an administrator penderite lite.} The bond of an executor is not
vacated, but only suspended, by the appeal from the order appoint-
ing him.2 Where an oi'der of revocation is appealed from, it is
held in some States that the appeal suspends the order of revoca-
tion, and leaves the letters in full force and effect ; ^ while else-
where the authority of the executor pending the appeal is denied.*
But on an appeal from the order granting letters, such letters
cannot be granted pending the appeal.^

A revocation upon citation, where the grant of letters was void-
able only, leaves all lawful acts done by the first administrator
valid and binding, as though his authority had not been ques-
tioned ; all sales of real or personal property made lawfully by
the executor or administrator, and with good faith on the part
of the purchaser, are and shall remain valid and effectual, and
the payment to him of a debt to the estate will be a legal dis-
charge to the debtor. This is self-evident, and it would be a waste
of time and space to examine the very numerous cases so holding.^
Beside the cases bearing upon this subject which are cited ante, in
connection with the several subjects mentioned in the opening of
this section, there will be occasion to cite others, in connection
"with the relation which several executors or administrators of the
same estate bear to each other, which also touch upon the effect
of revocation and resignation.

It may be mentioned, however, that since the removed executor
or administrator has no further authority to act, or bind the estate,
he cannot be held liable for any act affecting the estate after his
removal.'^ To a suit pending against him at the time of his re-
moval he may plead the revocation of his authority in bar,^ at
least if he has settled his account ; ^ and such suit must be further

1 Fletcher v. Fletcher, 29 Vt. 98, 102; ^ state r. Williams, supra; Offutt v^
Arnold v. Sabin, 4 Cush. 46. Gott, 12 Gill & J. 385. See as to the ef-

2 Hence, if the original grant is af- feet of an appeal, post, §§ 547 et seq.
firmed on appeal, no new bond need be ^ See Wms. Ex. [590], and list of
given by the executor : Dunham y. ])un- American cases under note (x^) ; also
ham, 16 Gray, 577. [549], note (d) ; 3 Redf. on Wills, 120, pi.

^ So in Maryland : State i'. Williams, 7, and notes ; Schoul. Ex. § 160.

9 Gill, 172 ; Mississippi : Miiirhead v. "> Marsh i: The People, 15 111. 284.

Muirhead, 8 Sm. & M. 211; Pennsylva- ^ Morrison v. Cones, 7 Blackf. 593;

nia: Shauffler v. Stoever, 4 S. & R. 202. Broach r. Wnlker, 2 Ga. 428; Hall v.

* So in Georgia: Thompson v. Knight, Pearman, 20 Tex. 168.

23 Ga. 399 ; Louisiana : Succession of ^ Cogburn v. McQueen, 46 Ala. 551,

Townsend, 37 La. An. 408. 565.

§ 274 CONSEQUENCES OF THE REVOCATION. 589

prosecuted in the name of a new representative of tlie estate, or
be dismissed.^ " After revocation, removal, or resignation, the
former executor or administrator cannot complete a sale which he
has been negotiating on behalf of the estate,- nor collect assets " ; ^
but the court has jurisdiction to settle his accounts, as though he
were still in office.*

It is held in New York tliat an executor, whose letters havb
been revoked on the ground of having been adjudged Cessation of

CflHSG of I'CVO—

a lunatic, is not entitled to rehabilitation in office on cation does not
judicial restoration to sanity. The principle involved
extends equally to removals for any cause.^

rehabilitate the

person

removed.

1 Per Bell, J., in Wiggin v. Plumer, ^ Ibid. ; Stubblefield v- MoKaven, 5
31 N. H. 251, 2GG ; National Bank v. Stan- Sm. & M. 130.

ton, IIG Mass. 435 ; Brown v. Pender- * Casoni v. Jerome, 58 N. Y. 315, 322 ;

gast, 7 Allen, 427. Slagle v. Entrekin, 44 Ohio St. 637, 639;

2 Schoul. E.v. § IGO, citing Owens v. In re Hood, 104 N. Y. 103; 74 Cal. 536.
Cowan, 7 B. Mon. 152. ^ Matter of Dearing, 4 Dem. 81.

PART THIRD.

OF THE PROPERTY TO WHICH THE TITLE OF EXECU-
TORS AND ADMINISTRATORS EXTENDS.

There is no occasion to repeat citation of authorities on the

proposition, that, at common law and in all the States, all mere

personal property, including chattels real, goes to the

All personal ^ ii.' o cj

property goes exccutor of a tcstator, and to the administrator or

to the executor ,. , , • i.

nradminis- an mtestato, or ot a testator m case no executor ac-
*'^'°'^' cepts or qualifies. The single exception that may be

mentioned is, that by special custom heirlooms go to the heir or
devisee, and, although they are mere chattels, cannot be devised
apart from the realty.^

Heirlooms in the strict sense are said to be rarc,^ and seem not
to be recognized in America ;3 they are, according to the ancient
Except heir- authorities, such goods and chattels as, though not
looms. -j^ their nature heritable, have a heritable character

impressed upon thcm,^ although Blackstone describes them as
generally being such things as cannot be taken away without
damaging or dismembering the freehold.^ This subject is not of
sufficient importance to justify further consideration here ; the
law as to the cognate subject of fixtures not severable from the
inheritance will be treated hereinafter.^

Family portraits specifically bequeathed have been held to con-
Family por- stitute no part of the testator's personal estate, and
traits. ^|-jj^|. therefore the administrator cum testamento an-

nexo has no right to them.' So an administrator has no property

1 2 Blackst. *429; 1 Schouler on Per- '" 2 Blackst. *427. The crown jewels
sonal Property, 118. of England are mentioned as being lieir-

2 Rap. & L. Law Diet. " Heirlooms " looms descendible to the next successor :

3 1 Washb. R. Prop., oh. 1, pi. 16. Wms. Ex. [722].

4 Byng V. Byng, 10 H. L. Cas. 171, 183. ^ Post, §§ 280 et seq.

See authorities in Wms. Ex. [721]. "^ Estate of Mosely, 12 Phila. 50.

HEIRLOOMS: FAMILY PORTRAITS. 591

in the cadaver of his intestate, and cannot maintain cariavor of the
an action for its wilful and neLili,^-cnt mutilation; but '''■^'^^«'^'^'-
may sue for injury to the wearing ap[)arcl of the deceased.^ In
a case arising in Rhode Island,^ Potter, J. reviews the Roman,
canon, and English ecclesiastical law, and reaches the conclusion,
that, while a dead body is not property in the strict sense of the
common law, yet the relatives have rights over it which courts
will protect.^ In Indiana the proposition is laid down, that the
bodies of the dead belong to the surviving relations as property.*
So in Pennsylvania.^

1 Griffith V. Railroad, 23 S. C. 25. * Bogert v. Indianapolis, 13 Ind. 134,

'^ Pierce v. Proprietors, 10 R. I. ii27. 138.

8 Ibid., pp. 235, 239. See a learned ^ Wynkoop v. Wynkoop, 42 Pa. St.

dissertation on this subject in a note to 293, 302 (excluding the right of the ad-

the referee's report in the Matter of niinistratrix and wife).
Opening Beekman Street, by Surrogate
Bradford, appended to 4 Bradf. p. 503.

592 PROPERTY IN POSSESSION. § 275

CHAPTER XXX.

OP PROPERTY IN POSSESSION.

§ 275. Joint and Partnership Property. — Since it was found
most convenient to consider the law affecting tlie estates of dc-
Partnership ccascd partners in connection with the effect produced
property. ^y. |-|-^g death of a member of a partnership, it is not

necessary to mention the subject here further than to refer to the
chapter where it is treated.^

It is one of the characteristics of joint ownership of property,
At law, exec- personal as well as real, that, when one of the joint

utors and ad- ,.,... , . . , i

ministiators owncrs dics, liis mtcrcst passes at once to the survivor
ilf property^ 0^' survivors, cxcluding the personal representatives as
held in joint ^g|| ^^g i^q{yq and distributees from anv title therein.^

ownership,

but ma have ^^^^ ^^ equity, the owncrs of a mortgage made to sev-
in equity. qyq\ mortgagees jointly were held to be owners in

common of the money secured thereby, the right to which, on the
death of one of them, passes to his executor or administrator.^
From this principle Mr. Williams deduces the rule that at law the
right of a joint owner passes, on his death, to the survivor or
survivors,* but in equity to his executor or administrator.^

§ 276. Real Estate. — There will be occasion hereafter, in con-
nection with the law regulating the liability and powers of execu-
tors and administrators in respect of real estate,^ as well as in
treating of the sale of real estate for the payment of debts,''' to
dwell upon the circumstances under wdiich real estate will pass to
Real estaie ^hc personal representative for administration. It will
passes directly ^^ sufficient, therefore, to mention in this connection

to heirs and ' '

devisees. the general rule, that in the absence of statutory pro-

visions the real estate, or lands, tenements, and hereditaments, of
a deceased person, go directly to the heirs or devisees.^ Excep-

1 Ante, §§ 123 ft seq. 6 Post, §§ 337 et seg.

2 1 Schoiil. Pers. Pr. 188. " Post, §§ 463 et seq.

8 Vickers v. Cowell, 1 Beav. 629. » Swinb., pt. 6, sec. 3, pi. 5 ; 3 Redf. on

* Wms. Ex. [650]. Wills, 134, pi. 7 ; Schoul. Ex. § 212.

5 Wms. Ex. [1900].

§ 277 CHATTELS REAL. 593

tiuns to this rule arc enacted in several States whose ry ,
statutes direct that realty and personalty are alike wise directed

,.. . \ . (• ^ 1 ^y statute,

subject to administration;' in most oi them real estate
is likewise subject to be administered in case it be- for the p.-u-
comes necessaiy, from the lack of sufficient personalty, ""^"^ "^ '^*'^^^'
to pay the decedent's debts, so that in these States the realty de-
scends to the heir or devisee subject to a naked power to be sold
on the happening of the contingency named.^ It is „r under a
also to be mentioned here, that executors, and nnder ^^"ci'to". {|[f
some circumstances administrators eiun testamento cm- ■*^'"-
nexo, are sometimes vested by will with power to dispose of real
estate. In this respect it is sometimes difficult to decide whether
the devise is to the executor, or to the devisee with a naked i)ower
in the executor. Judge McCreary has adopted, on this point, the
rule as laid down by Judge Redfield : ^ "It is said the Devise to sell
devise of the land to the executors to sell passes the passes the title;
title ; but a devise that executors may sell, or shall Jjirecl'i^^^or^
sell lands, or that they may or shall be sold bv the authorizing of

•' •/ - a sale confers

executors, gives them only a naked power of sale." * » naked power.
The power to sell may be granted by implication,^ where, and to
the extent to which, it is necessary to carry out the

Powor to sell

testator's intention,*" but will not bo implied from the may be t^ianted
mere fact that lands are charged with the payment of ^'' '"'P^'^-"''""-
debts," or that distribution is to be made after the executor's death.^
§ 277. Chattels Real, which, as already remarked, go to the ex-
ecutor or administrator, include all leases of lands or chattels real
tenements for a definite space of time, measured by jea!es fo'l-'a
years, months, or days, or until a day named ;^ also time certain;
estates at will, by sufferance, and, generally, any estate estates at
in lands not amounting to a freehold. '"^ So the residue suWrance.'^

t These States are enumerated, /los^ '^ Fox's Will. 52 N. Y. 5-30, 536 ; Owen

§ 337. V. Ellis, 64 Mo. 77.

2 Tills subject is fully discussed, post, ^ Waller v. Logan, 5 B. Mon. 515, 522.
§§468r/.se7. 3 2 Kent Com. *342 ; Schee v. Wi^e-

3 3 Kedf. on Wills, 1.37, pi. 2, note (1), man, 79 Ind. 389 ; Lewis r. Rin^o, 3 A. K.
citing Sugd. on Powers, 8th ed , 112, an Marsh. 247 ; INIurdock i-. Katcliff, 7 Ohio,
authority also cited by Williams, Ex. 119; Payne v. Harris, 3 Strobh. Eq. -30 ;
[6-54], who reaches the same conclusion. (iutzweiler r. Lackmann, 39 Mo. 91, 97 ;

< Beadlei'. Readle, 2 McCrary, 586,595. Gay ex parte.o .Mass. 4 19; Brewster i\ Hill,

6 Per Wilde, J., in Tainter v. Clark, 13 1 N- H. 3.50 ; Thornton v. Mehring. 117 111.'

Met. (Mass.) 220, 228 ; pwt, §§ 339 at srq. 55 ; Becker r. Walworth, 45 Oh. .M. 169.
6 Walker r. Murphy, .34 Ala. 591,594; '"Rap. & L. Law Diet., "Chattels

Gray v. Henderson, 71 Pa. St. 3G8. Real"; Wms. Ex. [075].
VOL. I.— 38

594 PROPERTY IN POSSESSION. § 278

„ .J , after the death of a tenant pur autre vie oroes to tlie

Residue of _ ^ °

lease /v«/- executoF 01* administrator ; ^ and by analogy to the

provision of the English Statute of Frauds,^ (directing
that an estate pur autre vie might be devised, and should be
chargeable for debts on debtor's death, in the hands of the heirs
of a special occupant, or of the executor or administrator if there
were no occupant,) the interest of an assignee of a lease for lives,
although a freehold, passed on his death to his executor or admin-
istrator,^ Text-writers also mention the estate known

Terms attend-
ant on the as terms attendant upon the inheritance,* which in

intieiitauce. ... • -, • in ■, • o -i

equity, it is said, is regarded as being confined to the
freehold, and inseparable from it.^

§ 278. Chattels Real cf the "Wife. — It is familiar doctrine, that
Husband may at commoii law the wife's interest in her chattels real
ofYer ili'te^e'sf Hiay bc divcstcd by the husband at any time during
in chattels real. (.Qverture. But he may permit them to remain in statu
tiiev reniain"^^' 5'^<^? ^^^ ^^ i" ^\\q\\ case the wifc survive, they are hers
hers on his ^q ^j-^g exclusioii of his cxecutors and administrators,^

death.

unaffected bv testamentary disposition or charge.' The

He cannot di- " j i ^

vest her by disposition by the husband, in order to divest liis wife's

will. . .1,1 1 , 1 • • 1

interest in chattels real, must, as a general principle,
title it must be be such as to cffcct a complete change of the interest
tered during" held by liusbaud and wife jointly.^ Thus recovery,
coverture. after ejectment, by the husband in his own name, is

sufificient ; ^ but where the husband had taken the lease into cus-
tody, applied to an attorney to collect the rent, and the wife
seemed unwilling to execute a power of attorney to prosecute in
the name of both, whereupon the husband relinquished his inten-
tion, it was held that the husband had not thereby altered the
title.i^ So if the husband mortgages the wife's term and makes
default in payment, by reason whereof the mortgagee's title be-
comes absolute, the wife's right by survivorship is defeated ; but

1 3 Redf. on Wills, 143 et seg., pi. 4-6. ^ i Bisli. on Mar. Women, § 188; Stew.

2 29 Car. II c. 3, § 12. Husb. & Wife, § 145. Both of tiiese writers

3 Mosher v. Yost, 3-3 Barb. 277, 279. cite as authority, besides Coke (Litt. 46 b,

4 When a term is created for a par- 351 a), Roberts v. Polgrean, 1 H. Bl. 535;
ticular purpose, and this purpose has been 3 Redf. on Wilis, 146, pi. 13.
accomplished, the termor is held inequity ^ Wins. Ex. [6(»1].

as trustee for the owner: Wms.Ex. [1675]. » 3 Hedf. on Wills, 146, pi. 18 ; Brett

5 3 Hedf. on Wills, 143, pi. 3 ; Schoul. v. Cumberland, 3 Bulst. 163, 164.

Ex. § 221. ^^ Daniels i- Richardson, 22 Pick. 565,

6 Schoul. Husb. & Wife. § 164 ; Wms. 570.
Ex. 1690] ; 3 Redf. on Wills, 146, pi. 12.

§ 279 MORTGAOKS. 595

if the mortgacree's title is defeated by payment at maturity, her
interest is not affected.^

Power in the husband to divest the whole of his wife's estate in
chattels real includes power to divest any jjart thereof. ^^^^ ^^ ^^^_
Hence, if he alone grants a portion of the wife's term, partially .livest

wiiG s title*

reserving rent, he makes himself the owner of the

term so granted, and the rent reserved will go to his executor ;2

but the residue will survive to the wife.^

If the husband survive, he is entitled to his wife's chattels real
not disposed of by him during coverture, and of which if husband
he had possession /wrfj uzoris ; not as her executor or ^^^^fe'sriiattois
administi-ator, but by right of survivorship.- Hence, if |^J||,'|^,Ij7i"^i"
he should himself die without having administered on right.
the wife's estate, her chattels real go to his executor or admin-
istrator.^

§ 279. Mortgages, as well as deeds of trust to secure the pay-
ment of debts to the decedent, always go to the executor or
administrator,^ even though the estate was in process ,^ ^

' ° ^ Mnrt craves jjn

of foreclosure at the time of the testator's death,'^ and t<. personal rep-

r t? ? G 11 1 Q t i V G

although the heirs obtained possession before the ap-
pointment of an administrator.^ So, also, the real estate acquired
by an executor or administrator in satisfaction of a go real ctate
judgment for a debt due the deceased is held by him ^X'due to^he
in trust until it appears that it is not needed to pay deceased,
debts or expenses of administration, Avhen the title passes to the
heirs.^ The equity of redemption in the mortiraffor

. . Ill'- F-qnitv of re-

descends to his heirs. Hence it has been held m demption eoes
New York, that, while the surplus proceeds of a sale

1 Wms. Ex. [602], citin,? Young r. Calden, -56 Me. 204, 210 ; Clark r. Rlack-
Radford, Hob. 3 h, wliicli, liowever, turns injjton, 110 Mass. 369; Ladcl r. Witrjrin,
upon a mortgage made by iiusband and 3.') N. H. 421 ; Slioolbred v. Drayton, 2
wife, and surviving to the Iiusband by Desaus. 246 ; Clapp ;•. Reardsley, 1 Vt.
tlie wife's death before the day of pay- I'^l, 167; Williams v. Ely, 13 Wis. 1, 6;
ment. Copper v. Wells, 1 N. J. Eq. 10 ; Hera-

2 3 Redf. on Wills, 146, pi. 14. menway v. Lynde, 79 Me. 299.

8 Wms. Ex. [694], citing as authority " Fay v. Cheney, 14 Pick. 399; Dewey

two cases from Cro. Eliz. ?'. Vnn Deusen, 4 Pick. 19; Stevenson v.

* 3 Hedf. on Wills, 147, pi. 15. Polk, 71 Iowa, 278, 290.

5 Wms. Ex. [695] ; Roberts v. Pol- ** Haskins v. Hawkes, 108 Mass. 379 ;

grean, 1 FT. Bl. 535. Demarest v. Wynkoop, 3 .John. Ch. 129.

« Smitli V. Dyer, 16 Mass. 18; Taft v. '■> Webber v. Webber. 6 Me. 127 ;

Stevens, 3 Gray, .504 ; Long v. O'Fallon, Boylston v. Carver, 4 Mass. 598 ; Gibson

19 How. (U. S) 116, 125; Burton v. r. Bailey, 9 N. H. 168.
Hintrager, 18 Iowa, 348 ; Webster v.

596 PROPERTY IN POSSESSION. § 280

during the lifetime of the mortgagor constitute personal ])roi)crty
going to the executor, the surplus of a sale after his death repre-
sents real estate and goes to the heirs. ^

It follows from the law giving to executors and administrators
the custody of real as well as of personal estate, as is provided
Surplus of sale hy statutc in some States, that such surplus remain-
'"oesTo^the'e^x- ^^^ after payment of the debt secured and expenses
ecutor. of qq\q likewise goes to the executor or administrator.

And it is held in Delaware that such surplus should be paid to
and held by the executor or administrator until it appear that it
is not needed for the payment of debts.^ So in Massachusetts,
the surplus proceeds of a sale under a power directing such sur-
plus to be paid to the mortgagor or his assigns, may be recovered
by the mortgagor's executor, although devised to others, who
holds it, first to the use of the widow, next for payment of
debts, and lastly to the uses of the will.^ The ven-

Vendor's hen. i , t (. . i

dor s lien for unpaid purchase money, being a chose
in action, goes to the executor or administrator, and not to the
widow or heirs as such.*

§ 280. Chattels Animate. — Domestic animals, being personal
property, go to the executor or administrator. Of animals /erce
Domestic ani- naturos oiily sucli go to the personal representative as
ecuto^"anV'^" ^-rc confiucd, or in the immediate possession of man ;
w""«ri^d"pos- ^^^^^ ^^ tame pigeons, deer, rabbits, pheasants, par-
session, tridgcs, etc. ; or animals kept in a room, cage, or
the like; fish in a box, tank, or net;^ doves in a dove-house;^
or animals wounded so as to prevent their escape," or killed ; or
oysters artificially planted in a bed clearly separated and marked
FercB nahtrm out for the purposc.^ But auimals ferce naturce, in
growth' die' ^'^ ^^^' ^^ ^^^^y helong to a privilege connected with
'^"'^- landed possession, such as deer in a park (not so
tame or reclaimed from their wild state as to become personal
property), fish in a pond, and the like, will go to the heir, if the

1 Cox t-.McBurney, 2 Santlf. 561,563; » Buster v. Newkirk, 20 John. 75;

Sweezey v. Willis, 1 Bradf. 495; Moses Pierson v. Post, 3 Cai. 175.

V. Murgatroyd, 1 John. Ch. 119; Bogert ^ Commonwealth v. Chace, 9 Pick. 15.

V. Furman, 10 Pai. 4f>6 ; Dunning i-. Ocean " But simple pursuit is not sufficient to

Bank, 61 N. Y. 497. See also Garlick v. create ownership : Buster ik Newkirk and

Patterson, 2 Chev. 27. Pierson v. Post, supra.

^ Vincent r. Piatt, 5 Harr. 164, 167. » Fleet v. Hegeman, 14 Wend. 42;

3 Varnum v. Meserve, 8 Allen, 158. Decker v. Fisher, 4 Rarh. 692; Lowndes

4 Evans v. Enloe, 70 Wis. 345, 348. v. Dickerson, 34 Barb. 586.

§ 281 CHATTELS VEGETABLE. 507

deceased held a freehold estate, or to the executor, as accessory to
the chattel real, if he held a term for years. ^

§ 281. Chattels Vegetable. — Chattels vegetable, behig the fruit
or other i)arts of a phint when severed from its body, or the plant
itself when severed from the ground, go to the ex- Fruit or plants,
ccutor or administrator. l>ut unless they have been f^.^Jil^fhe^""^
severed, trees and the fruit and produce therefrom [][;.'"'^'';.^,';,;"^^
follow the nature of the soil upon which they grow, adiuinistrator.
and when the owner of the land dies they descend to the heir or
person entitled to the land.^ But even growing tim- Growing tim-
ber, trees, and grass may, under special circumstances, 1",^^/ "J fo ufe
become chattels, and as such pass to the executor or f.^,::';;;'"^""if
administrator ; where, for instance, the owner of the stances,
fee grants the trees on land to another, they become personalty.^
Or the owner in fee simple may sell the land and reserve the tim-
ber or trees, and they thereby become personalty and go to the
personal representative.* A distinction is also made in England,
and has been recognized in America, between trees fit for timber
and such as are not; — the former, when severed by the tenant
during his term, or by the act of a stranger, or by tempest or other
providential act, becoming the property of the owner in fee ; the
latter, that of the tenant.^

1 Ferguson v. Miller, 1 Cow. 243, hold- a valid sale in writing by the owner of

ing that a swarm of bees in a bee tree the fee in land are severed, in conteiiipla-

belong to the owner of tlie soil where the tion of law, from the land, and become

tree stands ; and if lie gives license to chattels personal : Warren v. Leland, 2

two persons successively to take them. Barb. 613, 618; but a mortgage of grow-

liiey become the property of him who ing trees or grass by the owner of tlie fee

first takes possession, although the other of tiie land does not work a severance

first marked the tree. Wms. Ex. [704], until it becomes absolute by non-j)erform-

with English and American authorities. ance of the condition : Bank of Lansing-

^ Green v. Armstrong, 1 Denio, 550, burgli v. Crary, 1 Barb. 542, 545.
554. Grass, clover, hay, and fruits hang- * 3 Redf. on Wills, 151, pi. 2, citing
ing on trees go with the land : Kain v. Herlakenden's Case, 4 Co. 62 a.
Fisher, 6 N. Y. 597 ; Evans v. Iglehart, 6 ^ Bewick i: Whitfield, 3 l\ Wms. 266,
G. & J. 171, 173 ; Craddock v. Riddlesbar- 268 ; Herlakenden's Case, 4 Co. 63 a ;
ger, 2 Dana, 205, 206 ; Mitchell v. Billings- Brackett i-. Goddard, 54 Me. 309 ; Kit-
ley, 17 Ala. 391, 398 ; Price v. Brayton, 19 tredge v. Woods, 3 N. H. 50.3, 506 (dictum).
Iowa, 309 (distinguishing between trees But in Illinois it was held that logs hewn
planted by the owner of the realtor and and lying loosely upon the land, although
trees planted by a tenant for the purposes cut with the view of erecting a granary
of trade); M.iples v. Millon (drawing the on the land, do not pass under a deed
same distinction, but holding it inapplica- for the land : Cook v. Whiting, 16 111.
ble between mortgagor and mortgagee), 480, 482; Wincher v. Shrewsbury, 3 El.
31 Conn. 598, 600. 283.

3 Wms. Ex. [707]. Growing trees by

598 PROPERTY IN POSSESSION. § 282

§ 282. Emblements, as against the heir, belong to the executor

or administrator. " The vegetable chattels called emblements,"

say the Supreme Court of Penns\'lvania,i " are the

I'.mblements Ro "^ i r i " i i • i

t(i excLLitor or cum and other growth of the earth which are pro-
a( mini!, Id 01 , ^^jj^jggj annually, not spontaneously, but by labor and
industry, and thence are caWod fructus mdustrialisy The term in-
cludes every product of the earth yielding an annual profit as the
result of labor and manuring ; such as corn, grain, hops, saffron,
hemp, flax,^ melons of all kinds,^ and the like. But roots, such
as carrots, parsnips, turnips, skerrets, &c., are said to belong to
the realty, because it is not right that the executor should " dig
and break the soil," * except potatoes, which are held to come
because lie who witliiu the description of emblements.^ The reason
fio7 wfthoiu his ^^ ^^^^ ^'"^® ^^' ^^^^^ where the occupant of land has
fault, lose the sowu or planted the soil with the intention of raising a

iruit 01 his '■ ...

labor, crop, and his estate determines without his fault be-

fore harvest time, he should not lose the fruit of his labor ;^ to
accomplish which the law gives to him, or, if the tenancy is ended
by his death, to his executors or administrators, the profit of the
^ ,, crop.'^ Hence the right is confined to that kind of

Emblements ^ °

are annual crop wliich actually repays the labor by which it is
produced within the year, excluding fruit-growing
trees'.' Wis", trecs ^ aud growing crops of grass, clover, etc., though
or clover. sown from seed, and though ready to be cut for hay.^

So it has been held that a border of box planted by a tenant (not
a gardener) belongs to the realty ; ^^ so strawberries, although
planted or paid for by the incoming tenant.^^

1 Per Read, J., in Keiff v. Reiff, 64 Pa. ^ Tliornton v. Burch, 20 Ga. 791, 792.
St. 134, 137. Tlie statement is taken from ^ Redtield mentions an exception in the
Wms. Ex. and will be found at p. [710J. case of nurserymen who plant and culti-

2 Toll. Ex. 150. vate trees for sale, which may be removed
8 Wentw. Ex. 153. by the executor or administrator as per-
* Wentw. Ex. 152. Williams calls at- sonalty : 3 Redf. on Wills, 151, pi. 4,

tention to Lord Coke's statement, that if citing Penton v. Robart, 2 East, 88, per

the tenant plant roots, liis executors shall Kenyon, C. J., 90. But not if the trees

have the year's crop ; and suggests that were to be transplanted to the orchard :

it would be so held to-day : Ex. |71()]. Wyndham v. Way, 4 Taunt. 316; nor

s Per Bailey, J., in Evans v. Roberts, unless proof be made that the trees or

5 B. & C. 829, 832. The reasoning upon shrubs were intended to be treated as

which this case was decided would in- chattels : Maples v. Millon, 31 Conn. 598.

elude all roots, and this seems the better ^ Evans v. Iglehart, 6 Gill & J. 171,

doctrine. 188; Kain v. Fisher, 6 N. Y. 597; Crnd-

6 " He that plants must reap " : Gwin duck v. Riddlesbarger, 2 Dana, 205, 29ti.

V. Hi(!ks, 1 Ba3', 503 ; Poindexter v. '^^ Empson v. Soden, 4 B. & Ad. (loo.

Blackburn, 1 Ired. Eq. 286, 289. ^^ ^ aiLerell v. Howells, 1 Camp. 227.

§ 282 EMBLEMENTS. 590

That tlie executor or administrator is always entitled to emble-
ments as against the heir has already been remarked, though it
is otherwise as against the dowress.^ But the execu- Kxecutor takes

, . ' ,, . , ,•,! 1 J 11 J. einljleiiii-nts as

tor of a tenant m iec is not entitled to emblements as a-ai.ist tiic
against the devisee, on the ground that by the devise t,^^'";,,';|;rJ^^,^
of the land itself the growing crops went with it, there- "or devisee,
by excluding the executor.- This distinction, though fully es-
tablished, is said by both English and American judges to be a
cai)ricious onc,'^ and is ignored in Indiana.^ That the adminis-
trator is not entitled to the growing crops sown or planted after
the intestate's death seems a self-evident proposition, important to
be remembered, however, in cases where a resort to the real estate
becomes necessary for the payment of debts.^ So it is self-evident
that, where a widow or minor children are entitled by statutory
provision to the product of the homestead and messuages, the
executor or administrator is excluded.

In America the subject of emblements is regulated in many
States by statute. In most of them it is provided that, if the
owner die between the last day of December and the „^ ^ ^

. p otatutes resju-

first day of March, emblements go to the heir; but if latin- title to

r. r> -, f Tir ^ 11 i T emblements.

he die after the first day of March, emblements severed
before the last day of December following are assets in the hands
of the executor or administrator.^ In North Carolina the statute
continues the lease of a tenant, in lieu of emblements, until the
end of the lease-year current at the time of the death terminat-
ing it, to the end that he may mature and gather the crops.'

The widow is entitled to the crop growing on the land assigned
to her as dower, " she being then in de optima possessione viri,
above the executor." ^ So if she, as dowress, sow powiess en-
tlie land and marry, the crop will go to her on the ments.*^*^'"

1 As to dowress, see ('"/"m, note 8. Rodman v. Rodman, •'j4 Ind 444, 446;

2 Wms. Ex. [713] : Budd v. Hiler, 27 Foote v. Overman, 22 HI. App. 181.

N. J. L. 4']. 52. *^ Green v. Outright, Wright, 738 ;

3 Dennett r. Ilopkinson, 63 Me. 350. Thompson v. Thompson, 6 Miinf. 514 ,
followed in Ilathorn r. Eaton, 70 Me. 21'.), Waring r. Purcell, 1 Hill, (S. C.) Cli. 103,
221 ; Lord EUenhoroiigh in West r Moore, 10(3; Singleton v. Singleton, 5 Dana, 87,
8 East, 300, 343 ; Shofner v. Shofncr, 5 93.

Sneed, 04. ' King v. Foscue, 01 X. C. 110, 118.

* Iliimplirey v. Merritt, 51 Ind. 107, » Budd i-. Hiler, 27 N. J. L. 43, 53 ;

200, liohiing that emblements go to the Wms. Ex. [717] ; Anon., Dyer, 316 a.

executor as part of the personal estate, But she is not entitled to the grass or

and not to the devisee. fruits in her husband's land not assigned

5 Kidwell V. Kid well, 84 Ind 221, 227 , for dower : Kain v. Fislier, 6 N. V. 507.

600 PROPERTY IN POSSESSION. § 283

Emblements of liusbaiid's death ill preference to his executor or ad-

an estate held ••ij. ij.-ri ii ii i

by husband miiiistrator ; but II she marry, and her husband sow
his\ieath^to h'is *^^^ ^'^"^ ^^^^ die, tiie crop wiU go to his executor ; 1
executor. for it is wcll established that, upon the termination of

a freehold estate held by the husband in right of his wife, the em-
blements will go to the husband or his representatives.^

It is hardly necessary to add, that where the law gives emble-
ments it also gives the right of entry, egress, and regress, so far
as may be necessary to cut and remove them.^

§ 283. Fixtures, as bet'wreen the Heir and the Personal Representa-
tive. — Fixtures are annexations of chattels to the freehold which
may according to concomitant circumstances assume the character
Fixtures are of either real or personal estate."* In its technical

tliinf^s of a per- , j • -c i j.i • i r i

souai nature scusc the word signihes such things only ot a personal
r"!ityfremov-^ nature as have been annexed to the realty, and which
pam^who^ may be afterward severed or removed by the party
united them; wlio United them, or his personal representatives,
against the will of the owner of the freehold ; but it is often used
thhigs not so indiscriminately in reference to those articles which
aiso'cau'ed fix- ^^'^ not by law removable when once attached to the
^"'"^*'' freehold, as well as those which are severable there-

from.^ Questions concerning fixtures are divided by text-writers
into such as arise between, 1st, vendor and vendee, including mort-
gagor and mortgagee ; 2d, heir and personal representative ; 3d,
landlord and tenant ; and 4th, executor of tenant for life and re-
versioner or remainderman.^ The subject in hand demands the
consideration chiefly of the second and fourth classes ; the others
will be noticed only in so far as they furnish principles or rules
applicable to all. The cases turning upon the law of fixtures are
very numerous both in England and America, nor are they in
every instance harmonious ; but it is neither necessary nor com-
patible with the limits of this work to follow them in detail, or

1 Haslett V Glenn, 7 Harr. & J. 17, 24. Broom's Legal Maxims, omitting that be-

2 Hall V. Browder, 4 How (Miss.) 224, tween vendor and vendee, *417, also in
230. Wms. on Ex. [731] et seq., where this

^ Penhallow v. Dwight, 7 Mass. 34 ; subject is elaborately and thoroughly

Parhani v. Tompson, 2 J J. Marsh. 1-59. treated, with a copious collection of

^ Washb. on Real Prop., hk. 1, ch. 1, American authorities in Perkins's anno-

pl- 18. tation to the 6th American edition ; see

5 Broom's Leg. Max. *418, 419. also 3 Redfield on Wills, 156 et seq., and

6 Washb. on Real Prop., bk. 1, ch. 1, 2 Kent's Com. *342 et seq.
pi. 19 ; the same distinction is observed in

§ 283 FiXTUiiES. 601

even to notice all the rules laid down by authors on tliis subject.
The leading principles only can be given, and such illustrations as
may be decisive of them ; referring those in want of a fuller dis-
cussion to the elementary works and the multitude of decisions
therein referred to. The annotators to the latest editions of
Kent's Commentaries have added valuable suggestions and re-
flections upon the effect of late decisions on this much vexed
subject.

The maxim, Quicquid jjlantatur solo solo cedit, is said to apply
with most rigor in favor of the inheritance, and against the right
of the personal representative to disannex therefrom and consider
as a personal chattel anything which has been affixed thereto.^
Anciently there seems to have been no exception be- Acconiinfr to
tween the executor and heir of the tenant in fee to ttlhigTaiinxed
the rule that whatever was affixed to the freehold de- de£mi'ed'ro'^
scends to the heir ; ^ but in modern times some relax- ^'^e iieir.
ations have obtained with respect to fixtures put up timTriixVures
by the tenant in fee for the purposes of trade, and for ^ *^f f"). J,™a-
ornament or domestic convenience.^ The chattels "?'^"' '"' domes-

tic conveiuence

first held to pass to the executor as trade fixtures go to the ex-

• 1 1 1 editor;

were a cider-mill, "though deep in the ground and g„ch as a cider-

certainly affixed to the freehold";* a fire-engine set •"'"'
up for the benefit of a colliery by a tenant for life,^ "

machinery for calico-printing erected by a copart- machinery,

nership,^ a granary built on pillars in Hampshire;' granary,
also, as fixtures set up for ornament and domestic

convenience, a furnace, though fixed to the freehold furnace,
and purchased with the house, and the hangings

nailed to the wall ; ^ also tapestry and iron backs to tapestry,

chimneys.^ But the English judges have in several chimney backs.

1 Broom's Leg. Max. *418. rnptcy of mortgagors and the mortf^a-

2 Godolphin,pt. 2, ch. 14, § 1 ; Touch- gees; in rendering tlie opinion, Lord
stone, p. 470 ; Noy's Maxims, p. 5L Lyndiiurst remarked : " Weare ofopinion

^ Wins. Ex. [7321, [741], and autliori- that, with respect to machinery of tliis de-
ties , Harkness v. Sears, 2H Ahi. 493, 496. scription, erected by the bankrupts for tlie

*• Ex rehitione Wilbraiiam, in Lawton purposes of trade, it wouhl have passed to

V. Lawton, 3 Atk. 13. the executor, and not to the iieir": p 625.

* Lawton v Lawton, 3 Atk. 13. " Tliis " By the custom : Coram Eyre. Oh. B.,

case," says tlie English annotator,"prob- Summer Assizes, 1724, apud Winchester,

ably turned upon a custom": p. 16 of 1st * Squier v. Mayor, 2 Eq. Oas. Abr.

Am. from 3d London ed. 430. And see Lord Keeper in Beck i».

6 Trappesr Harter, 3 Tyrw.603. The Kebow, 1 P. Wms. 04.

case was between the assignees in bank- ^ Harvey v. Harvey, 2 Stra. IIH.

602 PROPERTY IN POSSESSION. § 284

modern instances adhered to the old rule between executors and

hcirs.i It seems, therefore, that the law is by no means clearly

settled respecting the right of the executor of the tenant in fee to

fixtures set up for ornament or domestic convenience.^

In America . , . „,,

fixtures may Thc American cases are not more harmonious. Ihus,
a furnace so placed in a house that it cannot be re-
moved without injury to thc house goes to the heir ; ^ but a still

ersonai ^^^ ^P ^^^ ^ fumacc, in the usual manner, for making
property. whiskcy, Is uot real, but personal property.* And

marble slabs resting on brackets screwed into the wall were held
to be pei-sonalty ; but a bell hung upon an axle resting upon a
wooden frame placed upon a platform in the cupola of a barn was
held to belong to the realty.^ All of these cases are reconcilable
upon the old rule applied with reference to the nature
of fixtures, to wit : If a personal chattel is so affixed
to the freehold as to be incapable of being detached therefrom
without violence and injury to the freehold, it becomes a fixture,
and goes with the real estate; but if it is not so annexed, it re-
mains a cliattel, w^hether the annexation be for use, for ornament,
or from mere caprice.^

§ 284. Modern Statement of the Rule. — The old notion of phys-
ical attachment is said, by some courts, to be exploded ; the true
^ . . , ^ criterion to determine whether fixtures constitute a

Criterion of nx-

tures depends part of the realty or not, or rather, whether property

on circumstan- , j j. j

cfsof eachcnse usually treated as personal becomes annexed to and
iiSroVp(.iicy goes with the realty as fixtures, must depend upon the
and intention, circumstauccs of cach case, viewed in the light of the
policy of the law and of the intention of the parties.' In other

1 So in Winn v. Ingilhy, 5 B. & Alrl. « Burk v. Baxter, 3 Mo. 207 ; Moore
625, set ])Ots, ovens, anfl ranges were held v. Smitli, 24 111. 512; Terry v. Robins, 5
to go to the heir; in Colegrave v. Dias Sm. & M 291; Crensliaw v. Crensiiaw, 2
Santos, 2 B. & C. 76, stoves, coaling cop- Hen. & Munf. 22 ; McCiintock v. Gra-
pers, and blinds ; and in King v. St. Dun- ham, 3 McC. (S. C.) 553.

Stan, 4 B. & C. 686, stoves and grates ^ Weston v. Weston, 102 Mass 514.

fixed with brick-work in the cliimney ^ Providence Gas Co. (.'. Thurber. 2

places, and cupboards standing on the R. I 15.

ground supported by holdfasts, all re- '' Quinby v Manhattan Co . 24 N. J.

movable without injury to the freehold, Eq 260, 264, Washb. U Pr , bk I, ch. 1,

were held to belong to the heir, and not pi. 18; Hill v Sewald, 5:^. Pa. St. 271, 274 ;

the executor. citing numerous authorities ; Thomas v.

2 Wms. Ex. [739]. Davis, 76 Mo. 72, 76 ; Equitable Co. v.

3 Main v. Schwarzwaelder, 4 E. D. Christ. 2 Flip. 599 , Green r I'hillips 26
Smith, (N. Y.) 273; Tuttle v. Robinson, Gratt. 752, 762; Manwaring r. .lenison, 61
33 N. H. 104. Mich. 117, 134, citing numerous cases.

§ 284 MODERN STATEMENT OE THE KULE. 603

words, whatever chattel is so affixed to the freehold as to be de-
tachable tlierefroin without substantial injury, with the view and
for the purpose of its more complete enjoyment as a cliattel, re-
mains a chattel, and may be removed as such ; Init if attached to
the freehold without such intention, it will Ui incorporated there-
with.' Hence the road-bed of a railway and the rails i',„ui-i)f.i .,f a
fastened to it may be trade fixtui-es removable as per- |;;,r^;;;u"^'' ^^
sonal property ,2 while hay-scales, annexed to the i,ay-scaie3
realty in the usual manner, go to the heirs as real cs- ''"'^^^y''
tate, althoug-h they had been included in the inventoiy as person-
alty .^ So water-wheels, millstones, running gear, and ,y.i,er-wiieeis,
bolting apparatus of a grist and flouring mill, and ^jJ.'^^J.'^III'j*'..
other fixtures of a like nature, are constituent parts
of the mill, descending with the real estate,* while carding ma-
chines, looms, and other machinery used in manufac- carding ma-
turing cloth, which are complete in themselves and etcrper-""^'
capable of being used in one place as well as in another, sonaity;
not requiring to be fitted in the building, and fixed to it only to
give stability to the machinery, are held to be personalty.^ But if
machinery, though so constructed as to be portable but machinery,
and easily conveyed from place to place as may be de- aitho'S'porta-
sircd, is affixed with the intention and for the purpose ^'*^' ^'^ ^'^^^^y-
of being used as a permanent structure in connection with the
building, it becomes part of the realty;^ and such intention may
be presumed from the circumstances." Manure fi'om Barn-yarii ma-
the barn-yard of a homestead, although neither rotten °"'« is realty;
nor incorporated with the ground, but in a pile for future use,
belongs to the realty ; ^ but manure made in a livery livery stable

^ "^ ... niaiuire per-

stable, or in any manner not connected with agri- souaity;

1 " Physical annexation to realty is ^ Dudley i'. Foote, 63 N. H. 57.
not necessary to convert a chattel into * House v House, 10 Pai. 158 ; Lap-
a fixture. If the article, either fast or ham r. Norton. 71 Me. 88.
loose, be indispensable in carrying on the ^ Tobias r. Francis, 3 Vt. 425 ; Gale v.
specific business, it becomes part of the Ward, 14 Mass. 30*2; Walker r. Slier-
realty " : Morris's Appeal, 88 Pa. St. 3t)8, man, 20 Wend. G36- 3 Hedf on Wills. 161,
383 ; Ege c. Kille, 84 Pa. St. 333, 340. pi. 4 ; Hill v. VVentworth, 28 Vt. 428, 432.
So an article which would otherwise be ^ Potter r. Cromwell, 40 N. Y. 287.
deemeil a fixture may, by severance and "^ Voorhees ?-. McGinnis, 48 N. Y. 278.
the understanding of the parties, become ^ Fay r. Muzzey, 13 Gray, 53 : Plumer
a chattel: Sampsonr. Graham, 90 Pa. St. r. Plumer, 30 N. H. 558, 568; Kittredge
405 408. '■ Woods, 3 N. H. 503 ; Lassell i: Keed, 6

■- Northern Railway r. Canton, 30 Md. Me. 222; whenever made in the ordinary

347. 352 ; so a depot : Railroad v. Deal, course of husbandry : Snow v. Perkins,

90 N. C. 110. 60 N. H. 4y3 ; Norton i- Craig. 68 Me. 275.

604 PROPERTY IN POSSESSION. § 284

enclosure be- cultuFG OF husbandry, is personaltv, and goes to the
lonptothe executor.^ A fence enclosino; a field, of whatever ma-

vealty, thouj^h " _

detached; tei'ial or construction, whether having posts inserted

in the ground or not, is part of the freehold ; ^ nor does it cease
to be so, though accidentally or temporarily detached therefrom
rails in stacks, witliout intent on the part of the owner to divert it
feK^per^*^ permanently from its use;' but rails in stacks, not
sonaity. having been used for a fence, are personalty.* On

Hop-poles, the same principle, hop-poles, necessary in cultivat-
ing hops, are part of the real estate, though taken down for the
purpose of gathering the crop, and piled in the yard with the
intention of being replaced in the season of hop-raising.^ That
keys, locks, kcys, doors, windows, bolts, rings, etc., belonging to
^^""'^ a house, though temporarily detached therefrom, be-

pictures 7 0 1./

glasses, 'etc. long to the realty, is self-evident. So with pictures,
scot^nk"reaitV." glasscs, etc. taking the place of wainscoting ; for " the
house ought not to come to the heir maimed and disfigured."^
As between ^s between devisee and executor, the rule is that a
devisee and ex- (jgyigee shall take the land in the same condition as it

eciitor, devisee

takes the land would havc descended to the heir ; hence he is entitled

as it would go . ■, r^ -, ■, ^ -, ^ ,^ 1

to the heir, to all the articles affixed to the land, whether annexed
before or subsequent to the date of the devise ; for if a freehold
house be devised, fixtures pass, but if the tenant for life or in tail
devise fixtures, his devise is void, he having no power to devise
and executor is s^ch fixturcs as would pass to the executor.'^ The
entitled to tix- gxccutor is therefore entitled to all the fixtures as

tures as he • i i j.

would be against the devisee, that he would be entitled to as

hfh'"^ '^ against the heir.^ But there seems to be no doubt
that if, from the nature and condition of the property devised, it
is apparent that the testator intended the fixtures to go with the
freehold to the devisee, they will pass to him, although of a char-
acter which would go to the executor as against the heir.^

1 Snow V. Perkins, 60 N. H. 493; 6 Cave y. Cave, 2 Vern. 508; Guthrie
Daniels i: Pond, 21 Pick. 367 ; Needham v. Jones, 108 Mass. 191 ; Ward v. Kil-
V. Allison, 24 N. H. 355. patrick, 85 N. Y. 413.

2 Smith V. Carroll, 4 Green (Iowa), ^ Rroom's Leg. Max. *423, 424.
146; Glidden v. Bennett, 43 N. H. 306; 8 Wms. Ex. [739].

Kimball v. Adams, 52 Wis. 554. 9 So where a testator devised liis free-

3 Goodrich v. Jones, 2 Hill, (N. Y.) hold estate, consisting of a brew-house
142. and malt-house in lease, with the plant and

i Clark V. Burnside, 15 111. 62. utensils, it was held that the plant passed

5 Bishop V. Bishop, 11 N. Y. 123. with the brew-house, on the ground that

§ 285 FIXTURES. 605

§ 285. Fixtures as between Personal Representative of Life Tenant
and Remainderman. — Siiicc tlic heir is morc favored ill law than
the remainderman or reversioner, in this respect, or rather, since
the law is more indulgent to the executor of the particular tenant
than to the executor of the tenant in fee, it follows Executor's
that all the authorities which establish the executor's ^'-''^ '"''f!"^"'
risht to fixtures as a<z:ainst the heir will apply aforti- heir applies «
ori against the remainderman or reversioner. As be- the remaiiider-
twcen landlord and tenant, there is great deviation
from the rule, that what has been once annexed to the freehold
becomes a part of it, and it would be erroneous to conclude that,
because a fixture set u}) for ornament or domestic convenience has
been decided to be removable as between landlord and tenant,
therefore such fixture may be claimed as personalty by the execu-
tor of a tenant for life, etc. ; still, there is much similarity between
the two classes, and although the case of a tenant for life is not
quite so strong as that of a common tenant, yet the reasoning is
closely analogous between them.^ It is held, in this Rifrhtoften-

' . , 1 !• 1 T • r r i ants ill trade

respect, that the privilege established in lavor ot ten- does not extend
ants in trade does not extend to agricultural tenants, tenlims"
so as to entitle them to remove erections for the pur- 1,^^ ^ p„n,p
poses of husbandry.^ But a pump erected by a tenant tenam\nav
at his own expense, although in doing so an open well be removed.
was arched over, and the pump was attached to a perpendicular
plank fastened at the upper end by an iron bolt to an adjacent
wall, was held to be removable as a tenant's fixture."* It is ob-
vious that the executor and administrator of a tenant Tenant's exec-
utor and admm-
take the same propei'ty in fixtures, as against the isiratortake

the testator intemled to devise the plant thereon at his own expense a substantial

as well as tlie sliell of tlie brew-house : beast-iiouse, carpenter's shop, fuel-house.

Wood V. Gaynon, Ambl. o95. It will pump-house, and fold-yard wall, and be-

be noticed that this rule, like the analo- fore the expiration of his term pulled

gous one with regard to emblements. a;i/^, down the erections, dug up the founda-

§ 282, p. 599, is but the application of tions, and carried away the materials,

the familiar principle, that in the con- leaving tlie farm in the same condition in

struction of wills the intention of tlie which he entered upon it, was held liable

testator, if ascertainable from the instrii- to the reversioner for the value of the

ment, mast govern. buildings : Elwes r. Maw. 3 Kast, .38.

1 Broom's L. M. *42G ; Wms. Ex. [741]. And see cases crited in Wms. on Ex. 174-5],

- Wms. Ex. [744]; Gray, J., in Bain- and notes (s) and (t).
way V. Cobb, 99 Mass. 457. * Grymes v. Boweren, 6 Bing. 4.37 ;

3 So the tenant of a farm under a lease McCracken v. Hall, 7 Ind. 30; Wall v.

for twentv-one years, who fifteen j'ears Hinds, 4 Gray, 25G, 272 et seq.
before the expiration of his term erected

606 PROPERTY IN POSSESSION. § 286

same property owncr of the fee, or the reversioner, as the testator or

ill lixtures as i i • i p

decedent had. intcstatc had therein; and that the legal right oi a
tenant to remove fixtures may be governed by express sti))ulation,
usually inserted in a lease for this purpose. ^ The privilege of
removing fixtures should be exercised by a tenant during his
term ; for if he omit to do so, it will be presumed that he volun-
tarily relinquishes his claim in favor of the landlord.'^

The subject of fixtures has engaged the attention of legislative
authorities. To the extent of the statutory provisions they are,
Statutorv ^^ coursc, Controlling ; but where the statute enacts a

regulations. j-^le for a class of cases, it does not extend to cases
not within such class. Thus it was held in New York, that the
statutory rule of fixtures between the personal representatives
and the heirs of a deceased party is not controlling in cases be-
tween vendor and vendee.^

§ 286. Separate Property of the "Wife. — The law in regard to
the separate property of married women has of late undergone
great changes, both in England and America ; there Kas been and
still is a strong tendency in both countries to supersede the com-
mon law rules on this subject by the principles of the civil law,
and to accord to married women as a legal right what formerly
they could enjoy only under the aegis of a court of equity.* It is

1 Broom's L. M. *-129, 430. property) is completely witiiin tlieir con-

2 Talbot V. Whipple, 14 Allen, 177, trol, to be disposed of or aliened at their
181 ; White v. Arndt, 1 Wliart. 91 ; Dar- personal pleasure. Judge Rlcllvaine, in
rah V. Baird, 101 Pa. St. 265; State r. Piiillips v. Graves, 20 Oh. St. .371, 381,
Elliot, 11 N. H. 540 ; if not removed thus pithily describes this strange anom-
during the term, the right is renounced, aly in English and American jurispru-
although the tenant subsequently take dence: "Courts of law and courts of
a new lease: Sliepard v. Spaulding, 4 equity coe.xistent in tlie same realm, —
Met. (Mass.) 410; Hedderich r. Smidi, the former merging the legal existence of
103 Ind. 203, and authorities cited ; Marks the wife in the husband, the latter rec-
y. Kyan, 63 Cal. 107; Watriss w. Bank, ognizing her separate existence, — the
124 Mass. 571 ; Smith v. Park, 31 Minn, former declaring her incapable of acquir-
70. ing, holding, or disposing of property, —

3 McKea v. Central Bank, 66 N. Y. the latter recognizing her ability to ac-
489, 495. quire, control, and dispose of her estate, —

* Married women, under the coexist- the former denying her capacity to con-

ence of legal and equitable principles tract, or to sue or be sued, — the latter

governing their property, are placed in enforcing her agreements by granting re-

this anomalous predicament: that prop- lief both for and against her! — And yet

erty which is theirs in their own right and no conflict of jurisdiction, for the simple

name (legal property) they can neither reason that cotnts of law take jurisdiction

control, enjoy, nor alienate ; but jiroperty of the wife's general property and give it

which is not theirs in law, that is, which all to the husband, and courts of equity

is held for them by a trustee (equitable take exclusive cognizance of her separate

pa-

§ 286 SEPARATE PROPERTY OP THE WIFE. 607

necessary, therefore, to remember, that, in all cases proporty se-
wiierc by statutory provision jjroperty of a married ';;;'';.'iVes "i,' her
woman is secured to her aji^ainst the power or control <-" i';r i"'^-

, P 1 • 1 1 ua'i'i !* death,

of the husband, it will survive to her after Ins death,
and the husband's executor or administrator has no title thereto;
and if the husband survive the wife, such property ^"ft,""j,J'/;,''re
will ""0 to her executor or administrator, and the hus- that of the hus-

. . l)an(l goes to

band lias no interest therein unless he administer on her executor or

, , , , 1 ii J. 1 • i. i- administrator.

her estate, or take the property by Tirtuc ot some

^ / ' 1 -11 1 1 Chattels owned

statutory provision. But at common law the husband by the wife at
is entitled to and becomes the owner of all chattels ria^feVcome
which the wife owned before marriage, or which come pr'pj|.tj!^'"'^'^
to her during the existence of the marriage, whether g,,,, ^^'^^ j^jg
she survives him or not ; and consequently, though executor or

• (• i' administrator

she survive him, they will go to his executor it he on his death;
makes a will, or to his administrator if he dies intestate. But
if property be conveyed or bequeathed to or settled unless phe hold
upon her, through the intervention of trustees, or even for iKTse"'^
without, for her separate use, it will not, upon his '"^''^ "*'^-
death, become a part of the beneficial estate of his executors or
administrators.! To accomplish this purpose it is necessary that
the conveyance to the wife should show the clear intention of the
donor to deprive the husband of his marital rights.^ A separate
estate may be created in a feme sole as well as a married woman,
which after marriage will be good against the husband's marital
riffht ; and where such estate is created without the intervention
of trustees, the husband will take the legal title, but equity will
regard him as a trustee for the wife.^

estate and control it for her sole benefit. - Williams v. Claiborne, 7 Sm. & M.

While tlie judge declares lier contracts 488; Carroll v. Lee, 3 G. & J- 504 ; Hale

absolutely void, the cliancellor proceeds v. Stone, 14 Ala. 803 ; Hubbard v. Bug-

i)) rem and charges her separate estate as bee, 58 Vt. 17:i, 177 ; Duke v. Duke, 81

equity and good conscience require." Ky. 308. Tiie words " to her and lier

1 Wms. Ex. [749] et spq., citing Co. heirs' proper use " do not create a sejiarate

Lit. 351 b ; Jamison u. M:iy, 13 Ark. 600, estate in a legacy to a married daughter :

Hopper V. McWiiorter, 18 Ala. 229; Par- Kudisell v. Watson, 2 Dev. Eq. 430.

ker V. Converse, 5 Gray, 33G ; Gully v. 3 RUey v. Riley, 25 Conn. 154; Fears

Hull, 31 Miss. 20. And although the wife's i-. Brooks, 12 Ga. 195; Robert r. West,

chattels become tlie husband's by virtue 15 Ga. 122, 134 et seq. ; Fellows v. Tann,

of the marital relation, he may waive ids 9 Ala. 999, 1003 ; Shirley v. Sliiriey, 9

rights as such, and by his declarations, Pai. 363 ; Waters y. Tazewell. 9 Md. 291 ;

acts, and dealings, free and relieve her Ni.x r. Bradley, 6 Rich. Eq 43; Bridges

property from his marital claims : Clark i-. Wilkins, 3 Jones Eq. ;542 ; Beaufort

i;. Clark, 86 Mo. 114, 123. v. Collier, 6 Hunipii. 487; Schafroth v.

608

PROPERTY IN POSSESSION.

§ 287

erty settled on
the wife goes
to lier, not to
the husband's
representative,

It is sometimes held, that an express trust for the benefit of a

married woman in personal property ceases upon discovcrture,^

and is not revived upon a second marriage.^

§ 287. Ante-nuptial and Post-nuptial Settlements. — Ante-nuptial

Personal prop- Settlements of money, jewels, furniture, or other mov-
ables, by the husband upon the wife, are valid against
the husband and all claiming under him, as well as
his creditors.^ The title of the wife is good, even

against creditors, and a fortiori against the executor or adminis-
trator, although the settlor contemplated defrauding

althou£rh so '' .cii • TTT

settled in fraud his Creditors, if the future wife had no notice and did
not participate in the intent.* So an agreement be-
fore marriage, in writing, that the wife shall be entitled to specific
parts of her personal estate to her specific use, will be enforced in
equity, although the legal title be vested in the husband by the
subsequent marriage ; ^ the husband in such case becomes trustee
for his wife's separate use, and the trust will bind his executors

Ambs, 40 Mo. 114. Even in case of a
direct gift from husband to wife : Thomas
V. Harkness, 13 Bush, 23.

1 Roberts v. Moseley, 51 Mo. 282, 286.

2 On the ground tliat an attempted
restriction of a gift to tlie separate use of
a married woman is impracticable- Ham-
ersley v. Smith, 4 Wliart. 126, 128. It is
held in a number of Pennsylvania cases,
that a trust for coverture can take effect
only if immediate marriage is contem-
plated : Ogden's Appeal, 70 Pa. St. 501 ;
Dodson V. Ball. 60 Pa. St. 492 ; Hepburn's
Appeal, 65 Pa. St. 468, and many others.
So in Isorth Cnrolina : Apple v. AUen,
3 Jones Eq. 120 ; Miller v. Bingliam, 1
Ired. Eq. 423 ; Lindsay v. Harrison, 8
Ark. 802. In Kentucky it is held that a
separate estate may be made to extend
to a particular coverture, or to any num-
ber, regardless whether before or during
coverture. It is always a question of in-
tention with the conveyor or devisor :
Duke V. Duke, 81 Ky. 808, 311.

3 2 Sugd. on Vend. & Purch., bottom
p. 715, and authorities ; Vogel v. Vogel,
22 Mo. 161 ; De Barante v. Gott, 6 Barb.
492; Miller v. Goodwin, 8 Gray, 542;
Tisdale v. Jones, 38 Barb. 523 ; Williams
V. MauU, 20 Ala. 721. Ante-nuptial con-
tracts intended to regulate and control

the interest which each shall take in the
property of the other during coverture
or after death will be enforced in equity
according to the intention of the parties.
The court will impose a trust commen-
surate with the obligations of the con-
tract : Johnston v. Spicer, 107 N. Y. 185.
To same effect, Desnoyer v. Jordan, 27
Minn. 295. Such a contract is binding
on the wife, unless the provision is so
disproportioned to the husband's means
as to create a presumption of fraud :
Smith's Appeal, 115 Pa. St. 319.

* Clay V. Walter, 79 Va. 92 ; Andrews
V. Jones, 10 Ala. 400, 421; Bunnel v.
Witherow, 29 Ind. 123, 132, Frank's Ap-
peal, 59 Pa. St. 190, 194 ; Tunno v.
Trezevant, 2 Desaus. 264 ; Magniac i'.
Thompson, 7 Pet. 348, 393 ; Prewit
I'. Wilson, 103 U. S. 22.

''' In some States, even an oral ante
nuptial agreement to this effect was held
good : Southerland v. Southerland, 5
Bush, 591 ; Child v. Pearl, 43 Vt. 224 ;
Riley r. Riley, 25 Conn. 154- at least upon
waiver of the Statute of Frauds: Kirksey
V. Kirksey, 80 Ga. 156. But the Statute
of Fraufls is generally a defence against
an executory ante-nuptial marriage con-
tract: Lloyd V. Fulton, 91 U. S. 479;
Bradley v. Saddler, 54 Ga. 681, 684.

§ 2S7 ANTE-NUPTIAL AND POST-NUPTIAL SETTLEMENTS. 609

and administrators. • But a promissory note gi\cn l)y a hus])and
to liis wife before marriage bccomeii a nullity l)y the marriage,
and is not revived by the death of the husband ;2 it remains
valid, however, if the statute secures the wife's personal prop-
erty to her.'^

Post-nuptial settlements, as well as gifts by the husband to the
wife during coverture, are valid against himself and all who claim
as volunteers under or through him,"* and even against Postnuptial
creditors, unless fraudulent as to them.^ They are valid asai'nst
deemed fraudulent if the debts of the settlor were umierilusi.and,
considerable at the time of making the settlement, ami against

" ' creditors if not

and would be defeated thereby ; ^ or if, though not in- fiauduient.

1 2 Sugd. on Vend. & Piirch. [718],
and American atithorities by Perkins,
note (di).

^ Cliapman r. Keliogsc, 102 Mass. 246 ;
Intrliam v. White, 4 Allen, 412; Abbott
V. Winchester, 105 Mass. 115; Patterson
V. Patterson, 45 N. H. 164; Smiley v.
Smiley, 18 Oh. St. 54,3. But such a
note remains in force after the niarriatie
by virtue of the statute of New York :
Wriglit V. Wright, 59 Barb. 505. So in
Iowa : Logan v. Hall, 19 Iowa, 401 ; and
it seems in Massachusetts: Butler c. Ives,
130 Mass. 202, disapproving Chapman r.
Kellogg, and Abbott v. Winchester, snpra.

2 Stone V. G.izzam, 46 .Ala. 26J; see
cases in j)rcceding note.

i Pascliall V. Hall, 5 Jones Kq, 108 ;
Teasdale r. Reaborne, 2 Bay, 540, 550 ;
Rogers c. Ludlow, 3 Sandf. Ch. 104;
Butler V. Rickets, 11 Iowa, 107; Barker
V. Koneman, 13 Cal. 9; Scogin v. Stac}',
20 Ark. 2G5 ; Brackett v. Waite, 4 Vt. 389 ;
Sims V. Rickets, 35 Ind. 181 ; Bancroft v.
Curtis, 108 Mass. 47 ; Hunt v. Johnson,
44 N. Y. 27 ; Mayfield v. Kilgour, 31 Md.
240.

5 Moore v. Page, 111 U. S. 117; Ber-
trand v. Elder, 23 Ark. 494 ; Picquet r.
Swan, 4 Mas. (U. S. C C.) 443 ; Wiley r.
Gray, 36 Miss. 510; Leavitt v. Leavitt,
47 N. H. 329; Larkin i-. McMullin, 49
Pa. St. 29; Kane v. Desmond, G3 Cal.
464; Pomeroy r. Bailey. 43 N. H. 118;
Niller v. Johnson, 27 Md. 0 ; Gilligan r.
Lord, 51 Conn. 562; Fisher r. Williams,
56 Vt. 586; Tootle v. Coldwell, 30 Kan.
125.

VOT.. T — 39

G Borst V. Corey, 16 Barb. 136, 139 ;
Gardner v. Baker, 25 Iowa, 343; Kuhn
V. Stansfield, 28 Md. 210; Jones v. Mor-
gan, 6 La. An. 6;30 ; William & Mary
College V. Powell, 12 Gratt. 372, 381 ;
Williams V. Avery, 38 Ala. 115; Allen v.
Walt, 9 Heisk. 242; Clayton v. Brown,
30 Ga. 490; Reynolds v. Lansford, 16
Tex. 286. But the presumption of fraud
may be rebutted : Thacher v. Phinney,
7 Allen, 146; Woolstone's Appeal, 51 Pa.
St. 452 ; Babcock '•. Eckler, 24 N. Y.
623; Belford v. Crane, 16 N. J. Eq. 265;
Potter V. McDowell, 31 Mo. 62; Walsh v.
Kctchum, 84 Mo. 427 ; Norton ?•. Norton,
5 Cush. 524; Filley c Register, 4 Minn.
391 ; Freeman r. Burnham, 36 Conn.
469, 473; Sweeney v. Damron, 47 111.
450, 457. See an elaborate discussion
of the principles applicable to a volun-
tary conve3'ance between creditors of the
grantor and claimants under the deed, by
JJ. Baldwin and Stanard, in the case of
Hunters v. Waite, 3 Gratt. 26, op. pp. 32-
72, citing English and American text-
books and decisions ; Ellinger v. Crowl,
17 Md. 361 ; Annin v. .Vnnin, 24 N. J. Eq.
184; Phelps r. Morriscm, 24 N.J.Eq. 195;
Kipp r. Hanna, 2 Bland Ch. 26 ; Moritz
r. Hoffman, 85 III. 553 ; Tripner r. .\bra-
liams, 47 Pa. St. 220 ; Reade v. Living-
ston, 3 Johns. Ch. 481 ; Woodson c.
Pool, 19 Mo. 340. A convey a ni-e from
husband to wife without consideration
is void as against existing creditors, al-
though no fraud be actually intended :
Robinson v. Clark, 76 .Me. 493 ; Watson
r. Riskamire, 45 Iowa, 231.

610

PROPERTY IN POSSESSION.

§ 287

debted at the very time, yet he became so shortly afterward, so
that it may be presumed that he made the settlement with a view
to becoming indebted at a future time.^ But, in general, debts
subsequently incurred will not defeat a post-nuptial settlement,
nor will the presumj^tion of fraud arise if the debts were incon-
siderable, or if, though consideral)le, the settlement itself provides
for their payment, or if they are secured by mortgages or other
Fraud presum- means.^ The reservation by the husband of a power
vation'o" power ^^ revokc thc limitations in favor of the wife is said
to revoke; ^y Williams to be a badge of fraud ;^ but the con-
trary is held by the Supreme Court of the United States, indicating
that the absence of such a power is often considered a badge of
and from con- fraud.'* So, fraud may be pi^esumed from continual
possession in the husband after a transfer purporting
to be absolute.^ Where the settlement after marriage
is made for a valuable consideration, the presumption
of fraud fails, though the husband be indebted at the
time.^ A written agreement before marriage is a good
consideration, but not a verbal agreements A contract in con-
sideration of the settlement of existing differences, and the avoid-
ance of future difhculties and dissensions, or of the return of a
wife who is legally justified in her absence from the husband, is
founded on a valid consideration.^ In the case of Lloyd v. Ful-

tinual posses-
sion by tlie
husband after
gi".

unless made
for a valuable
consideration.

1 Case V. Phelps, 39 N. Y. 164 ; Town-
send V. Maynard,45 Pa. St. 198; Phillips
V. Wooster, 8G N. Y. 412. It matters not
as to subsequent creditors tliat the con-
veyance includes all the husband's realty,
and is a large proportion in value of all
his property : Thompson v. Allen, 103
Pa. 8t. 44, 48.

•- Gridley v. Watson. 53 111. 186, 103
Bridgford v. Riddell, 55 111. 261, 267
Brookbank v. Kennard, 41 Ind. .339
Stephenson v. Donahue, 40 Oh. St. 184
White V. Bettis, 9 Heisk. 645

3 Wms. E.\. [7-54], on the authority of
1 Roper, Husband & Wife, p. *31.5.

i Jones V. Clifton, 101 U. S. 225, 229.

5 Moore v. Pa-:c, 111 U. S. 117, 119;
Putnam v. Osgood, 52 N. H. 148, 153 et
scq.; Coolidge v. Melvin, 42 N. H. 510;
Rothchild v. Rowe, 44 Vt. 389. Where
real and personal property were conveyed,
it was held that the notice of the wife's
general ownership, furnished by the re-

corded deed, would be such a presump-
tion of ownership of the personal prop-
erty on the premises as would reasonably
lead any person observing the husband's
use of the property to conclude that he
was using it as hers : Gilligan v. Lord, 51
Conn. 562, 568.

•> Barnura v. Farthing, 40 How. Pr.
25: DuflFy v. Insurance Co., 8 W. & S.
413 ; Medsker v. Bonebrake, 108 U. S. 66,
73; Atlantic Bank v. Tavener, 130 Mass.
407, 410 ; Bean v. Patterson, 122 U. S.
496 ; Dice i: Irvin, 110 Ind. 561.

' But not if the settlement is for more
than the agreement stipulated : Saunders
V. Ferrill, 1 Ired. L. 97. See Smith v.
Allen, 5 Allen, 454 ; PeifTer v. Lytle, 58
Pa. St. 386; Izard v. Izard, 1 Bailey Eq.
228; Wood v. Savage, 2 Doug. (Mich.)
316; Simpson v. Graves, Riley Ch. 232,
237. But see, where parol agreement is
held sufficient, ante, p. 608, note 5.

8 Burkholder's Appeal, 105 Pa. St.31, 37.

§ 288 THE wife's savings. 611

ton,^ Mr. Justice Swayne, delivcrint^ the opinion of the Supreme
Court of the United States, lays down this rule upon the subject of
post-nuptial marriage settlements : " Prior indebtedness Rule by Su-
is only pi-esumptivc, and not conclusive proof of fraud, of't'iie UuUed
and this presumption may be explained and rebutted, states.
Fraud is always a (piostion of fact with reference to the intention
of the grantor. Where there is no fraud there is no infirmity in
the deed. Every case depends upon its circumstances, and is to
be carefully scrutinized. But the vital question is always the
good faith of the transaction. There is no other test."

§ 288. The "Wife's Savings from Separate Trade, Pin-money, Gifts,
etc. — A wife may also acquire separate property by carrying on
a business or trade on her own account, by permission Money saved
of the husband, either in consequence of an express t^uh^ husband's
agreement between her and her husband before the hCT^at'hfs''^^ ^"
marriage, in which case it will be binding also against death,
creditors,^ or where he consents during the marriage, in which
case it will be void against creditors, but binding on except as
him and his personal representatives.^ And the sav- husb"ind''^s^
ings of the wife arising from her separate property, creditors,
gifts from the husband to the wife, pin-money, and similar allow-
ances to her, or jewels or other things purchased by her out of
her separate estate, belong to her, and do not constitute assets
in the hands of the husband's executor or administra- Gift by hus-

./., 1111 1 band to wife

tor.* But to establish a gilt by the husband to the must be cstab-

1 91 U. S. 479, 485. R. Tl. Co., 2 Abb. Pr. n. s. 220; Eddins i'.

- Young V. Jones, 9 Humph. 551 ; Buck, 23 Ark. 507 , Peck v. Brummagim,

Young V. Gori, 13 Abb. Pr. 13, note, 31 Cal. 440 ; Churchill v. Corker, 25 Ga.

p. 15; Sanford v. Atwood, 44 Conn. 141, 479; Skillraan v. Skillman, 13 N. J. Eq.

143; see also State v. Smit, 20 Mo. App. 40.S ; Wells v. Treadwell, 28 Miss. 717;

50, 54. r)ale v. Lincoln, 62 111. 22 ; Coates v.

8 Rogers v. Tales, 5 Pa. St. 154 ; Gen- Gorlach, 44 Pa. St. 43 , Vance v. Nogle,

try V. MeReynolds, 12 Mo. .533 ; Jones r. 70 Pa. St. 176; Butterficld v. Stanton, 44

Heid, 12 W. Va. 350 (not deciding as Miss. 15 ; Pinncy r. Fellows, 15 Vt. 525 ;

to the validity of such an agreement as Wood v. Warden, 20 Ohio, 518 ; Ilutton

against creditors), 365. r. Ilutton. 3 Pa. St. 100 : Resor v. Resor,

■! Barron v. Barron, 24 Vt. 375 ; Rich- 9 Ind. 347 ; Thompson v. Mills, 39 Ind.

ardson v. Merrill, 32 Vt. 27 ; Nelson v. 528 ; Bent v. Bent, 44 Vt. 555 ; Goree v.

HoUins. 9 Baxt. 553 : Miller v. William- Walthall, 44 Ala. 161. An agreement be-

son, 5 Md. 219 ; Rusii v. Vought, 55 Pa. tween husband and wife, whereby the

St. 437 ; Towers v. Hagner, 3 Whart. 48, former receives her personal property to

56 et seq. : Yardlej' v. Raub, 5 Whart. 117 ; hold as trustee for her minor cliildren, is

Kee V. Vasser, 2 Ired. Eq. 553; Merritt enforceable in equity : Ilammons r Ren-

t' Lyon, 3 Barb. 110, Rawson v. Penn. frow, 84 Mo. 332.

612 PROPERTY IN POSSESSION. § 288

lished by clear wifc, thcre miist 1)C clcar and incontrovertible proof,
testimony. ^^^^ nothing Icss than an irrevocable gift, either to
some person in trust or by some clcar and distinct act, will do.^
Property put Stocks purchased by the husband in the name of him-
ioiiIt'name\if" ^clf and his wife, money loaned out on securities
husband and taken in the name of husband and wife, and property

wife goes to _ . .

iier, and not to purchased in their joint names or in the wife's name,
administrator, will all be prcsumcd, in cases clcar of fraud, to have
been intended as an advancement and provision for the wife, and
on surviving him she will be entitled thereto, as against his ex-
ecutors or administrators, if he has not aliened them during
his lifetime.^ Pin-money, being intended not for the

Pin-mouev . .pi.pi i -i

goes to her to sustcntation of the Wile, but for Iier dress and orna-
vear-saTi'ow- mcuts iu a station suitable to the degree of the

ance

husband, cannot be claimed against the husl)and's ex-
ecutor or administrator for a period farther back than one year's
But on her allowaucc, uor where the wife dies can it be claimed
hefrepreslnta- by hcr representatives at all. Where it is settled
tives at all. upon the wifc by an ante-nuptial agreement, it is pay-
able to her as against creditors ; but her savings out of pin-money,
or other allowances by the husband not in pursuance of an ante-

1 George v. Spencer, 2 Md. CIi. 353; to lier administrator, if in hername alone :
Woodson V. Pool, 19 Mo. 340; Manny v. Leland v. Wliitaker, 23 Mich. 324. If the
Rlxford, 44 111. 129 ; Jennings v. Davis, hnshand purchase land with his wife's
31 Conn. 134 ; Herr's Appeal, 5 W. & S. money, and without her knowledge or
494 ; Crissman v. Crissman, 23 Mich. 217 ; consent takes the deed in his own name,
Woodford r. Stephens, 51 Mo. 443; Trow- and afterward sell such land, she is en-
bridge V. Holden, 58 Me. 117 ; Ilayt v. titled to the amount received therefor.
Parks. 39 Conn. 357; Williams's Appeal, And if he buy land with money partly hers
106 Pa. St. 116. Where a wife deposited and partly his own, taking the deed in his
money in a bank, mostly the proceeds of own name without her knowledge or con-
her own earnings, in the absence of evi- sent, she is entitled to recover from the
dence showing the same to have been estate the amount so invested • Dayton
done with the consent of the husband, or v. Fisher, 34 Ind. 356. If, on the other
other evidence of a gift, he is entitled to iiand, tiie husband receives the rents from
the money at her death . McDermott's his wife's separate estate, the circum-
Appeal, 106 Pa. St. 358. But her sepa- stances showing that the wife did not in-
rate title to personalty may be established tend to charge the husband, and that he
by words, acts, and conduct, as well as by did not intend to account, then the courts
writing: McCoy v. Hyatt, 80 Mo. 1.30; cannot, after his death, charge his estate ;
Bettes V. Magoon, 85 Mo. 580; Armitage Bristor v. Bristor. !'3 Ind. 281. See also
V. Mace, 96 N. Y. 538. Adams v. Brackett, 5 Met. (Mass.) 280;

2 Draper v. Jackson, 16 Mass. 480 ; Fowler v. Rice, 31 Ind. 258 ; Bergey's
Phelps V. Phelps, 20 Pick. 5-56 ; Sanford Appeal, 60 Pa. St. 408; Sawyers ;> Baker,
V. Sanford, 5 Lans. 486, 495; 61 Barb. 77 Ala. 461 ; Gainus v. Cannon, 42 Ark.
293, And after the wife's death they go 503.

§ 289 THE wife's pakaphernalia. G13

nuptial contract, as well as jewels so purcluised by tlic wife out of
them, will bo assets to pay the husband's debts, although pro-
tected from voluntary claims. ^ IJut in the United States there is
little or no occasion for the application of any rules concerning
pin-money ; this subject, as well as that of paraphernalia,'-^ is gen-
erally merged in, and governed by, the statutory provisions for
the ijrotection of married women and the support of the family
upon the death of the husband.'^

§289. The Wife's Paraphernalia. — Paraphernalia of the wife
include her wearing ai)ijarel and ornaments, suitable to her sta-
tion in life. It is held in England that what constitutes i)ara-
phernalia is a question to be decided by the court, depending upon
the rank and fortune of the parties ; and the books are full of
cases distinguishing between the nature and value of the jewels,
ornaments, and garments as constituting, or not, the wife's para-
phernalia.* In America, as with regard to the analogous subjects
of pin-money and other allowances by the husband, the statutes of
most States contain specific, and in some cases very minute, pro-
visions on the rights of the wife and widow to her paraphernalia,
which are considered, in their connection with the estates of
deceased persons, in a separate chapter.^ At common law, gifts
as paraphernalia arc distinguishable from gifts by the husband for
the wife's separate use in this, that she may dispose of the latter
absolutely, but can neither give away nor bequeath the former by
her will ; and that the husband may sell or give them away dur-
ing his lifetime, but cannot during her life dispose of them by
will.^ So they are liable, at common law, and in States in which
they are not secured to the wife by statutory enactment, for the
husband's debts, but not to satisfy the husband's legacies; and
where the creditor has a double fund, he has no right to subject
the widow's paraphernalia to the satisfaction of his debt ; but all
other property, whether real or personal, is to be first applied to

1 See the case of Digby v. Howard, 4 25 Ind. 229, 231 ; Rawson v. Penn. R. R.
Sim. 588, for a discussion of tliis subject ; Co., 2 Abb. Pr. n. s. 220 ; Savajje v.
the decision of tlie Vice-Chancellor, allow- O'Npil. U N. Y. 298 ; Beard c. Dedolph,
ing tlie wife's representatives to recover 2'.) Wis. 136; 'league y. Downs, 69 N. 0.
aLjainst tlie iiusband's estate, was reversed 280.

by tlie House of Lords, 8 Blish, n. s. 224, ^ See Wms. Ex. and quotations from

2(59. See also Miller r. Williamson, 5 decided cases, pp. [763]-t770].
Md. 219, 2.36. ° Antp, ch. ix.

2 Post, § 289. ^ Wms. Ex. [TOG], and authorities.

3 Atite, ch. ix., Clawson v. Ciawson,

61-1 PROPERTY IN POSSESSION. § 289

the payment of debts.^ And where the husband has pledged his
wife's parapliernalia, the widow has a riglit to have them re-
deemed by the executor or administrator.'^ Nor are jewels and
other gifts in the nature of paraphernalia by third persons, for
her separate use, liable for the husband's debts.^

1 Ibid., p. [767] et seo. 3 See ante, § 288.

'■^ Graham v. Londonderry, 3 Atk. 393.

§ 290 SURVIVAL OF ACriONS AT COMMON LAW. 615

CHAPTER XXXI.

TITLE OP^ EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS TO CHOSES IN ACTION.

§ 290. Survival of Actions at Common Law. — The ancicnt rule
of the common law, Actio personalis moritur cum persona, left
only such actions to be brought by the executor or c„„„„on j^w
admhiistrator as were founded on some obligation or ^'^[?J,^; *^'j,f
duty, includino; debts of all descriptions, with respect foumiwi on

•' ' " • i.r 1 obligation or

to which the executor or administrator is the only duty die with
representative of the deceased recognized by law, so '® ''*^'""'''""
that no provision in a contract, nor any stipulation or agreement,
can transfer to another his exclusive rights derived from such
representation.! Actions for injuries to the person or property
of another, for which damages only could be recovered (tort, mal-
feasance, misfeasance), or arising ex delicto (trespass de bonis
asportatis, trover, false imprisonment, assault, battery, slander,
deceit, diverting a watercourse, obstructing lights, escape, etc.), in
which the declaration at common law imputes tort to person or prop-
erty, and the plea is not guilty, are said to die with the person bi/
or to whom the wrong was done. This rule was modified by a series
of English statutes,^ notably that of 4 Edw. III. c. 7, Modified by
giving an action in favor of a personal representative statutes.
for injuries to personal property, and 3 & 4 Wm. IV. c. 42, § 3,
giving an action in favor of personal representatives for injuries
to real estate, and against personal representatives for injuries to
real or personal estate ; so that actions are now maintainable by
and against executors and administrators in all cases where the
value of personal property has been reduced by injury thereto,
whatever form of action may be necessary to secure the remedy,
and for injury to the real estate, and the damages recovered de-
clared to be personal estate.^ The most important alteration of

1 Wms. Ex. [785] ef seq. " The true tion " : Stanley '•. Vnirel, 9 Mo. App. 08,

test as to survival against an executor 100 ; Cregin v. Brooklyn Co., 83 N. Y,.

was whether the cause of action had its 505, 597.

basis in a property right, and necessarily '^ Mentioned in Wms. Ex. [790] ft stq.

involved the breach of a contract obliga- ^ Wentworth, in his work on Execu-

G16 TITLE TO CHOSES IN ACTION. § 291

the law on this subject is that of 9 & 10 Vict. c. 93, amended by
27 & 28 Vict. c. 95, giving an action to executoi's and adminis-
trators for the death of one killed through the wrongfid act,
neglect, or default of another. Similar statutes have been enacted
in most of the Amei'ican States, and are a fruitful source of law-
suits against railroad and other corporations.^

§ 291. Reason of the Rule. — The accurate and logical import
of the rule that actio personalis moritur cum persona, seems to be,
that for injuries to the person alone, not affecting property of any
kind, the remedy ceases upon the death of the doer or sufferer.
Legislative enactments, both in England and, with few if any
exceptions, in America, spring from a recognition of the maxim
in this sense, and the judiciary in both countries, when not con-
trolled by statutory enactment to the contrary, is guided by it
in its rulings. The law exacts reparation from the wrongdoer,
whether the wrong affects the person or the property of another ;
it makes compensation by a judgment in favor of the person
aggrieved against the aggressor, in a sum of money deemed to be
the equivalent of the injury suffered. But, under the artificial
common law system respecting the devolution of property upon
the owner's death, there can be no reparation for a wrong done
(the remedy for which is an action ex delicto') where one of the
parties is dead ; " for," says Blackstone,'-^ " neither the executors
of the plaintiff have received, nor those of the defendant have
committed, in their own personal capacity, any manner of wrong
or injury." Actions arising ex contractu were allowed to survive
both to and against executors and administrators, " being indeed
rather actions against the property than the person, in which the
executors have now the same interest that their testator had
before." ^ So Lord Ellenborough : " Executors and administra-
tors are the representatives of the temporal property, that is, the
debts and goods of the deceased, but not of their wrongs, except

tors, thus expresses his opinion that an scythe come as a midwife to help her de-
executor ouprht to have his action on the livery, if then, hy the iiasty death of the
statute of Edward III. for fjrass consumed owner before action brought, this great
by the cattle of a trespasser: "When trespass should be dispunishable, it were
meadow ground which yearly conceiveth contrary, as methinks, to the purpose of
(Sol sine nomine genprat horbam) shall be said statute, and a great defect in the
ready to be delivered of her burthen, if a law." Wentw. Ex. 167 (14th ed.).
stranger put in a herd of cattle which ^ See po>>t, § 295.
swallow up and tread down this fruit of ^ 3 Bla. Conim. 302.
her womb before the nunver with his ^ Ibid.

§ 291 REASON OF THE RULE. 617

where these wrong's operate to the temporal iujuiy of tin; personal
estate. . . . Although marriage may be regarded as a temporal
advantage to the party as far as respects the personal comforts,
still it cannot be regarded as an increase of the individual trans-
missible estate. . . . Loss of marriage may, under circumstances,
occasion a strict pecuniary loss to a woman, but it docs not neces-
sarily do so." 1 In this view no action lies against or by an
executor or administrator for a tort committed to one's person,
feelings, or reputation.'-^

But an injury to property involves a wrong to others beside the
immediate sufferer, that is to say, to all who have, from their
relation to the owner, an interest in the property; and these,
whether personal representatives, heirs, or devisees, are entitled
to and have their remedy. Thus, as heretofore mentioned,'^ per-
sonal actions survive in all cases arising ex contractu, and by Eng-
lish statutes this is extended to actions for injury to personal or
real estate.'^ So, although the right to sue on a covenant real
descends to the heirs of the covenantee, or goes to his assigns, to
the exclusion of his executor or administrator, yet if such covenant
had been broken during the lifetime of the covenantee his execu-
tor or administrator might sue upon it ; ^ but, on the other hand,
though there may have been a formal breach during the ancestor's
lifetime, yet, if the substantial damage has taken place since his
death, the real and not the personal representative is the proper

^ Cliamberhiin v. Williamson, 2 M. & away a servant : Huff v. Watkins, 20

Selw. 408. See also Finlay v. Ciiirney, S. C. 477.
L. K. 20 Q. B. Div. 494, 498 ; Sawyer v. 3 ^„^g_ § OQO.

Concord Railroad, 58 N. H. 517 ; Jenkins * The object of these statutes to secure

V. French, 58 N. H. 532. the remedy in tliis sense is generally

2 As for assault, trespass, battery, expressed in the preamble, e. g- : " And

slander, seduction of a daughter, breach whereas there is no remedy provided by

of jjromise of marriage (unless special law for injuries to the real estate of any

damages be alleged : Chamberlain v person deceased, committed during his

Williams, supra), or like wrongs to the lifetime, nor for certain wrongs d()ne by

feelings : Broom's L. M. *912 ; 3 Bla. a person deceased in his lifetime to an-

Comm. 302 ; Clarke v. McClelland, 9 Pa. other, respecting iiis property, personal

St. 128; or for the felonious or negligent or real, for remedy be it enacted," &e. :

killing of a husband, father, or other rela- 3&4 Wm. IV. c. 42, § 2. It was held,

live or person: Wyatt v. Williams, 43 even before the enactment of this statute,

N. H. 102, 105, with numerous authorities ; that trespass de bonis asportatis lay by an

or for injuries affecting the life and health executor for thecuttingandcarryingaway

of the deceased, arising out of the un- of corn: Emerson v. Amell, Freem. 22;

skilfulness of medical practitioners : and for cutting and carrying away trees :

Vittum ('. Oilman, 48 N. H. 410; Jenkins Williams v. Breedon, 1 IJos. & Pul. 329.
V. Frenoh, 58 N. H. 532 ; or for enticing ^ Com. Dig. tit. Covenant, 13. 1.

618 TITLE TO CHOSES IN ACTION. § 292

plaintiff.^ On this theory, too, the rule is grounded that no action
ex delicto can be sustained against an executor or administrator
unless the estate in his hands was benefited by the tort;^ and the
statute of 4 Edward III. c. 7, gives a remedy to the executor of
the person injured, but does not extend to the representatives of
the wrongdoer.3

§ 292. American Statutes regulating the Survival of Actions. —
The tendency of legislation in America, wherever it diverges from
the common law rule above mentioned, is uniformly in the direc-
tion of increasing the liability of tortfeasors and their estates,
and correspondingly augmenting the authority of executors and
administrators to maintain actions for injuries to the person or
property of their deceased testators or intestates.* Thus actions
are expressly given, both to and against executors and administra-
tors, for replevin, for injuries to the person (except libel and slan-
der), for the detention or conversion of personal property, against
officers for misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance either of
themselves or their deputies, and in all cases of fraud or deceit,
in Illinois,^ Maine,^ Massachusetts,' Ohio,*^ Rhode Island,^ and
Vermont.i*^ All actions at law whatsoever, except for slander,

1 VV^ms. Ex. [8031 et seq. damages as the deceased party, whom

2 People V. Gibbs, 9 Wend. 29, 34 ; they represent, may have suffered in his
Cravatli v. Flympton, 13 Mass. 454 ; lifetime, eitlier in his person or his prop-
Wilbur V. Gilmore, 21 Pick. 250, 252 ; erty, by reason of tlie tortious or other
Osborn v. Bell, SDenio, 370, 376 ; Higgiiis acts of any person, in the same manner
V. Breen, 9 Mo. 497, 500. as the party injured might have done if

3 Wheatley v. Lane, 1 Saund. (5th Am. living "; May, J., delivering the opinion
from last London edition) 216 a, note (1), in Hooper v. Gorham, 45 Me. 209, 212.
by Mr. Serjeant Williams ; Coker v. 5 Rev. St. 1885, p. 247, § 123.
Crozier, 5 Ala. 369 ; Daniel, J., in Hen- 6 The statute mentions replevin, tro-
shaw >:. Miller, 17 How. (U. S.) 212,220. ver, assault and battery, trespass, case,

* " The ancient strictness of the rule petitions for and actions of review, in

has been constantly giving way before a addition to common law remedies-, St.

more enlightened civilization, and a more 1883, ch. 87, § 8.

full and perfect development of the prin- ^ Pub. St. 1882, ch. 165, § 1.

ciples of natural justice. Judicial exposi- ^ Mentioning actions for mesne profits,

tions of the statutes, which have been for injuries to real or personal property,

passed touching the survivorship of ac- for deceit or fraud : Rev. St. 1880, § 4975,

tions and causes of action, seem to have » Waste, replevin, trover, trespass,

been made in the same liberal spirit which case ; but allowing neither vindictive or

has led to the various enactments. If exemplary damages, nor damages for

the language of the statute will allow it, outraged feelings of the injured party:

no reason is perceived why such a con- Pub. St. 1882, ch. 204, § 8 e« seq. Eject-

struction should not be adopted as will ment survives to and against personal or

give to executors and administrators, for real representative, as the right may

the benefit of heirs or creditors as the descend; lb., § 11.

law may require, authority to institute or i"" Ejectmentor other possessory action,

maintain suits for the recovery of such replevin, trover, trespass, case-, Rev. St,

§ 292

AMERICAN STATUTES.

619

libel, and trespass, and to recover real estate, survive to and
against the personal representatives in lowa,^ Kentucky ,2 Mary-
land,^ Mississippi,"* and Pennsylvania.^ The statutes enumerate
the kinds of actions and the circumstances under which they may
be brought by and against executors and administrators in respect
of the rights and liabilities of their testators and intestates, differ-
ing in slight degree from the rules above mentioned, in Alabama,*^
Arkansas," California,^ Delaware,^ Kansas,^*^ Missouri, '^ New Jer-
sey ,i- New York,!-'^ North Carolina,^^ South Carolina,!^ Yirginia,^*^
and West Virginia.^'' The statutes of Indiana ^^ and Oregon ^'-^ an-
nounce the rule literally : " A cause of action arising out of an
injury to the person dies with the person of either party," except-
ing cases in which an action is given for injuries resulting in

1880, § 2133 ; and for a bodily hurt or
injury where the party dies pending suit :
§ 2134.

1 With no exception whatever : Code,
1886, § 2525. Special provision that the
civil remedy does not merge in the crim-
inal, but may be enforced in addition to
the punishment : § 2526.

2 Excepting also assault and battery,
criminal conversation, and so much of
action for malicious prosecution as is in-
tended to compensate for personal injury:
Gen. St. 1887, p. 231, § 1.

3 Specially mentioning actions for
illegal arrest, false imprisonment, and for
violating certain articles of the declaration
of rights and the provisions of the habeas
corpus act as surviving : Rev. Code, 1878,
p. 458, §§ 146, 147.

* All personal actions without any ex-
ception whatever, at law or in equity :
Rev. Code, 1880, § 2078.

^ Excepting for wrongs done to the per-
son : Bright. Purd. Dig. 1883, p. 528, § 106.

6 Code, 1886, §§ 2600, 2601 : All actions
upon contract, express or implied, all per-
sonal actions except for injuries to the
person or reputation, and real actions for
title or possession of lands in which per-
sonal representatives have an interest.

■^ For wrongs done to the person or
property except slander and libel ; eject-
ment for lands in possession of others
upon which the decedent has made im-
provements under claim of possession by
virtue of pre-emption or entry in the land
office : Dig. 1884, §§ 5223, 2628, 2629.

* For waste, conversion, trespass, ami

actions whicii deceased had against a
surviving partner: Code Civ. Pr. §§ 1582-
1585.

9 For all personal actions except as-
sault and battery, defamation, malicious
prosecution or injury to the person, or
upon penal statutes : Laws as Amended,
1874, p. 643, § 2.

1'^ In addition to actions surviving at
common law, actions for mesne profits,
injuries to the person, to real or personal
estate, and for deceit or fraud : Dassler's
Comp. L. 1885, ch. 80, § 420.

11 For all wrongs done to the property,
rights, or interests of another (except
slander, libel, assault and battery, false
imprisonment, or actions on the case for
injuries to the person) : Rev. St. 1879,
§§ 96, 97.

1- For trespass to the person or prop-
erty : Rev. 1877, p. 390, § 4.

1^ All actions on contract and to re-
cover debts and effects, and trespass to
personal or real property : Banks & Br.,
7th ed.. p 2307, § 2 et srq.

i-* All actions except slander (but slan-
der of title survives), libel, false imprison-
ment, assault and battery, or other injuries
to the person not resulting in death, and
cases where tiie relief could not be en-
joyed, or granting it would be nugatory
after death : Code, 1883, § 1490 et seq.,
§ 1497.

15 Rev. St. 1873, p 507, § 6.

10 Code, 1887, §§ 2655, 26-56.

1" Code, 1887, ch. 85, § 19 et seq.
18 Rev. St. 1888, § 282.
I'J Code, 1887, § 369.

620 TITLE TO CHOSES IN ACTION. § 293

death, and in Indiana actions for seduction and false imprison-
ment ; all other causes of action survive, except actions for breach
of promise to marry. In Minnesota^ every cause of action sur-
vives, whether arising out of contract or not, excei)t for injuries
resulting in death. In Georgia no action for a tort abates by
reason of the death of either party, where the wrongdoer received
any benefit from the tort complained of,^ but the common law rule
as to the survival of actions is not changed.^ So in New Hamp-
shire.* In Wisconsin, actions to recover personal property, for
converting same, for assault and battery, false imprisonment, or
other damage to the person, trespass de bo7iis asportatis, and for
damages to real and personal property, survive, in addition to
those surviving at common law.^

§ 293. Actions for Injuries to Property. — It results from the
preceding sections, and from the general rule that personal prop-
erty descends to executors and administrators, that they alone can
sue and be sued upon all personal contracts. The same principle
extends to the recovery of specific personal property belonging to
the decedent, upon whose death the legal title vests at once in the
personal representative ; and to the recovery of its value if it has
been converted, or of damages for injury thereto. This has been
Trover, tres- held to includc actious in trover,*^ replevin,' trespass,^
rTpfevin**^' casc,^ debt for conversion,!*^ and, a fortiori, for a con-
conversion, version after the intestate's death, though before the
appointment of the administrator.^^ So, also, an action against a
False return. sheriff for a false returUj^^ and an action by a husband
Loss of wife's against a carrier for the loss of his wife's services and
services. expcuscs paid in consequence of injui'ies received by

her through the carrier's negligence ; ^^ but all right of action

1 St. 1878, p. 825, § 1. ^ Snider v. Croy, 2 Jolin. 227.

2 Code, 1882, § 29G7. ^ Aldrich v. Howard, 8 R. I. 125.

3 Bravv'ner v. Sterdevant, 9 Ga. 69. See ^"^ Elrod v. Alexander, 4 Heisk. ?.42, ;^50.
Thompson v. Central Railroad, (50 Ga. 120. " Hutcliins v. Adams, 8 Me. 174 ; Hol-

4 Sawyer v. Concord Railroad, 58 N. H. brook v. White, 13 Wend. 591.

517, 519. 1- Jewett v. Weaver, 10 Mo. 234 ;

5 Laws, 1887, ch. 280. Paine v. Ulmer, 7 Mass. 317; HoU.rook

6 Manwell v. Briggs, 17 Vt. 176, 181 ; v. White, 13 Wend. 591. But see infra,
Eubanks v. Dobbs, 4 Ark. 173 ; Smith v. eases holding the contrary, § 294.
Grove, 12 Mo. 51 ; Parrott v. Dubignon, ^^ Cregin v. Brooklyn Co., 75 N. Y. 192,
T. U. P. Charlt. 261 ; Jahns v. Nolting, 29 196 ; per Simpson, J., in Eden v. Railroad,
Cal. 507, 511. 14 B. Mon. 204, 206. So an action by the

" Reist i). Heilbrenner, 11 Serg. & R. fatherforinjurif^s to his minor son : James
131 ; Halleck v. Mixer, 16 Cal. 574. v. Christy, i8 Mo. 162.

§ 293 ACTIONS FOR INJURIES TO rilOPKIlTV. 621

for the loss of her society and its comfort to liini dies with
him.^

The reason of the rule holds good also with respect to cove-
nants affecting the realty, but not running with the covpnantA not
land, as well as to real covenants running with the [Xl"° ^'''^^
land for all breaches during the decedent's lifetime, R,eachosof
occasioning special damages. Thus it is said that [i';rH,'|r,i"!'e"'^
tlicre is a distinction between a covenant of seisin and ''^■"^'* ''^''•
right to convey, which are personal covenants not running with
the land, because, if not true, there is a breach at once which
constitutes a chose in action descending to the executor; and the
covenant of warranty and for quiet enjoyment, which are ])ro-
spective, there being no breach until ouster or eviction, wherefore
they run with the land conveyed, descending to the heirs.^ For
this reason the action for breach of covenant of seisin, or of the
right to convey, docs not lie by the heirs, but nmst be brought by
the executor or administrator.^ So the administrator may sue for
a breach of covenant to convey land,* maintain replevin for trees
wrongfvilly cut from the testator's land during his lifetime,^ and
recover damages for trespass committed upon the land before the
death of the owner,^ even in an action on the case.'' Where the
estate of the deceased in the land was not a freehold, so that it
descends as a chattel, the executor or administrator may self-
evidently bring action of forcible entry and detainer for an entry ,^
or sue for a trespass committed thereon, either before or after the
decedent's death,^ or sell or otherwise dispose of the right. ^"^ And
while it is clear, that, for any injury to lands descending to heirs
or devisees after the ancestor's or testator's death, the heirs or
devisees alone can sue,^! and that the executor or administrator

1 Cresin '•. Brooklyn Co., 83 N. Y. r. Wilson, 1 Md- 102; Ilaigbt r. Green,

595, 5',i7." lOCal. 113, 117.

■2 4 Kent Com. *472; Hamilton y. Wil- '' Howcott v. Warren, 7 Tred. L. 20;

son, 4 John. 72. Howcott v. Coffield, 7 Led. L 24 ; Ten

3 Hamilton v. Wilson, .vq)ra ; Kellogrg Eyck v. Runk, 31 N. J. L. 428, 4o2 ;

V Wilcncks, 2 John. 1; Bcddoe r. Wads- Upper Appomattox Co. v. Hardings, 11

worth, 21 Wend. 120, 12:5; Biirnhnm r. Gratt. 1.

Lasselle, 35 Ind. 425 : Watson c Blaine, ^ Winningham r. Crouch, 2 Swan, 170.

12 Serg. & R. lol, 138; Kellogg v. Malin, » Schee v. Wiseman, 79 Ind. 389.

62 Mo. 429; Grist r. Hodges, 3 Dev. L. i" Bovvers v. Keesecker, 14 Iowa, ."01.

198, 201. " Aubuchon r. Lory, 23 Mo. 99 ; Noon

* Laberge r. McCansland, 3 Mo. 585. v. Finnegan, 29 Minn. 418; Ayers r.

5 Halleck v. Mixer, 10 Cal. 574, 579. Dixon, 78 N. Y. 318, 324 (a breach of

6 Webster r. Lowell, 139 Mass. 172; covenant after death).
Froust V. Bruton, 15 Mo. G19; Kennerly

622 TITLE TO CHOSES IN ACTION. § 294

can bring no possessory action in such case;^ yet where, under the
statute or a testamentary provision, the executor or administrator
is put in charge of the real as well as of the personal estate, any
action necessary to protect the same against wrongdoers, or to
recover damages for injuries thereto, including ejectment for pos-
session, must lie in favor of such executor or administrator.^ So
the action of ejectment is given where land becomes assets for the
want of sufficient personalty to pay debts,^ or under license from
the probate court.* And on the same principle an action on
street assessment is maintainable against the executor or admin-
istrator, if he is in charge of the property assessed.^

§ 29-i. Actions for Injuries to the Person. — We have seen that
actions ex delicto for |)ersonal injuries by or against executors and
administrators can only be brought by virtue of some statutory
provision,^ and it may be profitable to notice the interpretations
put upon some of these statutes by the courts.

Thus, an action for personal injuries to the deceased caused by

a defect in the highway was held to survive under the statute

of Maine giving actions of " trespass and trespass on

Injuries caused ti--jj_ ^ i

by defect in the casc to cxccutors and administrators ; ' so under
nelaigence^of the statutc of Massachusctts mentioning " action of
public carrier. ^pf>gpr,^gg q^ the casc for damage to the person." ^
Similarly in Vermont,^ and in case of injury by reason of a car-
rier's negligence in Illinois,!'^ Iowa,^i and North Carolina.^^ g^t
actions for such injuries are denied to the representatives of the
injured person in Florida,^^ Maryland,^* and Missouri ; ^^ and in

1 Brown v. Strickland, 32 Me. 174; 6 ^«/e, §§ 290-292.

Emeric v. Penninian, 26 Cal. 119; Bur- '^ Hooper f. Gorhani, 45 Me. 209.

dyne v. Mackey, 7 Mo. 374 ; Peck v. Hen- » Demond v. Boston, 7 Gray, 544.

derson, 7 Yerg. 18. ^ Eanies v. Brattleboro, 54 Vt. 471, 475.

2 Noon r. Finnegan, 32 Minn. 81 ; Page i'^ Chicago & E. I. R R. v. O'Connor,
r. Tucker, 54 Cal. 121 ; Sanchez v. Hart, 119 III. 586 ; Holtdn v. Daly, 106 111. 131,
17 Fla. 507; Gunter v. Fox, 51 Tex. 383, 136. So also in case of injuries inflicted
387 ; Oury v. DufReld, 1 Ariz. 509 ; Gold- on plaintiff by defendant's cow, the action
ing V. Gofding, 24 Ala. 122, 129 ; Russell survives the death of either party : Wehr
r. Erwin, 41 Ala. 292, 302; Sorrell v. r. Brooks, 21 111. App. 115.

Ham, 9 Ga. 55; Jennings i-. Monks, 4 " Kellow y. Central Railway, 68 Iowa,

Met. (Ky.) 103, 105; Barlage v. Railway, 470, 481.

54 Mich. 564, 569; Greenleaf v. Allen, ^'^ Peebles v. North Carolina Co., 63

127 Mass. 248. N. C. 238.

3 Carrutliers v. Bailey, 3 Ga. 105. ^^ Jacksonville Co. v. Chappell, 22 Fla.

4 Burnell v. Malony, 36 Vt. 636; Mc- 616.

Farland v. Stone, 17 Vt. 165. i* Baltimore Co. v. Ritchie, 81 Md. 191,

5 Under the statute of California : 198.

Parker v. Bernal, 66 Cal. 113. ^^ Stanley v. Vogel, 9 Mo. App. 98.

§ 294 ACTIONS FOR INJURIES TO THE PERSON. 623

Wisconsin it was lield that so much of an action for damages
against a telegrai)h company, for permitting its wires to endanger
the highway, as seeks to i-ecover for injury to the person, abates,
but so much as is for injury to property, and probably so much as
is for expenses of medical attendance, etc., survives. ^ In New
York the letting of a house to a tenant, with the knowledge that it
was in an unhealthy condition, in consequence whereof the tenant's
children sickened, and one of them died, was held, if actionable
during the lessor's lifetime, not to survive against his personal
representative, being an injury to the person.^ In a later case, a
father was permitted to recover against the devisees of a lessor
for the death of his child, caused by injuries received upon a de-
fective pier, then in possession of the tenant under a lease from
the deceased devisor.-^ That the action for assault Assault and
and battery does not survive the death of either party, battery,
and abates upon the deatli of plaintifT, has been decided in Ken-
tucky ,4 North Carolina,-^ Pennsylvania,^ and Texas ; " but in Ten-
nessee it was held that by force of the statute all actions sur-
vive except wrongs alfecting the character of the plaintiff, and
that therefore it was not only the right, but also the duty of the
personal representative of a plaintiff in an action for assault and
battery to revive the suit after an appeal by the defendant ; ^ and
such action likewise survives in Arkansas,^ lowa,^*' and, it seems,
in AVisconsin.il The action for malicious prosecution Malicious pros-
survives in Vermont under the statute providing that ecution.
the death of neither party shall defeat an action to recover dam-
ages for any bodily hurt or injury, but that the same may be pros-
ecuted by or against the representatives of the deceased party ; '^
and likewise in Kentucky, notwithstanding the statutory exception
that no action shall survive for " so much of the action for mali-
cious prosecution as is intended to recover for tlie personal in-
jury." 13 But it is held not to survive in Arkansas," California,!^

1 Randall 1-. Northwestern Co., 54 Wis. « Ward v. Blackwood, 41 Ark. 295,

140, 149. 298.

- Victory v. Krauss, 41 Mun, 533. i" McKinlay v. McGregor, 10 Iowa, 111.

3 Ahcrn v. Steele, 48 Ilnn, 517. i' Hiner v. Fond du Lac, 71 Wis. 74, 82.

* Anderson v. Arnold, 79 Ky. 370. i- Whitcomb v. Cook, 38 Vt. 477, 481.

5 Hannah v. Knilroad Co.', 87 N. C. " Hn-gins v. Toler, 1 Bush, 192.

351. 11 Ward v. Blackwood, 41 Ark. 295, 299.

6 Miller V. Umbehower, 10 S. & K. 31. i^ Harker v. Clark, 57 Cal. 245 (decid-
' Harrison v. Moseley, 31 Tex. 608. ing that it does not survive against the
» Kimbrough v. Mitchell, 1 Head, 539. wrongdoer).

624 TITLE TO CHOSES IN ACTION. § 294

Maryland,^ and Massachusetts.^ The action for libel is

Libel. J ■>

held not to survive in Massachusetts,-^ but otlierwise
in Iowa ; * so of slander, which does not survive in
Georgia,^ Massachusetts,*^ nor Ohio,'^ but does so in Iowa ^ and in
Maine.^ In New York it was held that an action of slander by a
lirm survives to the living members upon the death of one of
thcm.^^ Seduction is a tort to the person, actionable
only to the extent of the loss of services, etc. by the
person entitled thereto ; and is held not to survive under the
statute of North Carolina, saving such actions of trespass as are
not brought for vindictive damages. ^^ So held also in Georgia ^^
and New York.^^ But in Iowa, under the statute providing that
no cause of action either ex delicto or ex contractu abates by the
death of either party, if from the " legal nature of the case it can
survive," it is held that an action of seduction commenced by the
injured party survives on her death to her administrator.^^ The
Enticing away '"^ctiou for cuticing away or harboring a servant is, in
a servant. Soutli Carolina, held to be not in assumpsit on any

supposed promise, express or implied, but clearly ex delicto, for a
wrong done, and does not survive.^^ In general, the action for
breach of promise to marry does not survive without
promise to allegation of special damages ; ^^ but in North Carolina
marry. .^ .^ \\Q\di that sucli actiou survivcs against the ex-

Divorce. ecutor of the deceased.^'' As a suit for divorce is a

personal action, the death of either part}' before decree abates
the proceedings, and they cannot be continued against the ex-
ecutor of the deceased husband to answer the wife's demand for
the allowance of additional counsel fees for services rendered
during the husband's lifetime.^^ It was held in Massachusetts,

1 Clark V. Carroll, 59 Mel. 180, 182. " George v. Van Horn, 9 Barb. 5-23 ;

2 Nettl.eton v. Dineliart, 6 Cusli 543. People v. Tio<ja, 19 Wend. 73.

■5 Walters v. Nettleton, 5 Cash. 544. " Sliafer i' Grimes, 23 Iowa, 550.

4 Carson v. McFadden, 10 Iowa, 91. i^ Huff;... Watkins, 20 S. C. 477, 480.

s Per Lumpkin, J., in Brawner c. Stcr- ^'^ So held in Massachusetts: Smitli v.

devant, 9 Ga. 69. Sherman, 4 Cush. 408, 412; Stebbins y.

6 Walters v. Nettleton, mprn. Palmer, 1 Pick. 71, 78 ; Chase v. Fitz, 132

"^ Long V. Hitchcock, 3 Oiiio, 274. Mass. 359. In Maine : Hovey v. Page, 55

8 Carson u. McFadden, .s)//)ra. Me. 142. In Pennsylvania . Lattimore r.

9 By force of the statute directing the Simmons, 13 Serg. & P. 183. New York'
survival of actions on the case : Nutting Wade v. Kalbfleisch, 58 N. Y. 282. See
c. Goodridge, 46 Me. 82. imte, § 291.

1" Shale V. Schantz, 85 Hun, 022. i' Shuler v. Millsaps, 71 N. C. 297.

11 McClure v. Miller, 4 Hawks, 13.3. is McCurley v. McCurley, GO Md. 185.

1- Brawner v. Sterdevant, 9 Ga. 69.

§ 204 ACTIONS FOR INJURIES TO THE PERSON. 625

that an action survived to the administrator of one whose death
was caused by the negligent delivery of poison instead
of a harmless medicine, under the statute which pro- -> P"*'^ '<=^-
vides for the survival of all " actions of tort for assault, battery,
imprisonment, or other damage to the person" ;^ and in Indiana,
that a ])hysician is liable to the husband in damages for malprac-
tice in treating his wife, and if the cause of action arise out of a
breach of the contract for skilful treatment, it will survive the
wife's death; 2 but no action survives in whatever form against a
physician's executor for malpractice, to recover for injuries to the
person.3 j^ |g qI^q \^q\(1 that such action does not survive, in New
Hampshire,* although it be in form assumpsit,^ and in New York.^
In Pennsylvania an action against an attorney for dam-
ages suffered in consequence of his neglect was held neglect.
not to abate on the defendant's death." The action pg^eitor
for deceit or fraudulent representation is held to sur- fiauduient

'■ _ _ rein-useutation.

vive, both to and against executors and administrators,
under the statutes of New York,^ Missouri,^ and North Carolina ; i*^
in Alabama, the remedy is given in such case to, but not against,
the personal representative ; ^^ in Georgia, it is doubted whether
the remedy survives to the plaintiff's, but is held not to survive
against the defendant's cxecutors,^^ while in Massachusetts ^^ and
Virginia ^* it abates with defendant's death. In Missouri, it was
held that, where one fraudulently induced another to marry him,
he having then a lawful wife living, an action in assumpsit lies,
for the value of the labor performed by her while believing she
was his wife, against the wrongdoer's administrator ; ^^ but in
New York it was held that an action for damages does not sur-
vive in such case.^*"

It appears from a previous statement,^' that in some instances

1 Norton v. Sewall, 106 Mass. 143. i'' Arnold v. Lanier, Car. Law Rep. 148.

- Long i\ Morrison, 14 Iml. 59o. ^^ In analoory with the statute of 4

" Boor V Lowrey, 103 Iml. 468. Edw. III. c. 7 : Coker i'. Crozier, 5 Ala.

* Vittum V. Oilman, 48 N. H. 416, 369.

6 Jenkins v. French, 58 N. H 532. i- Newsom r. Jackson, 20 Ga. Gl.

6 Best V Vcrlder, 58 How. Pr. 187. " Cuttins v- Tower, 14 Gray, 183 ;

7 Miller v. Wilson, 24 Pa. St. 114, 122. Read v. Hatch, 19 Pick. 47.

8 Haight V. Hayt, 19 N. Y. 464,467, " Henshaw v. Miller, 17 How. (U. S.)
474; so a cause of action for a conspir- 212,224.

acy to cheat and defraud tlie intestate : ^^ Higgins v. Breen, 9 Mo. 497, 500.
Brackett v. GriswoM, 103 N. Y. 425, 428. ^<^ Price v. Price, 75 N. Y. 244.

9 Baker v. Crandall, 78 Mo. 584. ^ Ante, § 293.

VOL. I. — 40

626 TITLE TO CHOSES IN ACTION. § 296

actions for false rctuin by an officer have been held

Slisfeasance or

iiiaifeasaiice of to survivc, on tlic ground that the plaintiff's property
right was thereby violated. But in most States such
or like actions are held to abate and not to survive against or to
executors and administrators. Thus an action does not lie against
or by an executor or administrator for the false return of a sheriff/
nor for the nonfeasance of a deputy ,2 or of a constable.^ So it
was held in Vermont that an action against a director of a na-
tional bank for neglect of duty abates at his death, and cannot be
revived against his representatives.* Actions against the trustees
or other officers of a manufacturing corporation for the recovery
of a penalty imposed by statute, for the omission to report, or for
otherwise violating the law, does not survive the death of the de-
Vioiation of fendant,^ or plaintiff.'' In Missouri, the prosecution for

ordinance of .,.p

a city. the Violation 01 a city ordinance abates by the death

of the defendant, and cannot be revived.'^ And so the rule that
Qui tarn ac- 1^^ ^**'* actious on penal statutes do not survive
t'""s- prevails in the Federal courts, even in States allowing

violations of penal statutes to be prosecuted after the offender's
death.^ But actions for the infringement of a copy-
infrinj^iny right sui'vivc agaiust the represcntati\'e of the offend-

copvri^lit. . , Q

mg party.*^
§ 295. Actions for Injuries resulting in Death do not lie at Com-
mon law, as already indicated. ^"^ But in England and most of the
American States actions are authorized by statute for the wrong-
ful act, neglect, or default of any person or corporation resulting
in the death of the person injured. Such actions are now given,
for instance, in Alabama,^^ Arkansas,^^ Connecticut,^'^ California,^'*

1 Valentine t'. Norton, 30 Me. 194, 201 ; ^ Schreiber v. Sharpless, 110 U. S. 76.
Barrett v. Copeland, 20 Vt. 244. To similar effect, holding tliat the action

2 Cravath i\ Plympton, 13 Mass. 454. given to a common informer to recover

3 Logan >•. Barclay, 3 Ala. 361 ; Gent from the owner of a building in wliieli
V. Gray, 2'.) Me. 462. So the adminis- money was lost bj' gaming, does not sur-
trator is tiie proper party to sue for prop- vive against tiie representatives of the
erty exempt illegally taken under execu- defendant : Yarter r. Flagg, 143 Mass. 280.
tion : Staggs v. Ferguson, 4 Heisk. 600. 9 Atterbury v. Gill, 2 Flip. 239.

4 Witters v. Foster, 26 Fed. Rep. 737. lO Ante, § 290 ; Connecticut Co. v. New

5 Stokes V. Stiokney, 96 N. Y. 323; York Co., 25 Conn. 205, 272.
Diversey v. Smith, 103 111. 378, 385; " Code, 1886, § 2-589.

Mitchell r. Hotchkiss, 48 Conn. 9. i'^ Ljtde Rock & F. S. Railway Co. v.

6 Brackett v. Griswold, 103 N. Y. 425. Townsend, 41 Ark. 382, 387.

7 Carrollton v. Rhomberg, 78 Mo. 547, i3 Qen. St. 1888, §§ 1008 et seq.
549. " Code Civ. Pr. § 377.

§296

ACTIONS FOR INJURIES RESULTING IN DEATH.

627

Delaware/ Georgia,''^ lHinois,'= Indiana,^ Iowa/' Kansas/ Ken-
tucky/ Maine/ Maryland/ Massacliusetts/" Minnesota/^ Mis-
souri/2 Nebraska/=^ Nevada/'* New Hampshire/^ New Jersey/^
New York/' Ohio/« RJKjde Island/^ South Carolina/'^ Texas/i Ten-
nessce/2 Vermont/^ Virginia/* West Virginia/^ and Wisconsin^'"'
In Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, the remedy is by
indictment. In Michigan, the remedy given by statute 2" against
municii)al corporations for neglecting to keep highways and
l)ridu-es in repair, is held to survive to the personal representative
of the person injured ; and if an executor fails to bring an action,
the probate court may appoint an administrator de bonis non to
do so, although the executor has been dischargcd.^^

The action is in all of these States intend(;d for the benefit of
the widow ; in most of them for the benefit of the widow, chil-
dren, or next of kin,^'-' or for the widow and next of kin;3'> in
some, for the husband, widow, and heirs ; ^^ in others, if there

1 Laws as Amended, 1874, p. 644, § 2.

2 Code, 1882, § 2971.

3 Rev. St. 1885, p. 1290.

4 Rev. St. 1888, § 284.

5 Code, § 2520 ; Worden v. Humeston
R. R., 72 Iowa, 201.

6 Dassler's Comp. L. Tiie action lies
apainst a city for killinsi by a mob:
Atchison o. Twine, 9 Kans. 8.50.

~> Gen. St. 774, § 1 ; 777, § '?.. In tliis
State the neglect must be wilful, " im-
plying actual malice, or anti-social reck-
lessness" of such nature that contributory
negligence on tiie part of the person in-
jured is no defence : Louisville R. R. v.
McCoy, 81 Ky. 403, 411, 4i;l

8 R'ev. St. 1883, cli. 51, § 68.

9 Rev. Code, 1878, 724, §§ 1-4.

10 Pub. St. 1882, ch. 112, § 212.

11 St. 1878, p. 825, § 2. In this State the
action lies against a steamboat by name
for the wrongful killing of the adminis-
trator's intestate : Boutiller v. Steamboat,
8 Minn. 97.

1-2 Rev. St. 1879, § 2121.
J3 Comp. L. 1887, p. 3.38.
" Gen. St. 1885, § 3898.

15 Rev. L. 1878, ch. 282, § 14.

16 Rev. St. 1877, p. 294, § 2.
1" Code Civ. Pr. § 1902 et srq.

IS Russell V. Sunbury, .37 Oh. St. 372.
19 Pub. St. 1882, p. 5.53. §§ 15 et seq.
21 Rev. St. 1873, p. 507, § 3.

21 Civ. St. 1888, §§ 2899-2905.

22 The statute of Tennessee provides
tliat the right of action of a person dying
from injuries received, or in consequence
of the wrongful act or omission of another,
sliall not abate or be extinguished by his
death, but shall pass to his personal rep-
resentative for the benefit of his widow
and next of kin, free from the claims of
creditors : Fowlkes c. Nashville Railroad,
9 Heisk. 829, 8-30. Tiie amendment of
1871, giving the right of action to the
widow, and if none to the children or per-
sonal representatives, was held to apply
to an action commenced before it went
into effect: Collins v. East Tennessee
Railroad, 9 Ileisk. 811.

23 Rev. L. 1880, § 2139.

24 Code, 1887, §§ 2903 ct seq.

25 Code, 1887, p. 709, §§ 5 et seq.

26 Rev. St. 1878, § 42.5(5.

2T Pub. Acts, 1887, p. 345, Act 264,
substantially re-enacting How. An. St.
§§ 1442e/ srq.

28 Merkle v. Township, 35 N. W. R.
846, 852.

29 So in Alabama. Indiana, and Kansas.
80 In Arkansas, Illinois, Nebraska, New

Jersey, New York, and Vermout.

31 in Connecticut, Kentucky, Nevada,
Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas,
and Wisconsin.

628 TITLE TO CHOSES IN ACTION. § 295

be no widow, to cliildrcn,^ or half to the widow and half to the
children,^ or to be distributed among wife, husband, parent, and
child.^ In some of the States the action may be brouglit by the
widow, husband, parent, or other person entitled to the proceeds ;*
but generally the suit is brought by the personal representative
for the benefit of the persons named in the statute, not as rep-
resenting the estate in such cases, but the persons for whose
benefit the remedy is given.^ Hence the amount recovered is not
assets in the hands of the executor or administrator ; ^ if the
persons for whose benefit the action is authorized are not in
existence, the statutes of Virginia and West Virginia provide
that the amount recovered shall be assets ; but elsewhere it is
held that in such case the action does not lie." In Georgia, it
is held that the husband has no action for the killing of his
wife.s In Minnesota,^ New York,io and Ohio,^i the statute is
construed as abating the action by the death of the defendant,
and that no action survives against the representatives of the
wrongdoer.

Attention may be called to the distinction between statutes
giving a cause of action to the representative for injuries suffered
by his intestate or testator during his lifetime, and such as give an
action founded on his death, or on the damages resulting from his
death to the widow, next of kin, or other person in whose favor
the action is given. i- The measure of damages is furnished in the
former case by the loss and suffering of the deceased party caused
bv the injury up to the time of his death ; while in the latter case
death is the cause of action, and the damages are measured by
the loss to the person in whose interest the action is brought in
consequence of such death. ^^ In some of the States, the amount

1 Georgia. ^ Russell v. Sunbury, 37 Oh. St. 372,

2 New Hampshire. 376.

3 Virginia and West Virginia. * Georgia R. R. Co. v. Winn, 42 Ga.
* For instance, in Kentucky and Mis- 331.

go^jri_ 9 Green v. Thompson, 26 Minn. 500.

5 Hicks V. Barnett, 40 Ala. 291 ; Little ^^ Hegerich v. Keddie, 99 N. Y. 2.58,
Rock Railway v. Townsend. 41 Ark. 382, overruling Yertore v. Wiswall, 16 How.
387 ; Perry v. St. Joseph Railroad Co., Tr. 8.

29 Kans. 420, 422 ; Baker v. Railroad, 91 " Russell v. Sunbury, 37 Oh. St. 372,

N. C. 308. 376.

6 See authorities in preceding note. ^'^ Such statutes are frequently found
But the administrator is hable for the mis- coexisting : see for instance Rev. St. Mo.
application of such funds to the parties §§2121,2122.

for whose benefit the suit was brought: '^ NgpfHij^m j,. Grand Trunk Co., 38
Perry v. Carmichael, 95 111. 519, 530. Vt. 294, 302.

§ 295 ACTIONS FOR INJURIES RESULTING IN DEATH. G29

recoverable for tlie death of a person is determined \>y statute,^
or not to exceed a maxinmni stated.^ It is also held that the
common law doctrine of merger of a civil action in a felony docs
not apply .^ Under a statute of Connecticut providing that " ac-
tions for injuries to the person, whether the same do or do not
result in death, shall survive to the executor or administrator," it
was doubted whether an action can be maintained for instanta-
neous killing ; but where the death is not instantaneous, punitive
damages may be recovered.* In Tennessee, whose statute does
not distinguish between the cause of action given to the party in-
jured, or his representatives, and that given to those who were
damaged by his death, it is held that damages may be awarded
not only for the mental and bodily suffering, expenses, and loss of
time resulting to the deceased, but also for the loss and depriva-
tion resulting to the parties for whose benefit the right of action
survives.*^

It may be noticed, also, that an action against husband and
wife for the wife's wrong abates with her death.^

The authorities are conflicting on the question whether statutes
creating this right of action have extra-territorial validity. It is
well recognized that penal statutes will not be enforced beyond
the limits of the State having enacted them,' but that " when-
ever, by either the common law or the statute law of a State, a
right of action has become fixed and a legal liability incurred,
that liability may be enforced and the right of action pursued in
any court which has jurisdiction of such matters, and can obtain
jurisdiction of the parties." ^ Hence, where a statute gives a right
of action to a personal representative for the death of the intestate,
an administrator appointed in another State is held entitled to
maintain the action in such State.^ But, on the other hand, it is

1 For instance, in Missouri, tlie only v. East Tennessee Railroad, 9 Heisk.
amount that can be recovered is Su.OOO, 841, 850.

neither more nor less : Rev. St. § 2121. '' Roberts r. Liscnbce, 8G N. C. 136.

2 As in Virginia, where it cannot ex- " Ilerrick c. Minneapolis R. R. Co.,
ceed $10,000: Code, 1887, § 2903; same 31 Minn. 11, 13.

in West Virginia : Code, 1887, p.709, § 6. ^ Dennick ;•. R. R. Co , 103 U. S. 11,

3 Lankford r. Barrett, 29 Ala. 700. 18; Stoeckman v. Terre Haute R. R. Co.,

4 Murphy v. New York R. R. Co., 29 15 Mo. App. 503, 506 ; Boycc v. Wabash
Conn. 496. R. R. Co., 63 Iowa, 70, 72 ; Burns r. Grand

6 Nashville Railroad ;•. Prince, 2 Hei.«k. R. R. Co , 15 N. East. (Ind. ) 230, 231.
580, 587 (overruling Louisville Railroad ^ Dennick ?•. R. R. Co., xupra ; Herrick

r. Burke, 6 Coldvv. 45, 49), ai)proved in v. I\Iinneapolis R. R. Co., 31 Minn. 11.15;

later cases, notably in that of Collins Selma R. R. Co. v. Lacey, 49 Ga. 100, 111.

630 TITLE TO CHOSES IN ACTION. § 296

held that an administrator cannot maintain an action under the
statute of another State authorizing an action hy the personal
representative of one who came to his death by the default of
another ; ^ nor in the State giving the action, if the injury was
c-ommitted elsewhere.^ But in States recognizing the authority of
foreign administrators to sue, a foreign administrator may main-
tain such an action in the State where the injury occurred and
the right of action exists.^ It is sometimes emphasized that such
statutes only of other States will be enforced as are not against
the policy of the State in which the remedy is sought ; and that
the similarity or coincidence of statutes in tlie two States is in-
dicative of the coincidence of their policy.* So, although a for-
eign administrator may in general maintain a suit in a State
recognizing the authority of foreign administrators, yet he will
not be permitted to maintain an action for injuries resulting in
death, if he has not the authority to bring such action in the State
under which he holds his appointment.^

§ 296. Property conveyed by Decedent in Fraud of Creditors. —

At common law and under English statutes*^ the transfer of prop-

, r erty in fraud of the rights of creditors is void as to

Transfer of •' *=

property in them, but o;ood and binding between the parties there-
fraud of cred- L, ..,.,,.,.,,

iters valid be- to. The Same pmiciple IS embodied m the American
ties,^butv(ud'^as statutcs, from whicli it follows that, as the representa-
to creditors. ^j^,^ ^^ ^ dccedcnt, the executor or administrator can-
not impeach the conveyance of his testator or intestate on the
ground of fraud." But the personal representative is also the
Executors and representative of the creditors ; hence, although he is
maytVme' ncvcr allowcd to recover the property from the fraud-
states recover uient grantee for the benefit of the heir or devisee,

from fraudu- " '

1 Woodard i'. Michigan R. R. Co., 10 * Chicago R. R. Co. ;;. Doyle, 60 Miss.
Oh. St. 121; Richardson v. New York 977, 983; Leonard v. Columbia Co., 84
Central R. R. Co., 98 Mass. 85, 92 ; N. Y. 48, 52 ; Morris v. Chicago R. R. Co.,
McCarthy v. Cliicago R. R. Co., 18 Kans. 65 Iowa, 727, 731 ; Railway Co. v. Rich-
46 ; Taylori". Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 78 ards, 68 Tex. 375, 378; Vawter v.
Ky. .348. Missouri R. R. Co., 84 Mo. 679, 684;

2 Whitford v. Panama R. R. Co., 23 Burns r. Grand R. R. Co., 15 N. East. R.
N. Y. 465, 467 ; Needham v. Grand Trunk (Ind. ) 230.

R. R. Co., 38 Vt. 294, 310; Hover r. » Limekiller v. Hannibal R. R. Co.,

Pennsylvania Co., 25 Oh. St. 667. 83 Kans. 83, 88.

3 Kansas Pac. R. Co. v. Cutter, 16 6 Particularly 13 Eliz. c. 5.

Kans. 568; Jeffersonville R. R. Co. v. ' Bump on Fraud. Conv., ch. 16. See

Hendricks, 41 Ind. 48, 72 ; Hartford R. R. collection of authorities on this point,
Co. V. Andrews, 36 Conn. 213. p. 445 (od ed.).

PROPERTY CONVEYED IN FRAUD.

631

§ 296

because they arc e<iually boiiiid with the grantor, yet [^'^J^jJ^'^J'^*^ '"
he may consistently do so in favor of creditors of an creditors.
insolvent estate. Provision is therefore made by statute, in some
of the States, enabling executors and administrators of insolvent
estates to recover property fraudulently conveyed by their testators
or intestates, and the property so recovered becomes assets for the
payment of debts; and in some States it is so held in the absence
of a statute to that effect. It is, accordingly, held that the per-
sonal representative may recover property fraudulently conveyed
by the decedent, if it be necessary to pay his debts, in California,^
Connecticut,^ Indiana,^ Iowa,* LDaisiana,^ Mainc,*^ Massachusetts,"
Michigan,^ Minnesota,^ Nebraska,io New Hampshire,!^ Xew York,i2
North Carolina,i3 Pennsylvania," Vermont,!^ ^nd Wisconsin,!^
principally upon the theory that in insolvent estates the adminis-
trator represents the creditor. But in other States But not in
the creditor is driven for his remedy to a court of ''''""■^'
chancery, because the executor or administrator is not permitted
to assail or impeach the acts of his testator or intestate. It is
so held in Alabama,^" Arkansas,!^ Florida,!^ Georgia,^^ Illinois,^!

1 Forde v. Exempt Fire Co., 50 Cal.
299, 302.

2 Andruss r. Doolittle, 11 Conn. 28,3,
287; Minor r. Mead, 3 Conn. 2f<9 ; Booth
V. Patrick, 8 Conn. 1C6 ; PVeeman v. Burn-
ham, 36 Conn. 469 ; Bassett r. McKenna,
62 Conn. 437.

» llev. St. Ind. 1881, § 2334 ; Martin
V. Bolton, 75 Ind. 29.5.

* Cooley V. Brown, 30 Iowa, 470.

s Sullice V. Gradenigo, 15 La. An. 582 ;
Judson V. Connolly, 4 La. An. Il39.

6 McLean r. Weeks, 61 Me. 277, 280 ;
Brown v. Whitmore, 71 i\Ie. 65 ; Frost
V. Libby, 79 Me. 50.

' Martin v. Root, 17 Mass. 222, 228 ;
Holland v. Cruft, 20 Pick. .321, 328; Ciiase
I'. Redding, 13 Gray, 418 ; Welsh v. Welsh,
105 Mass. 229 ; Drinkwater v. Drink-
water, 4 Mass. 354 ; Yeomans v. Brown,
8 Met. (Mass.) 51, 56.

8 How. St. 1882, § 5884.

9 St. 1878, p. 584, §§ 15, 17.
w St. 1887, ch. 23, §§211-213.

11 Cross V. Brown, 51 N. H. 486 ;
Abbott V. Tenney, 18 N. H. 109; Preston
V. Cutter, 13 Atl. 874, 879.

1'^ McKnight i'. Morgan, 2 Barb. 171 ;
Bate V. Graham, 11 N. Y. 237, 240, 242 ;

Brownell v. Curtis, 10 Pai. 210, 218 ;
Lichtenberg v. Herditelder, 103 N. Y. 302,
306; Harvey c. McDonnell, 48 Hun, 409.

13 Code, 1883. §§ 1446, 1447.

1^ Stewart v. Kearney, 6 Watts, 453;
Pringle v. Pringie, 59 Va. St. 281 ; Bous-
lough V. Bouslougli, 68 Pa. St. 49.5, 499.

15 McLane v. Johnson, 43 Vt. 48, 60.
Before the statute to this effect, the ad-
ministrator's autliority was denied : Peas-
lee V. Barney, 1 Chip. 331, 334; Martin
r. Martin, 1 Vt. 91, 95.

iG Rev. St. 1878, § 3832. As soon as the
administrator is satisfied of the fact that
there is a deficiency of assets, it is his
duty to bring an action to recover prop-
erty fraudulently conveyed, even before
the exact amount is ascertained : Andrew
I'. Hinderman, 71 Wis. 148, 150.

1" Marler i-. Marler. 6 Ala. 367 ; Walton
V. Bonliam, 24 Ala. 513; Davis i'. Swan-
son, 54 Ala. 277.

18 Eubanks v. Dohbs, 4 Ark. 173.

19 HoUiday v. McKinne. 22 Fla. 153,
168, 176.

25 Beale >: Hall, 22 Ga. 431, 4-57.

21 Harmon v. Harmon. 63 111. 512 ;
Eads r. Mason. 16 111. App. 545, 548;
White V. Russell, 79 111. 155.

632

TITLE TO CHOSES IN ACTION.

§ 296

Kentucky,^ Maryland,^ Mississippi,^ Missouri,* North Carolina,^
Oliio,^ Rhode Island," South Carolina,^ Tennessee,^ Texas,^*^ and
Virginia.^^

Tiie proceeds of property so recovered, whether on suit by a
creditor or by the executor or administrator, become assets for
Proceeds be- the payment of debts only.'^ In an early case the ex-
c(.me assets ^g ^^.^^ the amount necessary to pay the debts was

lor payment oi .; r ^^

debts only. j^eld to be distributable to the next of kin or legatees,
as an incident to the administration ; ^^ but the true rule is to
Excess will restorc such excess to the fraudulent grantee,^* because
be restored to ^jj^ fraudulent convevancc is good between the parties

fraudulent ^ o i

grantee. thereto and their representatives, binding all persons

but creditors. ^^

1 Commonwealth v. Richardson, 8 B.
Men. 81, 93.

•^ Kinnemon v. Miller, 2 Md. Ch. 407 ;
Dorsey v. Sniithson, 6 Har. & J. 61, 63.

3 Armstrong r. Stovall, 26 Miss. 275,
277 ; Winn v. Barnett, 31 Miss. 653, 659 ;
Blake v. Blake, 53 Miss. 182, 193.

4 McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 16 Mo.
242 , Brown c Finley, 18 Mo. 375 ; George
V. Williamson, 26 Mo. 190.

6 Coltraine v. Causey, 3 Ired. Eq. 246.
Subsequent to this case a statute author-
ized the recovery by an administrator of
all property fraudulently conveyed, and
such real estate as descends at law to the
heirs, and only such as would have been
liable to execution or attachment by a
creditor of the grantor in his lifetime.
It was held under this statute, that lands
which a debtor paid for and caused to he
conveyed to his son, to defeat his creditors,
could not after his death be recovered by
his administrator . Rhem v. TuU, 13
Ired. L. 57.

•i Benjamin v. Le Baron, 15 Oh. 517
(Birchard, J. dissenting). In this State
the statute provides that the petition to
sell lands to pay debts of the estate " shall
include all the deceased may have con-
veyed with intent to defraud creditors";
but the action for the recovery thereof
must be in the court of common pleas :
Spoors V. Coen, 44 Oli. St. 497.

7 Estes V. Rowland, 15 R. L 127.

8 King V. Clarke, 2 Hill, (S. C.) Ch. 61 1 ;
Chappell V. Brown, 1 Bai. -528, 531 ; An-
derson V. Belcher, 1 Hill, (S. C.) L. 246,
248. But in this State, as in some others.

the administrator may be made a party
to a proceeding in equity at the suit of
creditors, and the property will be re-
covered and distributed to creditors by
the chancery court : Thomson v. Palmer,
2 Rich. Eq. .32. But it seems that where
tiie administrator is himself a creditor he
may imi)each a conveyance by his intes
tate : Winsmith v. Winsmith, 15 S. C
611, Werts v. Spearman, 22 S. C. 200^
215.

8 Lassiter v. Cole, 8 Humph. 621
Sharp V. Caldwell, 7 Humph. 415 ; Moody
I'. Fry, 3 Humph. 567. But contra Marr
V. Rucker, 1 Humph. 348.

1' The decisions in this State are not
pointed.. Connell v. Chandler, 13 Tex. 5,
("obb !'. Norwood, 11 Tex. 556, Avery
r. Avery, 12 Tex. 54, 57, and Willis v.
Smith, 65 Tex. 656, 658, deny the power
of the administrator to recover ; while it
is intimated that the administrator is the
proper party to sue to set aside tlie fraudu-
lent conveyance for the benefit of cred-
itors in Danzey v. Smith, 4 Tex. 411, and
Hunt V. Butterworth, 21 Tex. 133, 141.

11 Backhouse v. Jett, 1 Brock. 500, 507;
Thomas v. Soper, 5 Munf. 28.

12 Danzy v. Smith, supra; Lee v. Chase,
58 Me. 432, 436 ; Cross v. Brown, 51 N. H.
486, 488; Welsh v. Welsh, 105 Mass. 229.

13 Martin v. Root, 17 Mass. 222, 228.

i-i McLean v. Weeks, 61 Me. 277, 280 ;
Bank of United States v. Burke, 4 Blackf.
141, 14.3.

15 Burtch V. Elliott, 3 Tnd. 99; Ro-
chelle V. Harrison, 8 Port. 351.

§ 298 APPRENTICES AND SERVANTS. 633

In Indiana, if such })ropcrty is recovered l)y a creditor in a
court of chancery, lie has a prior cUiini thereon for the payment
of his debt.i

§ 207. Annuities and Rent Charges. — An annuity IS defined to
be a yearly payment of a certain sum of money granted to another
for life, or for a term of years, and charged upon the Annuity as per-
pcrson of the grantor only. When charged upon real 1^^^!^^;.'^^,^
estate, it is most commonly called a rent charge.- As i-e"tative;
personal property, an annuity passes to the personal representa-
tive ; hut if granted with tvords of inheritance it is rent charge to
descendible and goes to the heir, to the exclusion of ^'"^ '""'•
the executor.3 The ai)portionability of annuities is mentioned
elsewhere.*

Dividends upon shares in a corporation bequeathed to the tes-
tator's widow for life, declared after her death for a period which
expired during her life, are included in the bequest,

i o ' _ i _ Dividends.

and her executor may recover them.^ This subject,
so far as the same affects the relative rights of legatees for life
and remaindermen ^ in stock dividends,' is discussed in connec-
tion with the satisfaction of legacies by the executor.

§ 298. Apprentices and Servants, — Upon the death of a master,
both his servants and apprentices are discharged, and sg^vantsand
therefore the executor or administrator of the former apprentices

are discliarged

can hrincf no action to enforce the contract of service by the master's

. death

after his death ; nor do they take any interest in an
apprentice bound to the deceased,^ unless the infant, with the
consent of the father, had bound himself by inden- unless they
tare to a tradesman, his executors and administrators, themse'i'ves to
such executors or administrators carrying on the same ""LXre^and
trade or business.^ In Vermont it is held that the in- administrators,

and these carry

denture of apprenticeship is not necessarily avoided on the trade. '
by the death of the master, but becomes voidable merely ; and if

1 Bank of United States r. Burke, supra. * Post, §§ 301, 459.

- Abb. Law Diet., tit. Annuity. ^ Johnson v. Bridfjewater Manufac-

8 As where a testator j.;ave his real turing Coniyiany, 14 Graj-, 'J74.

and personal estate to liis wife, subject to '' Po^t, § 45(3.

an annuity of £50 to A. ^.forever; it was ^ Post, § 457.

lield that, for the want of the word heirs ^ Wms. Ex. [813, 814] ; 3 Redf. on

in the gift, the annuity passed, on the Wills, 287, pi. 38.

death of A. B., to his personal representa- '•' Wms. Ex. [816], citing Cooper v.

tives: Taylor v. Martindale, 12 Sim. 1-58; Simmons, 7 H. & N. 707.

Parsons r. Parsons, L. R. 8 Eq. Cas. 260.

634 TITLE TO CnCSES IN ACTION. § 299

the apprentice serve the administrator of the deceased master,
he acquires the riglits and incurs the duties of an apprentice to
him.^

§ 299. Copyrights and Patents. — The right of an author to the
exclusive sale or use of his intellectual productions, including
books, maps, charts, pamphlets, magazines, engravings, prints,
dramatic and musical compositions, paintings, drawings, yjhoto-
graphs, sculpture, models, busts, and designs, and the right of
inventors originating any new and useful art, machine, manufac-
ture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improve-
ment therein, are species of property unknown at common law, and
of purely statutory origin, both in England and America. For
. ^^^ the encouragement and development of learning and
patents are, in literature, and to promote the progress of useful arts
sonai property and scicnccs, Cougrcss has secured to the author or
executo°or^ inveutor the absolute and indefeasible interest and
administrator. pj.Qpgj.^y jj^ iijg literary production, or the subject of
his invention, for a specified time, which, upon certain conditions,
may be extended for a further term of years. During this period
the law has impressed upon these productions all the qualities and
characteristics of property, has enabled the author or inventor to
hold and deal with the same as property of any other descrip-
tion, and on his death it passes, with the rest of his personal
estate, to his legal representatives, becoming part of his assets.^
The patent may be applied for and obtained by tlie executor or ad-
ministrator, and is vested in him, in trust for the heirs or devisees,
" in as full and ample a manner, and under the same conditions,
limitations, and restrictions, as the same was held, or might have
been claimed or enjoyed, by the inventor in his or her lifetime." ^
It is obvious, that an extension of the term of letters patent and
copyright may likewise be granted to and held by the personal
representatives ; * and in such case the assignee of the patentee
under the original patent acquires no right under the extended
patent, unless such right be expressly conveyed to him by the
patentee.^ The right of personal representatives to sell or as-

1 Plielps V. Culver, 6 Vt. 430. Brooks v. Bicknell, 3 McLean, 250 ; also

2 Wilson V. Rousseau, 4 How. (U. S.) 432.

646, 674; Dudley y. Mayhew, 3 N. Y. 9. ^ Wood worth v. Sherman, 3 Story,

3 Curtis's Law of Patents, § 177 ; 171 ; Wilson v. Rousseau, suj)ra, McLean
Stimpson r. Rogers, 4 Blatclif. 333. and Woodbury, JJ., dissenting, holding

* Washburn v. Gould, 3 Story, 122; that the e.xtensiou would enure to those

§ 299 COPYRIGHTS AND PATENTS. 635

sig-n a copvridit or patent follows from its qiuility as .

D I „ o 1 1 Administrator

property, and may be made by one of two or more ad- mav ^eii or
ministrators.i Action for infringement of a patent may rig ilt or patent,
be brouglit by the administrator, and where a moiety ^^.^i^j^f^j^t^r
has been assigned bv the patentee he may sue, in con- ma.vsuef.,r
junction with the surviving assignee;-^ and he may oc patent or
commence his action in the United States Circuit ''"''-"'°'-
Court of another State without qualifying as administrator in such
State ; and the same right extends to the assignee of the admin-
istrator.3 Where, in a suit for the infringement of a patent right,
the defendant dies before the granting of a decree, a bill of revivor
may be filed against the decedent's personal representative*

The analogous subject of trade-marks is governed by similar
principles, and the authority of personal representa- ^j.^j^_^^^^j.g
tives with reference thereto is much the same as with
reference to copyrights and patents.^ Paxson, J., passing upon
the question of the right of heirs or distributees to use the trade-
mark of the ancestor,^ says that, while the cases are not uniform
on this subject, there is ample and recent authority that a business
and accompanying trade-mark may pass from parent to children
without administration ; and that the business may be divided
among the children, and each will have the right to the trade-
mark to the exclusion of all the w^orld except the co-heirs. He
quotes from the opinion of Lord Cranworth,' who argued that,
when a manufacturer dies, those who succeed him (grandchildren
or married daughters, for instance), though not bearing the same
name, yet ordinarily use the original name as a trade-mark, and
will be protected against infringement of the exclusive right to
that mark, because, according to the usages of trade, they would
be understood as meaning, by the use of their grandfather's or
father's name, no more than that they were carrying on the man-
ufacture formerly carried on by him. So Field, J., in Kidd v.
Johnson, 100 U. S. 617, 620.s

assignees who had by express agreement * Kirk v. Dii Bois, 28 Fed. Rep. 460.
secured an intorest in the extension. '"• Browne on Trade-Marks, § 365, 1st

1 Winterniute v. l^edington, 1 Fishor, ed.
239; Brooks v. Bicknell, supra, 438; I'itts ^ Pratt's Appeal. 117 Pa. St. 401, 413.

V. Jameson, 15 Barb. 310, 316. " Leather Cloth Co. v. American Co.,

- Story, J., arfiuendn, in Whittemore 11 H. L. 523, 534.
V. Cutter, 1 Gall. 429, 431. ^ The reason why a trade-mark may

* Smith I'. Mercer, 3 Pa. Law Jour, pass " without administration," as sug-

Rep. 52U, 583 (b. p. 448). gestcd by Paxson, J., supra, seems to be

636 TITLE TO CHOSES IN ACTION. § 300

§ 300. Rents. — The general rule is. that rents accruing after
the deceased owner's death belong to the heirs or devisees, as an
Rents accruing incident to the ownership of the land which descends
owuer'rdeatii ^^ them.^ Accordiug to this principle, the payment
go to heirs. Qf j-eut to au cxccutor or administrator under a lease
from him after the testator's or intestate's deatli is no dischai-ge
as against the lieirs,'"^ and may be recovered by them even if the
estate is insolvent, unless there has been some action to subject
the land to the power of the executor or administrator.^ The right
of the heirs attaches to rents accruing under a leasehold extending
beyond the lessor's life, if there be a reversion to himself and
his heirs ;* but if a lessee for years make an underlease, reserving
rent, such rent accruing after his death goes to the executor or
administrator, because his estate was but a chattel interest.^

But if the real estate is necessary to pay the debts of the de-
, , ceased, the executor or administrator may be ordered

Unless needed '

to pay debts to take posscssion of it and collect the rents thereirom,
and, if these are insufficient, to sell the same,*^ or even
take possession thereof without the order of court.'^ It will appear
hereafter, in connection with the subject of the duties of exec-
utors and administrators in respect of real estate,^ that in a

that a trade-mark can have no value ex- taken for a railroad : Boynton v. Peter-

cept in connection with the business to borough Company, 4 Cush. 407 ; Camp-

which it attaches ; and as creditors are bell v. Johnston, 1 Sandf. Ch. 148 ; and to

not usually in condition to realize the damages for cutting down trees : Fuller

value of tlie trade-mark, either by carry- r. Young, 10 Me. 365, 372; Smith v. Bland,

ing on the business themselves or by sell- 7 B. Mon. '21.

ing to one who will, its chief element as * Stinson v. Stinson, 38 Me. 593 ;
an asset is wanting. But it seems, also, Foltz r. Prouse, 17 111. 487,493; Blood-
that cases may arise in which the trade- worth v. Stevens, 51 Miss. 475.
mark of a deceased testator or mtestate ^ Wras. Ex. [818j, 3 Redf. on Wills,
is of value to creditors, or a subject of 183, pi. 8.

contention between heirs, when adminis- ** On this subject, see post, §§ 463

tration may become necessary. et seq., treating of the liability of real

1 See post, § 513 ; Ball v. First National estate for the debts of deceased persons.
Bank, 80 Ky. 501, 503, and earlier cases ' " If the estate is insolvent, and set-
cited ; McClead v. Davis, 83 Ind. 2G3 ; tied m the insolvent course, it is the
Stewart v. Smiley, 46 Ark. 373; Crane duty of the administrator to take pos-
V. Guthrie, 47 Iowa, 542, 545 ; Shouse v. session of it, take care of it, and take the
Krusor, 24 Mo. App. 279. rents and profits " : Lucy v. Lucy, 55

2 Haslage v. Krugh, 25 Pa. St. 97. N. H. 9, 10; Bergin a McFarland, 26 N.H.

3 Kimball v. Sumner, 62 Me. 305 ; 533, 536. The law in most other States,
Tow-le V. Swasey, 106 Mass. 100 ; Gibson however, requires some order of the pro-
V. Farley, 16 Mass. 280 ; Clift v. Moses, bate court to divest the heirs of the right
44 Hun, 312, 314. The same principle of possession.

is applicable to the damages due for land " Post, § 337.

S 301 LIFE TENANT AND REMAINDERMAN. 637

number of States the distinction between real and Except in

personal property has been abolished, so that both <;o Ji|^\^,fi'';ate

to tlie personal representative for administration. In '^^[^^l]^^^^!',^^.

such States the rents self-evidcntly go to the executor or aciminis-

, . , • 1 I- 1 • • i. i.' trator.

or administrator during the period of administration.

'It is also clear, that, where the real estate is devised to an execu-
tor for purposes of administration, the rents must be paid to the
person administering.^

Rents which had accrued prior to the death of the testator or
intestate are mere choses in action, and therefore payable to the
personal representative.^

§ 801. Apportionment between Life Tenant and Remainderman. —
If a lessor make a lease of land of whicli he owns part in fee and
part for a term of years, reserving one entire rent for the whole,
the rent accruing after his death will be apportioned between the
heir and the executor.^ But at common law there j^^ j^p^^rt ion-
could be no apportionment of rent accruing to succcs- ment of rent

^ ' • r 1 between guc-

sive owners, so that, if a life tenant died before the cessive owners

, -1 1 1 • 1 1 at common law.

rent reserved under a lease made by him became due,
the rent was lost both to his executor and to the reversioner ; — to
the former, because no rent had become due to the testator when
he died ; to the latter, because he was not the lessor of the tenant.*
To remedy this difficulty, the statute of 11 Geo. 11. c. 19, § 15, was
enacted, providing that where any tenant for life died before the
time at which rent reserved under a demise from him, determin-
ing with his death, became due, the executor or administrator of
the lessor might recover from the under-tenant the proportion of
rent which had accrued at the time of the lessor's death.'^ Similar
statutes exist in many of the American States, referring generally,
like the British statute, to leases from life tenants, expiring with
the life of the lessor. Where the lease is by a tenant in fee, or
in any case where it is binding upon the heir or person entitled in
remainder, the lessee is bound to pay the rent, the whole of which
wull then go to the heir or remainderman, no matter how much

1 Glacius V. Fogel, 88 N. Y. 434, 444 ; Loq;an v. Caldwell, 2-'] Mo. 372 ; Ball r.
as where bv the will he is charged with First National Bank, 80 Ky. 501.

the collection of all rents: McDowell v. 3 3 Hgdf. on Wills, 183, pi. 9; Wms.

Hendrix, 71 Ind. 286. Ex. [818], citing English authorities.

2 McDowell V. Hendrix, 67 Ind. 513, * Wms. Ex. [821], with authorities.
617 ; King v. Anderson, 20 Ind. 385 ; ^ Stillwell v. Doughty, 3 Bradf. 359.

638

TITLE TO CHOSES IN ACTION.

§ 302

of it was earned before his estate took effect in possession. ^ The
Nor of same rule with reference to apportionment applies to

annuities, annuities ; they are not in their nature apportionable

gTven foT main- either in law or equity ,2 excej)t annuities for the main-
teuame of tcnancc of the widow, or married women livin*:; apart

widow ov minor _ ' _ ^ .4.

chiiaiei). from their husbands, or infants.^ But there is a dis-

tinction to be drawn between an annuity, no part of which is pay-
AiUer as to ^^^Ic uulcss the annuitant live until it becomes due,
interest. r,^^^^ ^-j-^g accruing interest upon a given sum producing

an income, in which case the beneficiary is entitled to all the
interest earned at the time of his death.* This subject is also
regulated by statute in several States,^ and will again be referred
to in connection with satisfaction of legacies.

§ 302. The Wife's Choses in Action. — At common law, mar-
riage is a qualified gift to the husband of the wife's choses in
action, upon condition that he reduce them to yjosses-

Wifes choses ' ^ t r i • -r

in action siiv- gjon during its continuance. If he die before his wife,

Vive to her, if . , , , . t -i ^ • • l

tee husband Without liaviug rcduccd such property into possession,

1 3 Redf. on Wills, 184, pi. 12 ; Fay v.
Holloran, ."5 Barb. 295; Sohier v. El-
dredge, 103 Mass. 345, 351 ; Bloodvvorth
V. Stevens, 51 Miss. 475. But where a
lessee under a life tenant pays tlie rent to
the representative of the life tenant for a
period subsequent to the lessor's death,
the reversioners may recover therefor :
Price V. Pickett, 21 Ala. 741.

2 Wms. Ex. [835] ; Tracy v. Strong, 2
Conn. 659, 064: Waring w. Purcell, 1 Hill,
(S. C.) Cli. 193, 199; Wiggin v Swett,
6 Met. (Mass.) 194, 201 ; McLemore v.
Blocker, Harp. Eq. 272, 275 ; Manning v.
Randolpli, 4 N. J. L. 144; Heizer ;•. Heizcr,
71 Ind. 526; and see autliorities cited
post, § 459.

3 Gheen v. Osborn, 17 Serg. & R. 171 ;
Fisher v. Fisher, 5 Pa. L. J. Rep. 178 ;
Ex parte Rutledge, Harp. Cli. 65 ; Gould,
J., in Tracy v. Strong, supra ; Blight r.
Blight, 51 Pa St. 420 ; Earp's Appeal, 28
Pa St. 368, 374; see authorities cited
post, § 459.

* Because interest becomes due de die
in diem. : Story Eq. Jtirisp. § 480, note,
(p. 469 of r2th ed.). As there is no diffi-
culty in making apportionment, there is no

necessity for the rule : Earp's Appeal,
supra; and so it has been held that, where
no period or day has been mentioned
upon wliich the annuity should be paid,
the rule that annuities cannot be ap-
portioned is not applicable : Reed v.
Cruikshank, 46 Hun. 219. But dividends
from profits on business of incorporated
companies are not only contingent, but
uncertain in amount until the expiration
of tiie full period for which they are de-
clared, and are not apportionable : Gran-
ger V. Bassett, 98 Mass. 462, 469 ; Foote,
Appellant, 22 Pick. 299; Sweigart v.
Berk, 8 S. & R. 299, 302.

5 In Massachusetts it was held that,
under the statute of that State, where a
testator had directed a residue in trust
to be sold and invested in a particular
security, the income to be paid as an
annuity to his son's widow during her
life and on her death to provide for her
children, the life tenant was entitled to
the proceeds of coupons of bonds repre-
senting the fund maturing after the tes-
tator's death ; and upon tiie death of the
life tenant, the interest was to be appor-
tioned : Sargent v. Sargent, 103 Mass. 297.

§302

THE wife's CHOSES IN ACTION.

G39

she, and not his executors or administrators, will bo J;^^.,^';^;,*;:;^':''^
entitled to it.^ There is a distiMcti(ni, however, in session.
some of the States at least, between choses in action which accrued
to the wife before, and those which accrued to her durin.L^ cover-
ture; for the latter, the husband may brin^ action in his own
name, disagree to the interest of his wife, and a recovery thereon
in his own name is suthcient to defeat the wife's survivorship.^

1 Hair V. Avery, 28 Ala. 2G7, 273;
Rice V. MoRcynol.Is, 8 Lea, 3(5; Lock-
liart ?•. Cameron, 29 Ala. :>.J5 ; Moody v.
llcmpliill, 75 Ala. 2*38; Andover v. Mer-
rimack Co., S7 N. II. 437, 444; Burr v.
Sherwood. 3 Bradf. 85 ; Arnold v. Rug-
gles, 1 R. I. 1G5, 178 ; Bell v. Bell, 1 Ga.
G37 ; Killcrease v. Killcrease, 7 How.
(xMiss.) 311 ; Barber v. Slade, 30 Vt. lUl ;
Stephens v. Beal, 4 Ga. 319, 323 ; Ster-
ling V. Sims, 72 Ga. 51 ; Weeks r. Weeks,
5 Ired. Eq. Ill, 120; Lenderman r. Len-
dcrman, 1 Hoiist. 523 ; Baker v. Red, 4
Dana. 158; Willis r. Roberts, 48 Me. 257,
2U1 ; Kellar v. Beelor, 5 T. 15. Monr. 573 ;
Whitehurst v. Barker, 2 Ired. Eq. 292;
Goodwin V. Moore, 4 Humph. 221 ; Wal-
den V. Chambers, 7 Oh. St. 30 ; Bone
r. Sparrow, 11 La. An. 185 ; Pinkard c.
Smitii, Little's Sel. Cas 331; Rogers v.
Bumpass, 4 Ired. Eq. 385.

2 Boozer v. Addison, 2 Rich. Eq. 273.
In Connecticut it is held, as the settled
law of the State, that a chose in action
accruing to the wife during coverture
vests absolutely in the husband : Fourth
Ecclesiastical Society r. Matlier, 15 Conn.
587, 598, reciting numerous autliorities.
In Massachusetts the decisions are con-
flicting ; the cases of Albee v. Carpenter,
12 Cush. 382, Commonwealth v. Manley,
12 Pick. 173, Giiddard v. Johnson, \\
Pick. 352, and Hapgood ?>. Ilougliton, 22
Pick. 480, distinctly holding, the first two
tliat a cliose in action accruing to the
wife during coverture vests absolutely in
the husband, the other two that he may
bring suit thereon in his own n.ime aPor
her death; while in Hay ward c. Hay ward,
20 Pick. 517, which seems to liave been
well argued and thoroughly considered,
it is deliberately announced that, if the
liusband die before reducing into posses-
sion a chose in action accruing to the wife
during coverture, it survives to the wife.

In Maine, Willis v. Roberts, 48 Me. 257,
Maryland, Pond v. Conway, 11 Md.
512, Rhoile Island, Wilder v. Aldrich,
2 U. I. 518, and Tennessee, Cox v. Scott,
9 Ba.xt. 305, 310, it is expressly held
that such choses survive to the wife, if
the husband die before reducing them to
possession. In Delaware it was so de-
cided, although the husband had made
an equitable assignment of his wife's
chose, but died before it was reduced to
possession: Stale r. Robertson, 5 Harr.
201. In New York a distinction was
taken between an acti(m which must be
brought in the name of the husband and
wife, which, unless the husband obtained
satisfaction, would survive to the wife,
and one which the husband might bring
in his own name; and it was held that
taking a new security, or novating the
debt to the wife in his own name, author-
ized him to bring suit thereon in his own
name, and destroyed the wife's right of
survivorship : Searing ;■. Searing, 9 Pai.
283. Where a suit for the wife's choses
in action is brought in chancery, it is ne-
cessary to join the wife, and the court
will then see that the husband make a
suitable provision for the wife, unless she
consents to waive it : Schuyler v. Hoyle,
5 Johns. Ch. 196,210, reviewing the Eng-
lisli authorities. So in Missouri : Pickett
I'. Everett, 11 Mo. 568 ; and in this State it
is held that in a suit for choses accruing
to the wife during coverture the husband
may at his election join his wife or not;
and if he sues alone and recovers judg-
ment, it is an election to have the chattel
in his own right freed from the riglit of
survivorship in the wife ; if he joins her
in the suit, her right of survivorship will
continue : Leakey r. Maupin, 10 Mo. 368,
372, In Ohio, choses in acti(m belonging
to the wife at the time of the marriage,
not reduced into possession by means of

G40 TITLE TO CHOSES IN ACTION. § 302

What amounts to a reduction into possession by the husband is a
question of much nicety and difficulty, upon which the authorities
are by no means precise, nor the rules in the several States uni-
The mere in- form.^ The mere intention, without some act divest-
lulsband isifot i^^o ^lie wifc's right and malcing his own absolute, —
ve^Thewiie'^s' ^^cli as a judgment recovered in an action com-
ownership. mcnced by him in his own name alone, or an award
of execution to him upon a judgment recovered by him and his
wife, or the receipt of the money, or decree for payment to him or
for his use, — is not sufficient to defeat her survivorship.^ It has
He may sell been held that he may sell or assign her choses for a
vafuabiTcon- valuable consideration, and thus defeat her right,^ al-
sideration. though the choscs assigucd be no further reduced to
possession during coverture ; * but he cannot make a voluntary
assignment or gift of them witliout consideration, unless the
assignment or gift be consummated by actual reduction during
V 1 1 t-ik coverture.^ So the assignment of the wife's choses as
place of the a Collateral for the husband's debt simply puts the

husband, and . . , . , » . , „

must reduce to assigiiec in the liusbaud's place; it is not of itself a
fwThusband's reduction into possession, and if the husband die be-
death. £^^,g anything further is done, neither the assignee

nor the husband's personal representatives have any further inter-
est therein.^ An assignment by an insolvent husband for the
benefit of his creditors, under the insolvent law, will defeat her
right, although he die before her;^ but a general assignment,
without referring to the wife's choses in action, does not include

a judgment obtained during coverture in self"; O'Conner v. Harris, 81 N. C. 279,

the husband's name alone, or by assign- 282.

nient for a valuable consideration, or by * Browning i'. Headley, 2 Rob. (Va.)

taking new securities in his name alone, 340.

survive to the wife, and on her death ^ Hartman v. Dowdel, 1 Eawle, 279,

before the husband's go to her heirs : 281 ; Siter's Case, 4 Rawle, 468.

Dixon V. Dixon, 18 Ohio R. 113. ^ Hartman v. Dowdel, supra; Latou-

1 Chitty on Contr. 225; Snowhill v. rette r. Williams, 1 Barb. 9; Croft f. Bol-
Snowhill, 2 N. J. Eq. 30, 36. ton, 31 IVIo. 355.

2 Brown v. Bokee, 53 Md. 155, 169. '^ Ricluvine v. Heim, 1 Pa. Rep. 378 ;

3 Hill I'. Townsend, 24 Texas, 575 ; Shuman v. Reigart, 7 W. & S. 108. But
Abington v. Travis, 15 Mo. 240. " The in New York tiie creditors in such case
assignment availed to pass the right take subject to the wife's right by sur-
to the assignee to collect and have the vivorship if the husband dies before the
proceeds as his absolute property, if col- assignee has reduced such property to
lected during the coverture, just as possession : Van Epps v. Van Deusen, 4
the husband might have done if he had Pai. 64, 73 ; and see Williams v. Sloan,
kept, and reduced it into possession him- i7ifra.

§ 302

THE wife's CHOSES IN ACTION.

641

them, nor is the assignee of a bankrupt under the bankrupt act
entitled to them, tlie rule of the common law being that creditors
cannot compel the husband to exercise his power in their favor. ^
Tiic assertion of title to the wife's chose in action by a bequest in
the husband's will cannot affect rights which she had otherwise
been permitted to retain ;2 so the mere manual pos- ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
session of a note or other chose in action payable to fj'^^^'^'^il^:" jj^*
the wife, is not sufficient to constitute a reduction by not constitute

. „ , . I . Q reduction.

the husband so as to divest the wife s right ;'^ nor
holding it as administrator, before final distribution.'' But where
the husband is the executor of a will under which the wife is
entitled to a legacy, taking it and mingling it with his other prop-
erty is a reduction of it to possession such as bars her right
thereto.^ So, where the husband receives the legacy from the
executor, receipting for it in his wife's name and using the money
as his own,*^ the possession must come to the husband in the ex-
ercise of his marital right, and for the purpose of appropriating it
to his own use.^ An assignment by the husband of a reversionary
interest expectant on the death of a tenant for life is not valid
against the wife, if both she and the life tenant survive the hus-
band.^ Nor is a contract made between husband and wife during

1 Gibson, C. J., in Shay v. Sessaman,
10 Pa. St. 432, 433; State v. Robertson,
5 Harr. 201 ; Timbers v. Katz, 6 W. & S.
290, 298, 299; Terry v. Wilson, 63 Mo.
493, 499 ; Williams v. Sloan, 75 Va. 137.

2 Grebill's Appeal, 87 Pa. St. 105, 108.
8 Latourette i'. Williams, supra; Burr

V. Sherwood, 3 Bradf. 85. So the posses-
sion by a husband of his wife's distribu-
tive share of her father's estate, where
the executor has not qualified, does
not constitute an exorcise of his marital
right, the title being in the executor ; and
on the husband's death the title to the
property survives in the wife : Hairston
V. Hairston, 2 .Jones Eq. 123, 127.

* Johnson v. Brady. 24 Ga. 131, 136;
Crawford v. Brady, 35 Ga. 18t, 192;
Walker v. Walker, 25 Mo. 367. So an
administrator, liaving in his hands the
distributive share of an estate belonging
to a married woman, who is summoned as
trustee in an action against her husband,
will be discharged if the husband die be-
fore judgment : Strong i'. Smith, 1 Met.
(Mass.) 476.

VOL. I. — 41

5 Bridgman r. Bridgman,1.38 Mass. 58.

« Kice I'. McReynolds, 8 Lea, 36.

" Tennison v. Tennison, 46 Mo. 77. If
he take them as trustee for the wife,
creditors of the husband cannot subject
them to the payment of their debts :
Terry v. Wilson, supra. So where a wife
collects insurance money on her house,
and reinvests it in real estate, her husband
assenting to her control and disposition
of the money : Cox v. Scott, 9 Baxt. .305.

8 Because the defeasance of the wife's
right by survivorship depends upon the
actual conversion by the husband during
coverture, and this is impossible of an
interest which exists only in expectancy.
See a thorough discussion of tliis question
by Kyhind, J., in Wood v. Simmons, 20
Mo. 363, in which tlie view of Sir Thomas
Plumer, Master of the Rolls, in Purdew
V. .Jackson, 1 Russ. Cli. 1, is quoted with
approval, viz. : that all assignments by
the husband of the wife's choses in action
pass them sub modo, on condition that the
assignee receive his sliare, or its value,
during the life of the husband. Moore v.

642 TITLE TO CHOSES IN ACTION. § 302

coverture, disposing of the wife's expectancies, binding on the
wife after the husband's death.^ And an agreement made before
marriage, stipuhiting that the wife's equities and expectancies
should be settled on her, will be regarded as constituting a trust
in the husband, which will prevent his marital rights from ever
attaching.^ Where the husband survives the wife, he is entitled
to administer on her estate,^ and, as such administrator, to all her
personal estate remaining in action or unrecovered at her death ;
but if he die before obtaining a grant of administra-
istrator^/eXms tiou, or, having taken letters, before all her property
To he^cwfrn in action is reduced to possession, such property does
th'fr^resfema- ^ot go to his representatives, but administration, gen-
tives of the g^j^j qj, ^^ bonis 710)1, must be obtained on her estate

nusbaiid who i -f 5

died i>efnre for that purposc ; * and in such case the wiie s repre-

completiiiff ad- ,,,, ,., , i- jii i n

ministration on scutativcs hold the property m trust for the husband s
her estate. ^^^^ ^^ j^.^ ^^. legatees,^ subjcct, of course, to the

wife's debts.^ But it is to be remembered, that recent legislation
in most of the States has greatly changed the law with reference
to the property rights of married women,' and that in many cases
choses in action of the wife not reduced by the husband during
her lifetime now go, upon her death, to her next of kin, in the
same manner as if she had been a feme sole.^

Tliornton, 7 Gratt. 99, 110; Browning v. Speers Eq. 5G4 ; Hendren v. Colgin, 4

Headly, supra ; and if in such case the Munf. 231, 234 ; Lee v. Wlieeler, 4 Ga.

wife die before the life tenant, her inter- 541 ; Rice v. Thompson, 14 B. Monr. 877 ;

est will pass to her children : Matheney Templeman v. Fontleroy, 3 Rand. 434,

V. Guess, 2 Hill, (S. C.) Ch. 63. 439; Olmsted v. Keyes, 85 N. Y. 593,

1 Hardin v. Smith, 7 B. Monr. 390, 6(r2 ; Robins v. McClure, 100 N. Y. 328,
392. But a post-nuptial settlement upon 834; Brown v. Bokee, 53 Md. 155, 163;
the wife, if not fraudulent, is good in lier Glasgow v. Sands, 3 G. & J. 96, 103. And
favor: Picquet v. Swan, 4 Mason, 443; the administrator may maintain trover
Duffy V. Insurance Co., 8 W. & S. 413. for their conversion : Brown v. Bokee,

2 Ramsay v. Richardson, Riley, Ch. supra.

271,273. Ante-nuptial contracts intended ° Bryan v. Rooks, 25 Ga. 622 ; Stew-
to regulate and control the interest wliicli art v. Stewart, 7 Johns. Ch. 229, 246 ;
each of the parties to the marriage shall Hunter v. Hallett, supra ; Donnington v.
take in the property of the other during Mitchell, 2 N. J. Eq. 243. If the husband
coverture or after death, will be enforced intermeddles without taking letters of
according to the intention of the oarties : administration, he will be held liable for
Johnston v. Spicer, 107 N. Y. 186; Ijes- her debts. Lockwood v. Stockholm, 11
nover v. Jordan, 27 Minn. 295. Pai. 87.

'a Atite, § 236. ^ Clay v. Irvine, 4 W. & S. 232 ; Lock-

4 Allen ?'. Wilkins, 3 Allen, 321 ; Bur- wood r. Stockholm, supra.
leigh V. Coffin, 22 N. H. 118, 125; Curry ^ See ante, § 286.

V. Fulkinson, 14 Ohio R. 100; Hunter v. ^ Holmes r. Holmes, 28 Vt. 765; Div ,

Hallett, 1 Edw. Ch. 388 ; Cobb v. Brown, v. Dixon, 18 Ohio R. 113. ,•'

§ 303 ACTIONS ACCRUING TO PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE. 643

§ 303. Actions accruing to the Personal Representative. — It
results from the ownership oi all personal property of a deceased
person, which by law is i)hiced in the executor or ad- cause of action
ministrator, that for any injury thereto occurring after deaul^Kh-eTthe
the decedent's death, and before the final disposition J^j.^;;,',^;^ .'J^^,.
to the parties entitled, the action must be brought ttntaiive.
by the personal representative.^ And in such case, as well as in
all eases where the action accrues upon a contract made by or
with him as such since the death of the testator or intestate, the
action may be brought in the proper name of the executor or
administrator, but not as such.^ But whenever the ^j^^^^ ^^^
money when recovered will be assets, the executor or amount recov-

•' ' . ered will be as-

administrator may sustain a suit in his representative sets, the action

o 1 • . , c • 1 r xi ^'^ '" '"^ repre-

capacity,"* and join a count lor conversion before the sentative
death, and one for damages after.* He cannot, how- ^ ^'^^^ ^^'
ever, join counts on causes of action accruing to him in his private
right as individual, with counts on causes of action in his repre-
sentative capacity.^ Under what circumstances executors and
administrators may be liable personally for their contracts is
mentioned elsewhere.^

1 Holbrook (,•. Wliite, 13 Wend. 591.

■^ Stewart v. lliciiey, 17 N. J. L. 164 ;
Ham V. Henderson, 50 Cal. 8(37 ; Patclien
v. Wilson, 4 Hill, (N. Y.) 57 ; Manwell v.
Briggs, 17 Vt. 176 ; Haskell v. Bo wen, 44
Vt. 579 ; White v. Pulley, '27 Fed. Kep.
430, 440 ; McDonald v. Williams, 16 Ark.
36; Yarborough v. Ward, 34 Ark. 204,
208; Carlisle v. Burley, 3 Me. 250; Tre-
cothick V. Austin, 4 Mas. 16, 34 ; Catlin
V. Underhill, 4 McLean, 337 ; Campbell v.

Baldwin, 6 Blackf. 364 ; Schmittler v.
Simon, 101 N. Y. 554; Wait v. Holt, 58
N. H. 407 ; Daily v. Daily, 66 Ala. 266.

^ Boggs V. Bard, 2 Rawlc, 102; Brown
V. Lewis, 9 R. I. 497 ; Evans v. Gordon,
8 Porter, 346 ; Yarborough v. Ward, 34
Ark. 204, 208.

* French v. Merrill, 6 N. H. 465.

5 French i\ Merrill, supra; Epes v.
Dudley, 5 Rand. 437.

6 See post, § 356.

END OF VOLUWK T.

(i\L

(jU

^,^S^

UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACIUTY

AA 000 820 397 8