A Treatise on the Law of Legacies (Volume 1)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1829 edition. Excerpt: ... to each of them a sixth part. One of whom having died before the testator, Lord King decided that his share was lapsed. Also in Owen v. Owen, (x) a testatrix gave the surplus of her estate to her nieces Mary and Elizabeth, daughters of Mr. and Mrs. Owen, in equal shares. One of the nieces died before the testatrix, and Lord Hardwicke determined that her share was undisposed of. The last case was followed by Peat v. Chapman, (y) in which a similar decision was made by the Master of the Rolls. And in Ackroyd v. Smithson, (z) the testator, after giving distinct legacies to a number of persons, also gave them his residuary estate (consisting of personal property, and the produce from the sale of his real estate) in proportion to their several and respective legacies therein to them bequeathed. Two of those legatees died before the testator, and their legacies and shares of residue were determined by Lord Thurlow to have lapsed for the benefit of the heir and next of kin of the testator. The rule relating to interests lapsed by the deaths of legatees during the life of the testator, equally applies to cases where a testator revokes by codicil the benefit intended for one tenant in common, and makes no other disposition of it. And although he confirms the will, still the other tenants in common cannot make a title to the revoked share; because by the will they took no interest in such share, but only in their own several proportions; therefore, since the confirmation of the will had no other effect, than to make it speak from the date of the codicil, no new estate or interest having been given to other tenants in common, it necessarily follows, that, as they, neither under the will or codicil, can take the revoked interest, it is...