nate heirs generally or the whole line of heirs in succession. 35

[§ 14] c. Nature of Property. The term, being susceptible of more than one interpretation, is to be construed sometimes in reference to the species of property which is the subject of disposition,37 whether the property is real or personal in its nature; and according to the nature of the property given, it may mean heir at law or next of kin,39 it being susceptible, according to the context, of two meanings; thus, heir at law as to the real estate, and next of kin as to the personal estate. Where

47

the clear intent of the instrument; or where it is plain that it is used in a popular sense, as a word of

Perkins, 64 N. H. 36, 38, 5 A 904; Barton v. Tuttle, 62 N. H. 558, 560; Demarest v. Den, 22 N. J. L. 599, 611, 614; Cody v. Bunn, 46 N. J. Eq. 131, 133, 18 A 857; Eldridge v. Eldridge, 41 N. J. Eq. 89, 91, 3 A 61; Beatty_v. Cory Universalist Soc., 39 N. J. Eq. 452, 463; Davis v. Davis, 39 N. J. Eq. 13, 15; Fairchild v. Crane, 13 N. J. Eq. 105, 108; Heath v. Hewitt, 127 N. Y. 166, 174, 27 NE 959, 24 AmSR 438, 13 LRA 46; Hard v. Ashley, 117 N. Y. 606, 614, 23 NE 177; Kiah v. Grenier, 56 N. Y. 220, 225; Scott v. Guernsey, 48 N. Y. 106, 122; Spicer V. Connor, 148 App. Div. 334, 132 NYS 877, 879; Canfield v. Fallon, 43 App. Div. 561, 564, 57 NYS 149; Johnson v. Brasington, 86 Hun 106, 113, 34 NYS 200; Drake v. Lawrence, 19 Hun 112, 114; Cushman v. Horton, 1 Hun 601, 602; Prindle v. Beveridge, 7 Lans. (N. Y.) 225, 230; Vannorsdall v. Van Deventer, 51 Barb. (N. Y.) 137, 146; Canfield v. Fallon, 26 Misc. 345, 351, 57 NYS 149; Matter of Stafford, 11 Misc. 436, 440, 33 NYS 419; Murphy v. Harvey, 4 Edw. (N. Y.) 136, 137; Wright v. New York City M. E. Church, Hoffm. (N. Y.) 202, 213; Puckett v. Morgan, 158 N. C. 344, 74 SE 15, 16; Acker v. Pridgen, 158 N. C. 337, 74 SE 335, 336; Swindell v. Smaw, 156 N. C. 1, 72 SE 1; Cultice v. Mills, 97 Oh. St. 112, 119 NE 200, 202; Bunnell v. Evans, 26 Oh. St. 409, 410; Stevenson V. Evans, 10 Oh. St. 307, 315; King v. Beck, 15 Oh. 559, 562; Walker V. Walker, 20 Oh. Cir. Ct. 409, 11 Oh. Cir. Dec. 291, 295; De Graffenreid v. Iowa Land, etc., Co., 20 Okl. 687, 95 P 624, 634; Crawford v. Forrest Oil Co., 208 Pa. 5, 19, 57 A 47; Clemens v. Heckscher, 185 Pa. 476, 487, 40 A 80; Mitchell Pittsburg, etc., R.

V.

Co., 165 Pa. 645, 651, 31 A 67; In re

210, 216; Early v. Arnold, 119 Va.
500, 504, 89 SE 900; Bayly v. Cur-
lette, 117 Va. 253, 255, 84 SE 642;
King v. Johnson, 117 Va. 49, 52, 83
SE 1070; Bane v. Adair, 116 Va. 587,
594, 82 SE 734; Crutchfield v. Greer,
113 Va. 232, 233, 74 SE 166; Rober-
son v. Wampler, 104 Va. 380, 383, 51
SE 835, 1 LRANS 318 [quot Com. v.
Wellford, 114 Va. 372, 376, 76 SE
917]; Norris v. Johnston, 17 Gratt.
(58 Va.) 8, 9; Stuart v. Stuart, 18 W.
Va. 675, 689, 690; Reid v. Stuart, 13
W. Va. 338, 347; Flint v. Wisconsin
Trust Co., 151 Wis. 231, 237, 138 NW
629, 631, AnnCas1914B 67; Loveday
v. Hopkins, Ambl. 273, 274, 27 Re-
print 183; Right v. Creber, 5 B. &
C. 866, 874, 11 ECL 715, 108 Reprint
322; Roberts v. Edwards, 33 Beav.
259, 261, 55 Reprint 367; Bull v. Com-
berbach, 25 Beav. 540, 543, 53 Reprint
744; Doe v. Laming, 2 Burr. 1100,
1106, 97 Reprint 731: Crawford V.
Trotter, 4 Madd. 361, 362, 56 Reprint
738; Otty v. Crookshank, 21 N. B.
169, 177; Zwicker v. Ernst, 29 N. S.
258 [app allowed on other grounds
27 Can. S. C. 594, 33 CanLJ 851;
Paradis v. Campbell, 6 Ont. 632, 634;
Smith v. Smith, 8 Ont. 677; Allan v.
Evans, 9 Que. Q. B. 257, 266.
Mercantile Bank v. Ballard, 83 Ky
481, 490, 4 AmSR 160; Lincoln V.
Perry, 149 Mass. 368, 373, 21 NE
671, 4 LRA 215; Johnson v. Brasing-
ton, 156 N. Y. 181, 186, 50 NE 859;
Lee v. Baird, 132 N. C. 755, 765, 44
SE 605; Sain v. Baker, 128 N. C. 256,
258, 38 SE 858; Starnes v. Hill. 112
N. C. 1, 25, 16 SE 1011, 22 LRA 598;
Patrick v. Morehead, 85 N. C. 62, 66,
39 AmR 684; Miller v. Churchhill,
78 N. C. 372, 373; Knight v. Knight,
56 N. C. 167, 169; Gibson v. Gibson,
derson, 46 N. C. 221, 225; Alexander
V. Cunningham, 27 N. C. 430, 432;
Simms v. Garrot, 21 N. C. 393, 394:
Ward v. Stow, 17 N. C. 509, 513, 27
AmD 238; Croom v. Herring, 11 N. C.
393, 396; Jones v. Jones, 6 N. C. 150,
157; Durfee v. MacNeil, 58 Oh. St.
238, 244, 50 NE 721; McKee's App.,
104 Pa. 571, 574; Robins v. Quinliven,
79 Pa. 333, 336; Criswell's App., 41
Pa. 288, 290; Schoonmaker v. Stock-
ton, 37 Pa. 461, 464; Bowlby's Est., 4
Pa. Dist. 108, 109; Rogers v. Rogers,

See

49 N. C. 425, 428; Henderson v. Hen

Scott, 163 Pa. 165, 29 A 877, 878;
In re Gerhard, 160 Pa. 253, 255, 28 A
684; Brasington v. Hanson, 149 Pa.
289, 290, 24 A 344; Miller's Est., 145
Pa. 561, 566, 22 A 1044; Hunt's Est.,
133 Pa. 260, 267, 272, 19 A 548, 19
AmSR 640; Homet v. Bacon, 126 Pa.
176, 186, 17 A 584; Barnett's App.,
104 Pa. 342, 348; Haverstick's App.,
103 Pa. 394, 396; Warn v. Brown,
102 Pa 347, 352 Urich's App., 86 Pa.
386, 392, 27 AmR 707; Huber's App.,
80 Pa. 348, 356; Leech v. Robinson, 11 R. I. 38, 57, 58; Hickman v. Quinn,
74 Pa. 273, 278; Berg v. Anderson, 6 Yerg. (Tenn.) 96, 103; Petty v.
72 Pa. 87, 91; Huss v. Stephens, 51 Moore, 5 Sneed (Tenn.) 126, 128; Mat-
Pa. 282, 288; Braden v. Cannon, 24 ter of Walton, 8 De G. M. & G. 173,
Pa. 168, 171; Auman v. Auman, 21 176, 57 EngCh 135, 44 Reprint 356;
Pa. 343, 347; Reifsnyder v. Hunter, Davie v. Stevens, 1 Dougl. 321, 99
19 Pa. 41, 42; Hileman v. Bouslaugh, Reprint 207. But see Beers v. Narra-
13 Pa. 344, 352, 53 AmD 474 [dist more, 61 Conn. 13, 20, 22 A 1061;
Criswell v. Grumbling, 107 Pa. 408, Carpenter v. Van Olinder, 127 Ill. 42.
413]; Eby v. Eby, 5 Pa. 461, 465; 49, 19 NE 868, 11 AmSR 92, 2 LRA
Barnitz's App., 5 Pa. 264, 266; Bas- 455; Covenant Mut. Ben. Assoc. V.
kin's App., 3 Pa. 304, 307, 45 AmD Hoffman, 110 I11. 603, 607; Booker v.
641; Braden v. Cannon, 1 Grant (Pa.) Tarwater, 138 Ind. 385, 394, 37 NE
60, 66; Patterson V. Hawthorn, 12 979; Crockett v. Robinson, 46 N. H.
Serg. & R. (Pa.) 112, 114; Drum v. 454; Rogers v. Rogers, 3 Wend. (N.
Millar, 18 Pa. Co. 318, 319; Towne's Y.) 503, 521, 20 AmD 716; Guthrie's
Est., 5 Montg. Co., (Pa.) 103, 104; Gib-App., 37 Pa. 9, 14.
son v. Gibson, 113 S. C. 160, 101 SE "There is doubtless a technical
922. 924; Du Bose v. Flemming, 93 S.
C. 182, 76 SE 277; Shaw v. Robinson,
42 S. C. 342, 346, 20 SE 161; Lott v.
Thompson, 36 S. C. 38, 44, 15 SE 278;
Archer v. Ellison, 28 S. C. 238, 242,
5 SE 713; Hayne v. Irvine, 25 S. C.
289, 292; Waller v. Martin, 106 Tenn.
341, 345, 61 SW 73, 82 AmSR 882;
Boyd v. Robinson, 93 Tenn. 1, 39, 23
SW 72: Franklin V. Franklin, 91
Tenn. 121, 134; Cowan v. Wells, 5
Lea (Tenn.) 682, 684; Pierce v. Rid-
ley, 1 Baxt. (Tenn.) 145, 147, 25 AmR
769; Grimes V. Orrand, 2 Heisk.
(Tenn.) 298, 301; Vaden v. Hance, 1
Head (Tenn.) 300. 303; Ward V.
Saunders, 3 Sneed (Tenn.) 387, 391;
Read v. Fite, 8 Humphr. (Tenn.)
328, 330; Loving v. Hunter, 8 Yerg.
(Tenn.) 4, 31; Hennegar v. Deadrick,
(Tenn. Ch. A.) 54 SW 138, 140; Ar-
rants V. Crumley, (Tenn. Ch. A.)
48 SW 342, 343; Hopkins v. Hopkins,
103 Tex. 15, 122 SW 15, 16; Hunting
v. Jones, (Tex. Commn. A.) 215 SW
959, 962; Flint v. Steadman, 36 Vt.

are

difference in the meaning of the two
words, ['heirs' and 'children'] and
yet in common speech they
often used as synonymous." Lock-
wood's App., 55 Conn. 157, 165, 10
A 517.

[a] Where the context decisively
shows that it was employed in that
sense it must be SO construed.
Granger v. Granger, 147 Ind. 95, 97.
44 NE 189, 46 NE 80, 36 LRA 186,
190 [cit Hadlock v. Gray, 104 Ind.
596, 4 NE 167; Ridgeway v. Lanp-
hear, 99 Ind. 251; Shimer v. Mann.
99 Ind. 190, 50 AmR 82]; Allen v.
Craft. 109 Ind. 476, 480, 484, 9 NE
919. 58 AmR 425.

would take it as distributees, according to the rules established by the existing laws.' Mace v. Cushman, 45 Me. 250, 261.

[c] "Minor heirs" means minor children.-Seymour V. Bowles, 172 Ill. 521, 524, 50 NE 122.

[d] Distinguished from "children" or "issue."-Sewall v. Roberts. 115 Mass. 262, 276; Clarkson v. Hatton, 143 Mo. 47, 56, 44 SW 761, 65 AmSR 635, 39 LRA 748.

[e] The word "is of far broader significance than the word 'children' or grandchildren,' even lineal

or

descendants." Hunt's Est., 133 Pa. 260, 267, 272, 19 A 548, 19 AmSR

640.

[f] "Conditions in this country are not now, if ever they were, the rule was built up that words like such as prevailed in England when 'heirs' or 'heirs of his body' must be not be held to be the equivalent of given a strict construction, and can'children,' or to be merely a description of a class whom the testator dethis rule of strict construction was sired When to inherit from him. built up and adhered to, such terms

were

This

not equivalent to 'children,' children were not his heirs, because because, unlike here, all a man's usually, only one of them was. attitude of the American courts from alone would tend to differentiate the those courts which built said rule. And the American authorities overwhelmingly make a departure from the strict construction of the English courts. It may be fairly said to be the consensus of the great weight of American authority that, heirs at law, a devise or gift to 'my since one's children are always his heirs,' followed by a naming of the

an

child, who is of necessity an heir,
should never be construed to mean
that the devise shall not become
vested in the child if, at the time
when the donor dies, the child is not
still, in strictness, an heir, unless
the context or something else com-
such
pels
line of reasoning upon which many
interpretation. One
American cases proceed is that, in
strictness, no one has an heir while
he is still living, and therefore when,
child, payable after the donor has
in life, one makes a gift to a named
died, the use of the word 'heir in
addition, does not evince a desire to
have that word understood in its
strict technical sense, but uses the
word as a mere matter of descrip-
tion, and that this is especially true
where it does not appear that the
donor was anything other than the
ordinary layman." Rundel v. Matter,
184 Iowa 518, 520, 168 NW 907.

47.

Castleberry v. Stringer, 176 Ala. 250, 57 S 849, 850 [quot Cycl; Jones v. Miller, 283 Ill. 348, 353, 119 NE 324. 326; Cook v. Hart, 135 Ky. 650, 117 SW 357, 358 [quot Cyc]; Crawford v. Forrest Oil Co., 208 Pa. 5, 19. 57 A 47; Barnett's App., 104 Pa. cases 342, 348 ("There are several where the word 'heirs' has been held to mean children, but they were all instances where such was the evident intent of the testator as gathered from the will itself"); Haverstick's App., 103 Pa. 394, 396; Reifsnyder v. Hunter, 19 Pa. 41, 42. To like effect Van Dusen v. Sharrar, 186 Iowa 1282, 173 NW 97, 99; Roberts v. Crume, 173 Mo. 572, 579, 73 SW 662; Bizzell v. Mutual Bldg., etc., Assoc., 172 N. C.

158, 90 SE 142.

[a] "To effectuate the clear intention of the testator, we habitually construe the words heir, issue, chil[b] "In the common use of lan-dren, interchangeably." Braden V. guage, the children of a deceased Cannon, 24 Pa. 168, 171. intestate leaving personal property [b] "It is always open to inquiry only, would be called his heirs, and whether the words 'heirs' or 'heirs of such use of the term would be jus- the body' are used in their proper tified by the definitions of the word technical sense or in a more inaceuheir by lexicographers, but, tech-rate sense to denote children, issue, nically, they would not take the or next of kin, &c." Fields v. Watson, estate of the deceased, as heirs, they 23 S. C. 42, 46.

54

[17] 8. Adopted Heir or Heir by Adoption.5 A child by adoption who is, in a limited sense, made an heir not by the law, but by contract evidenced

48. Castleberry V. Stringer, 176 Ala. 250, 57 S 849. 850 [quot Cycl; Gardiner v. Fay, 182 Mass. 492, 493. 65 NE 825. See also Croom v. Herring, 11 N. C. 393, 395 ("The word heirs, in common conversation, may and very often must be understood, to mean children; but this arises, not from the word alone, but from the context, the manner and cause of speaking").

[§ 20] 11. Conventional Heir. In the civil law, one who takes a succession by virtue of a contract Ivan's App., 106 Pa. 176, 179, 51 Mass. 591, 593, 12 NE 407; Hanson AmR 516 [quot In re Lesieur, 205 Pa. 119, 122, 54 A 579].

"The distinction between the word 'widow' and the word 'heir' is marked in common parlance." Phillips v. Carpenter, 79 Iowa 600, 603, 44 NW 898.

[a] "In this [legal] sense the word as used at common law does not include a widow on whom the law casts an estate in dower, or a husband on whom the law casts an estate by the curtesy, for these are considered new estates, arising out of marriage and its incidents, and carved out of the fee, not as a continuation or devolution of the fee itself. If there be dower or curtesy the heir is that person who takes immediate title to the fee, subject to such life estate." Century D. [quot Higginbothom v. Higginbothom, 177 Ky. 271, 274].

Children defined see 11 C. J. p 750. 49. De Bardelaben v. Dickson, 166 Ala. 59, 51 S 986; Shimer v. Mann. 99 Ind. 190, 193, 50 AmR 82 [cit Jesson v. Wright, 2 Bligh 1. 25, 4 Reprint 230. 10 ERC 7141; McCllen v. Lehker, 70 Ind. A. 435, 123 NE 475, 476; Lamb སྙ་ Medsker. 35 Ind. A. 662, 74 NE 1012, 1013; In re Beck, 225 Pa. 578, 581, 74 A 607; Neshit v. Skelding, 213 Pa. 487, 62 A 1062; McFerrin v. Templeman, 102 Tex. 530, 120 SW 167, 168. To like effect Shuttle, etc., Land. etc.. Co. v. Barker, 178 Ala. [b] "A widow is an heir of her 366, 371, 60 S 157; Kepler v. Castle, deceased husband only in a special 281 Ill. 444, 449, 117 NE 1029; Senters and limited sense, and not in the V. Big Sandy Co., 149 Ky. 11, 14, general sense in which that term 147 SW 750; Edmonds v. Edmonds, is usually used and understood." Un102 SW 311, 312, 31 KyL 396: Fish-fried v. Heberer, 63 Ind. 67, 72 [quot burne v. Sigwald, 79 S. C. 551, 60 McNutt v. McNutt, 116 Ind. 545, 564, SE 1105, 1106; Speight v. Askins, 118 19 NE 115, 2 LRA 372]. Tenn. 749, 102 SW 74, 75.

51. Cross references:

V. Minnesota Scandinavian Relief Assoc., 59 Minn. 123, 128, 60 NW 1091: Burns v. Burns, 109 App. Div. 98, 95 NYS 797, 800; Ashton's Est., 7 Pa. Co. 366, 367; Moyer v. Oshkosh, 151 Wis. 586, 593. 139 NW 378 [cit Cycl; Doody v. Higgins, 2 Kay & J. 729, 69 Reprint 976 [cit Neilson v. Monro, 27 Wkly. Rep. 936. 9371. See also In re Petterson, 195 Pa. 78, 79, 45 A 645; Potter's Est., 13 Fhila. (Pa.) 318, 320.

[b] Husband as heir.-Richards v. Miller, 62 Ill. 417, 422; Weston v. Weston, 38 Oh. St. 473, 478 ("Rawson v. Rawson, 52 Ill. 62, and Richards v. Miller, 62 Ill. 417, are approved, which hold that a wife or husband relict who takes under the law of descent takes as heir. such we think is the legal meaning of the word. Brower v. Hunt, 18 Oh. St. 311"); Eby's App., 84 Pa. 241, 245; Gibbons v. Fairlamb, 26 Pa. 217, 219.

And

54. See Adoption of Children 1 C. J. p 1367; Descent and Distribution §§ 25-77.

55. Reinders V. Koppelman, 94 Mo. 338, 344, 7 SW 288 [quot Morrison v. Sessions, 70 Mich. 297, 308, 38 NW 249, 14 AmSR 500; Hockaday v. Lynn, 200 Mo. 456, 98 SW 585, 589, 118 AmSR 672, 8 LRANS 117, 9 AnnCas 775].

53. Forest Oil Co. v. Crawford, [a] Intention controls.-"The ex- 77 Fed. 106, 110, 23 CCA 55; Mullen pressions, heirs now living, children, v. Reed. 64 Conn. 240, 249, 29 A 478, issue, &c., are words of limitation 42 AmSR 174. 24 LRA 664: Carter or purchase, as will best accord with v. Carter, 10 Hawaii 687, 689; Alex- [a] Distinguished from "heirs at the manifest intention of him who ander v. Northwestern Masonic Aid law" and "lawful heirs."-"Contraemploys them." Ware v. Richard- Assoc., 126 Ill. 558, 564, 18 NE 556, distinguished from such an ['adoptson, 3 Md. 505, 544, 56 AmD 762. 2 LRA 161: Covenant Mut. Ben. As-ed heir'] heir are those upon whom 50. Greenough v. Greenough, 284 soc. v. Hoffman, 110 I. 603, 607; Ill. 416, 420, 120 NE 272. Lawwill v. Lawwill, 29 Ill. A. 643, 647; Wilburn v. Wilburn, 83 Ind. 55, 56; Eisman v. Poindexter, 52 Ind. 401, 404; Fletcher v. Holmes, 32 Ind. 497, 510; Rusing v. Rusing, 25 Ind. 63, 64; Rockhill v. Nelson, 24 Ind. 422, 423; McMakin v. Michaels, 23 Ind. 462, 465; State v. Mason, 21 Ind. In will see Wills [40 Cyc 1463]. 171, 173; Murray v. Mounts, 19 Ind. Right of inheritance of surviving 364, 366; Johnson v. Lybrook, 16 Ind. spouse see Descent and Distribu- 473, 475; Frantz v. Harrow, 13 Ind. tion § 78 et seq. 507, 508; McKinney v. Stewart, 5 Kan. Right to recovery in action for neg-384, 392; Kentucky Masonic Mut. L. ligent death see Death § 63.

In deed see Deeds § 237 note 39 [a]. In life insurance policy see Life Insurance [25 Cyc 888].

In mutual benefit certificate see Mutual Benefit Insurance [29 Cyc 1221.

.

Ins. Co. v. Miller, 13 Bush. (Ky.)
489, 494; Lyons v. Yerex, 100 Mich.
214, 216, 58 NW 1112, 43 AmSR 452;
Hascall v. Cox, 49 Mich. 435, 441,
13 NW 807; Schultz v. Citizens' Mut.
L. Ins. Co., 59 Minn. 308, 312, 61
NW 331; Hanson v. Minnesota Scan-
dinavian Relief Assoc., 59 Minn. 123,
128. 60 NW 1091; Kenner v. Grand
Lodge A. O. U. W., 38 Mo. A. 543,
551; Walsh v. Walsh, 66 Hun 297.
301, 20 NYS 933; Kaiser v. Kaiser, 13
Daly 522, 524, 1 NYS 258: Corbitt v.
Corbitt, 54 N. C. 114, 117; Henry
v. Henry, 31 N. C. 278. 279; Croom

52. Johnson v. Knights of Honor, 53 Ark. 255, 257, 13 SW 794, 8 LRA 732; Ruggles v. Randall, 70 Conn. 44, 48, 38 A 885; Gauch v. St. Louis Mut. L. Ins. Co., 88 Ill. 251, 256, 30 AmSR 554; Brown V. Harmon, 73 Ind. 412, 415: Rusing v. Rusing, 25 Ind. 63, 64; Braun v. Mathieson. 139 Iowa 409, 413, 116 NW 789; Blackman v. Wadsworth, 65 Iowa 80, 82, 21 NW 190; Overdieck's Will, 50 Iowa 244, 246; Journell V. Leighton, 49 Iowa 601, 602; Weisert v. Muehl, 81 Ky. 336, 339; Lord v. Bourne, 63 Me. 368, 374, 18 AmR 234; Barnett V. v. Herring, 11 N. C. 393, 398; FerPowers, 40 Mich. 317, 319; Bailey v. Bailey, 25 Mich. 185, 188; Wells v. Moore, 16 Mo. 478, 481: Wilkins v. Ordway, 59 N. H. 378, 382, 47 AmR 215; Richardson v. Martin, 55 N. H. 45, 47; Tillman v. Davis, 95 N. Y. 17, 25, 47 AmR 1; Keteltas v. Keteltas, 72 N. Y. 312, 315, 28 AmR 155; Murdock v. Ward, 67 N. Y. 387, 389; Snider v. Snider, 11 App. Div. 171, 172, 42 NYS 613; Drake v. Pell, 3 Edw. (N. Y.) 251, 282; Henderson v. Henderson, 46 N. C. 221, 224; Jones V. Lloyd, 33 Oh. St. 572, 579; Dodge's App., 106 Pa. 216, 220, 51 AmR 519;

guson V. Stuart, 14 Oh. 140, 147;
Jamison V. Knights Templar, etc.,
Mut. Aid Assoc., 9 Oh. Dec. (Re-
print) 388, 389, 12 CineLBul 272;
Ryan's Est., 14 WklyNC (Pa.) 79,
80; Seabrook v. Seabrook, 31 S. C.
Eq. 495. 508.

[a] Widow as heir.-Thompson v.
Northwestern Mut. L. Ins. Co., 161
Iowa 446, 448, 143 NW 518; Ruppin
v. McLaclan, 122 Iowa 343, 347, 98
NW 153; Wood v. Beasley, 107 Ind.
37, 7 NE 331; Brown v. Harmon, 73
Ind. 412; Addison v. New England
Commercial Travelers' Assoc., 144

the law casts descent, who are constituted heirs by law; these are appropriately described as heirs-atlaw, or heirs by the law. The relation of an heir by adoption is an exceptional and unusual one, and does not come within the ordinary and usual meaning of the words, lawful heirs, and those words ought not to be held, ex vi termini, to include an adopted heir." Reinders v. Kippelman, 94 Mo. 338, 344, 7 SW 288 [quot Morrison v. Sessions, 70 Mich. 297, 308, 38 NW 249, 14 AmSR 500; Hockaday v. Lynn, 200 Mo. 456, 98 SW 585, 589. 118 AmSR 672, 8 LRANS 117, 9 AnnCas 775; Clarkson v. Hatton. 143 Mo. 47, 57, 44 SW 761, 65 AmSR 635, 39 LRA 7481.

[b] Not a "bodily heir."-"The right to inherit by virtue of a deed of adoption does not make the beneficiary a bodily heir.' a child in fact of the adopting parent or parents.' Clarkson v. Hatton, 143 Mo. 47, 58, 44 SW 761, 65 AmSR 635, 39 LRA 748 [cit Hockaday v. Lynn, 200 Mo. 456, 98 SW 585, 588, 118 AmSR 672, 8 LRANS 117. 9 AnnCas 775].

56. "Heir by adoption" not included see supra § 8.

57. Clarkson v. Hatton, 143 Mo. 47, 56, 44 SW 761, 65 AmSR 635, 39 LRA 748.

58-65. See Bodily Heirs 8 C. J. p 1134.

66. Jones v. Jones, 20 Ga. 699, 700. 67. Middleton v. Smith, 1 Coldw. (Tenn.) 144, 145. 68. "Collateral consanguinity" defined see 11 C. J. p 959.

Right to inherit see Descent and Distribution § 25 et seq. 69. Bouvier L. D.

70.

Black L. D. 71. Cross references: Advancement see Descent and Distribution §§ 201-270. Assignment of expectancy signments §§ 23-30. Release of expectant cestor see tion § 112. Right of expectant heir before death of ancestor see Descent and Distribution § 111. Right to devise expectancy see Wills [40 Cyc 1049].

see Asshare to anDescent and Distribu

72. See Expectant Heir 25 C. J. p 171.

73. Hagerty v. Hagerty, 12 Tex. 456, 457. See also Descent and Distribution §§ 33, 116; Forced Heirs 26 C. J. p 795; Wills [40 Cyc 1047]. [a] As legal heir.-"What are termed 'forced heirs' are nothing more than certain legal heirs, who by reason of their relationship to the deceased have had reserved to them the right to claim as heirs, if they so elect, a certain proportion of the property of the deceased, and which he may have disposed of 'to their prejudice.' Miller v. Miller, 105 La. 257, 262, 29 S 802.

74. Assignment of interest by see Assignments § 17 text and note 55. "Expectancy of," as distinguished from "contingent interest" see Expectant Heir 25 C. J. p 171 note 37. 75. Jones v. Fleming, 37 Hun (N. Y.) 227, 230 [cit 2 Blackstone Comm. p 208; 3 Preston Abs. tit 51. See Barber v. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co., 166 U. S. 83. 108, 17 SCt 488, 41 L. ed. 925; Bowers v. Porter, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 198, 209; Conklin v. Conklin, 3 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 64, 67; Parker v. Marshall, Lofft. 271, 273, 98 Reprint 646.

76. Reese v. Stires, 87 N. J. Eq. 32, 103 A 679, 681. 77. See generally Descent and Distribution $ 25 et seq.

84

law to inherit by descent the real estate of a de-
ceased person;*
,80 one who succeeds to the estate of
a deceased person; 81 the kindred by blood of a de-
ceased intestate who inherit his land, those upon
whom the law of descent casts his title; 82 the next
of kin83 by blood; the person who at the time of
the death of a testator without issue should then
answer to this description," 85 unless a contrary in-
tention is shown.86 At common law, that person
who succeeds to the real estate in case of intes-
tacy. 87
In the civil law, the next of kin by blood in
case of intestacy.88 In its technical sense, the term
is one of limitation and not of purchase.89 But in
recognition of the doctrine that the word "heir" is
often used as descriptive of a class of persons who
cannot, in fact, take as heirs, 90 the construction of
the term rests in each particular case upon an
ascertainment of the intent from the words used.
from the context of the instrument, and from the
nelly, 65 N. J. Eq. 119, 124, 55 A 92;
Meeker v. Forbes, 84 N. J. Eq. 271.
93 A 887, 888.

often used in its popular sense of
including heirs in the legal sense-
those upon whom the law casts title
to realty possessed by the intestate
at the time of his death, and next
of kin as well. Treating the latter
term and the former only in their
legal sense the one refers to those
who take the personalty of an in-
testate, and the other to those in
whom the title to the realty pos-
sessed by the intestate vests imme-
diately upon his death." Perry v.
Scaife, 126 Wis. 405, 409, 105 NW
920.

[b] "At common chief law the practical difference between next of kin and heirs-at-law is that the former take the personal property by distribution, and the latter the real estate by descent." Dickason Coal Co. v. Liddil, 49 Ind. A. 40, 94 NE 411, 413.

[c] "In a gift of personalty. [heirs at law] mean next of kin. not next of kin in the technical sense of nearest kinsman, but next of kin in the sense of distributees under Allthe statute of distributions."

As included within term "heir" see supra § 6 text and note 29. 80. Walker v. Walker, 283 Ill. 11, bright v. Van Voorhis, (N. J. Ch.) 24, 118 NE 1014.

81. McKinney v. Stewart, 5 Kan.
384, 392 [quot Newby v. Anderson,
106 Kan. 477, 188 P 438, 439].
82. Forrest v. Porch, 100 Tenn.
391, 393, 45 SW 676.

[a] "Consistent with
parlance

common

104 A 27, 29. To like effect Mullen
v. Reed. 64 Conn. 240. 29 A 478, 479,
42 AmSR 174. 24 LRA 664.
[d] In Indiana "there is no dis-
between heirs-at-law and
tinction
Dickason Coal Co. v.
next of kin."
Liddil, 49 Ind. A. 40, 94 NE 411, 413.
Black v. Jones, 264 T11. 548,
557, 106 NE 462, AnnCas1915D 1173;

84. we speak of 'heir-atlaw' as the person, whoever he may be, who is to succeed to property, Meadowcroft v. Winnebago County, on the death of another who is the 181 Ill. 504, 509, 54 NE 949 [cit 1 ancestor of that heir." Southgate Brown Civ. L. p 344; Story Confl. L v. Clinch, 4 Jur. N. S. 428, 430. p 508]. [b] May mean "legal heirs."- 85. Doe v. Frost, 3 B. & Ald. 546, "The use of the words 'heirs-at-law' 556, 5 ECL 316, 106 Reprint 761. Το [in a case where an estate is like effect Allen v. Almy, 87 Conn. to be divided according to laws ap- 517, 89 A 205, 207, AnnCas1917B 112. plicable to persons who die intestate] Himmel v. Himmel. 294 Ill. 557. 128 indicates, as we think, the legal heirs, NE 641, 642, 13 ALR 608; Thompson in the sense of persons who would V. Northwestern Mut. L. Ins. Co., legally succeed to the property in 161 Iowa 446, 449, 143 NW 518; Welch case of intestacy, according to its nature or quality, the heirs-at-law taking the realty and the next of kin the personalty." Lawton v. Corlies, 127 N. Y. 100, 106, 27 NE 847.

v. Blanchard. 208 Mass. 523, 94 NE 811, 33 LRANS 1; Boston Safe Deposit, etc., Co. v. Parker, 197 Mass. 70. 83 NE 307, 308; Merrill v. Preston, 187 Mass. 197, 72 NE 941, 942: [c] "Lawful heirs" synonymous. Dove v. Torr, 128 Mass. 38, 40: Ab-"In common parlance the bott v. Bradstreet. 3 Allen (Mass.) terms, heirs-at-law and lawful heirs, 587, 589; Arnot v. Arnot, 75 App. Div. See also Merrill are used indiscriminately as synony- 230, 78 NYS 20, 22. 457. mous and convertible terms.' Rein- v. Preston, 135 Mass. 451, ders v. Koppelman. 94 Mo. 338, 345, [a] In the accurate sense.-"The "Adopted heir" or "hoir by adop-7 SW 288 [quot Hockaday v. Lynn, phrase 'heirs at law' is to be intertion" distinguished see supra § 17. 200 Mo. 456, 470, 98 SW 585. 118 preted in the accurate sense as mean78. In re Lester, 115 Iowa 1, 87 AmSR 672, 8 LRANS 117, 9 AnnCasing those who would have inherited NW 654. 775; Clarkson v. Hatton, 143 Mo. 47, the estate of the testator if he had 56, 44 SW 761, 65 AmSR 635, 39 LRA left no will, and not as referring 748]. to an artificial class who might have inherited his estate if he had died at intestate some different time." Rotch v. Lamb, 232 Mass. 233, 235, 122 NE 650.

[d] The alien issue of a person are not his heirs in law, for they have no inheritable blood. Orr V. Hodgson, 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 453, 461,

79. Aspden's Est., 2 F. Cas. No. 589, 2 Wall. Jr. 368; Black v. Jones, 264 III. 548, 557, 106 NE 462, AnnCas See Bevan 1915D 1173 [cit Cycl. v. Taylor, 7 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 397; Jenks V. Backhouse, 1 Binn. (Pa.) 91, 95: Johnson v. Haines, 4 Dall. 4 L. ed. 613. (Pa.) 64, 1 L. ed. 743: Doe v. Bower, 3 B. & Ad. 453, 23 ECL 203, 110 Reprint 163; Denn v. Gaskin, Cowp. 657, 661, 98 Reprint 1292; Carne v. Roch, 4 M. & P. 862; 2 Blackstone Comm. p 201.

[a] "Heirs' and 'heirs-at-law' are in a legal sense the same."-Walker v. Walker, 283 Ill. 11, 23. 118 NE 1014; Smith v. Winsor, 239 Ill. 567, 88 NE 482 [quot Black v. Jones, 264 Ill. 548, 106 NE 462, 466, AnnCas 1915D 1173].

[e] A stepchild of a decedent is not his child and heir at law, within the meaning of the statutes of descent [Gen. St. (1906) § 2295]. Houston v. McKinney, 54 Fla. 600, 45 S 480, 481.

86. Himmel V. Himmel, 294 I 557, 128 NE 641. 642. 13 ALR 608; Welch v. Blanchard, 208 Mass. 523, 94 NE 811, 33 LRANS 1; Boston Safe Deposit, etc.. Co. v. Parker, 197 Mass. 70. 72, 83 NE 307.

87. Walker v. Walker, 283 Ill. 11, 23. 118 NE 1014.

[f] "Kindred" distinguished. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Polk, 166 88. Walker v. Walker, 283 III. 11, App. Div. 43, 151 NYS 618, 622. 24. 118 NE 1014; Higginbothom v 83. In re Senn, 164 NYS 399, 402. Higginbothom, 177 Ky. 271, 274, 197 [a] "Next of kin" used inter- SW 627, LRA1918A 1105. changeably.-Matter of Phraner, 109 89. Du Bois v. Judy, 291 Ill. 34). Misc. 287, 178 NYS 768, 772. To like 345, 126 NE 104. [b] "The term 'heirs at law' is effect Trenton Trust, etc., Co. v. Don- 90. See supra § 11.

92

surrounding circumstances. 91 Thus it may be construed so as to embrace children° or grandchildren.93

[25] 16. Heir Beneficiary. In the civil law, one who has accepted the succession under the benefit of an inventory regularly made.9

[§ 26] 17. Heir by Custom. In English law, one whose right of inheritance depends upon a particular and local custom, such as gavelkind, or borough English."

95

[27] 18. Heir by Devise. One to whom lands are devised by will; a devisee of lands; answering to the hæres factus of the civil law.96

[§ 28] 19. Heir by Intestacy. In the civil law, the next of kin by blood in case of intestacy.97

[§ 29] 20. Heir General. An heir at law; the ordinary heir by blood, succeeding to all the lands.98

[30] 21. Heir Institute. In Scotch law, one to whom the right of succession is ascertained by disposition or express deed of the deceased.99

[31] 22. Heir Male. In English law, the nearest male blood relation of the decedent, unless further limited by the words "of his body" which restrict the inheritance to sons, grandsons, and other male descendants in the right line.1 In Scotch law, an heir institute, who, although not next in blood to the deceased, is his nearest male relation

11.

that can succeed to him.2
Phrases: "First male heir,'' "heir male at
law, "4
"heirs male," "his male heir forever,''
"male heirs that they now have, 997 66
"nearest male
heirs. ''8

[32] 23. Heir of the Blood. An inheritor who succeeds to the estate by virtue of consanguinity with the decedent, either in the ascending or descending line, including illegitimate children, but excluding husbands, wives, and adopted children." Phrases: "Heirs by blood, "10 heirs of the full blood," "heirs of the blood of the father."'12

14

9918

[§ 33] 24. Heir of the Body." A term of technical import, having a well defined and fixed meaning in law, 15 and meaning such of the issue or offspring of a person as may by law inherit;16 a limited class of heirs, restricted by lineal descendants.17 The term is equivalent to "bodily heir, and in its technical sense includes all persons who successively answer to this description;19 and hence it embraces the whole line of lineal descendants, to the most remote generation. 20 The term is nomen collectivum.21 Ordinarily it will be given its technical meaning;22 but the term is flexible, 23 and is controlled and explained by the intention.2 It may include a child; 25 a descend

24

91. Furenes v. Severtson, 102 Iowa 51 A 362. 322, 71 NW 196, 197. 9. Black L. D. See also Blood 8 [a] As word of purchase or de- C. J. p 1128. scription. Where a trust is created, 10. Hayden v. Barrett, 172 Mass. by which the trustee is directed | 472, 476, 52 NE 530, 70 AmSR 295. to invest the fund in "property, real or personal," as he may deem expedient, and pay over the "rents, profits. dividends, interest, or income, and at the termination of the trust to pay the fund to the heirs at law of the first life tenant, the "heirs at law" should be construed to include only those who would take real estate if the life tenant had died intestate. Gardner v. Skinner, 195 Mass. 164, 80 NE 825, 826.

92. Griffin v. Fairmont Coal Co., 59 W. Va. 480, 53 SE 24, 45, 2 LRANS 1115.

93. Griffin V. Fairmont Coal Co.. 59 W. Va. 480, 53 SE 24, 45, 2 LRANS 1115.

See also Hæres

Gibbon v. Gibbon, 40 Ga. 562,
574 ("Literally, these words exclude
even his son and daughter, as well
as wife. The son and daughter are
of his blood, but not of his full or
whole blood; as to each other they
are of the whole or full blood, in
them is equally mingled the blood of
their father and their mother, they,
as to each other, are of the same
blood, they are of the blood of the
father and the mother, but they are
of the full blood of neither. As a
description of one's descendants,
these words are simply nonsense. A
man can have no descendants of the
full blood of himself, since even his
children have of necessity only half
of his blood").

12. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Pat-
terson, 68 Md. 606, 609, 13 A 369.
13. In deed see Deeds § 237 text
and notes 51-53.

In will see Wills [40 Cyc 1466].
14. Black v. Cartmell, 10 B. Mon.
(Ky.) 188. 193; Hancock v. Butler,
21 Tex. 804, 812; Scott v. Brin, 48
Tex. Civ. A. 500, 107 SW 565, 566.

15. Hunting v. Jones, (Tex. Civ. A.) 183 SW 858, 860.

99. Black L. D. [a] Creation of estate tail.-"The 1. Black L. D. See Jordan V. words heirs of the body. .. at comAdams, 6 C. B. N. S. 748. 764, 95 mon law were the appropriate ECL 748, 141 Reprint 645; Goodtitle words to be used for the creation of v. Herring, 1 East 264, 275, 102 Re- an estate-tail. They acquired a defiprint 102; Britton V. Twining, 3 nite technical meaning."' Slayton v. Meriv. 176, 182, 36 Reprint 68; Dawes Blount. 93 Ala. 575, 576, 9 S 241. To V. Ferrers, 2 P. Wms. 1, 3. 24 Re-like effect Wilson v. Alston, 122 Ala. print 617 [quot Dewan v. Cox, 9 N. 630, 25 S 225, 226. J. L. 10, 14] ("The words [heirs 16. Black v. Cartmell, 10 B. Mon. male] must be intended heirs male of the body, and would never extend to an heir male of any collateral line"). 2. Black L. D. [cit 1 Forbes Inst. pt 3 p 76]. 3. Doe v. Perratt. 6 M. & G. 314, 323, 343, 363, 46 ECL 314, 134 Reprint 914.

4. Doe v. Spratt, 5 B. & Ad. 731, 740, 27 ECL 308, 110 Reprint 960. 5. Weart v. Cruser, 49 N. J. L. 475, 477, 13 A 36; Den v. Fogg, 3 N. J. L. 819; Dawes v. Ferrers, P. Wms. 1, 24 Reprint 617, Prec. Ch. 589, 24 Reprint 264.

2

6. Silcocks v. Silcocks, [1916] 2 Ch. 161.

7. Conklin V. Conklin, 3 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 64, 67.

8. Jones v. Jones, 201 Pa. 548, 551,

(Ky.) 188. 193.

V.

17. Etna L. Ins. Co. v. Hoppin,
249 Ill. 406, 94 NE 669, 671.
18. Watson V. Wolff-Goldman
Realty Co., 95 Ark. 18, 128 SW 581,
582. AnnCas1912 A 540: Turner
Hause, 199 Ill. 464, 470, 65 NE 445;
Miller v. Ensminger, 182 Mo. 195, 204,
81 SW 422; Marsh v. Griffin, 136 N.
C. 333, 48 SE 735, 736; Balch v. John-
son, 106 Tenn. 249, 253, 61 SW 289.
See Clarkson v. Clarkson, 125 Mo.
381. 385, 28 SW 446; Reinders v. Kop-
pelman, 94 Mo. 338, 343, 7 SW 288;
Stratton v. McKinnie, (Tenn. Ch. A.)
62 SW 636. 640 [cit Middleton V.
Smith, 1 Coldw. (Tenn.) 144. 145;
Wynne v. Wynne, 9 Heisk. (Tenn.)
308. 309].

174, 179.

20. Roberts v. Ogbourne, 37 Ala. 174, 179. [a] Prima facie the term means all descendants.-In re Cleator, 10 Ont. 326, 333 [cit Jesson v. Wright, 2 Bligh 1, 57, 4 Reprint 230, 10 ERC 714].

21. Den v. McPeake, 2 N. J. L. 291. 22. Duncan V. Medley, 160 Ky. 684, 686, 170 SW 31.

23. Ward V. Saunders, 3 Sneed (Tenn.) 387, 391: Pattenden v. Hobson, 17 Jur. 406, 407.

24. Woodley V. Findlay, 9 Ala. 716, 719.

25. Davenport v. Hickson, 261 Fed. 983. 984; Ewing v. Shropshire, 80 Ga. 374, 376, 7 SE 554; Wilkerson v. Clark, 80 Ga. 367, 370, 7 SE 319. 12 AmSR 258; Adams v. Merrill, 45 Ind. A. 315, 85 NE 114, 117, 87 NE 36; Duncan v. Medley, 160 Ky. 684, 686, 170 SW 31; Reeves v. Morgan, (Ky.) 100 SW 836, 837, 30 KyL 1158; Hall v. La France Fire Engine Co., 158 N. Y. 570, 575, 53 NE 513; Braden v. Cannon, 1 Grant (Pa.) 60, 66; Lawrence v. Burnett, 109 S. C. 416, 421. 96 SE 144; Rembert v. Evans, 86 S. C. 445, 68 SE 659, 660; Reeves v. Cork, 71 S. C. 275, 51 SE 93, 95; Archer v. Ellison, 28 S. C. 238, 242, 5 SE 713 [cit Hayne v. Irvine, 25 S. C. 289. 292]; Morris v. Bernard, 114 Va. 630, 636 77 SE 458: Johnson v. Smith, 108 Va. 725, 727, 62 SE 958; Right v. Creber, 5 B. & C. 866, 874, 11 ECL 715, 108 Reprint 322 [cit Gretton v. Haward, 1 Meriv. 448, 35 Reprint 738, 6 Taunt. 94, 1 ECL 524, 128 Reprint 968]; Gummoe V. Howes, 23 Beav. 184, 191, 53 Reprint 72; Doe v. Goff, 11 East 668, 673, 103 Reprint 1164; Pattenden v. Hobson, 17 Jur. 406, 407. To like effect Doyle v. Andis, 127 Iowa 36, 102 NW_177, 182, 69 LRA 953, 4 AnnCas 18; Watkins v. Pfeiffer, 92 SW 562, 63, 29 KyL 97.

[a] "The words 'heirs of the body' are of larger significance, [than children'] and, like the word 'issue,' will include descendants of every degree." Houghton V. Kendall, 7 Allen (Mass.) 72, 76.

[b] Intention controls.-"There is a line of cases which hold that the rules of construction admit of the use of the words heirs of the body' or issue' in the restricted sense of 'children' or in the enlarged sense of 'heirs of the body,' in order to carry out the intent of the testator. In such instances, the intent is the 19. Roberts v. Ogbourne, 37 Ala.key to ascertain the meaning of the

"Bodily heir" see supra § 18.