Belslay v. Engel

Citations

• 107 Ill. 182
• 1883 Ill. LEXIS 244

Syllabus

<p>1. ■ Will—devise construed as passing life estate, and not falling within rule in Shelly’s case. A testator devised to his grand daughter “the free use and occupation of” certain land, “to have and to hold, to use, occupy and enjoy the same, together with all the rents, issues and profits thereof, with the appurtenances, during her natural life. ” In giving other bequests, the will provided: “It is my will, and this bequest is made upon the express declaration, that in case any of said grand children should depart this life without issue of their body, that then all their share of said real estate (or to W'hom the use thereof is bequeathed as aforesaid) shall be equally divided among all my grand children and their legal representatives, and the title thereto thereafterwards so vest forever. It is my will that no title in fee to any of said land shall vest in my said grand children, and I declare it to • be my will that they shall only have a life estate therein, and that the fee simple shall vest in their legal heirs. And it is my will that they', nor any' of them, shall have any right to sell, dispose of, mortgage or incumber, in any manner, any of said land, and that they shall keep it free and clear for their legal heirs, to whom it shall descend forever :” Held, that the grand daughter just named took only a life estate, and that the devise to her did not come within the rule in Shelly’s case.</p> <p>2. The rule in Shelly’s case is, at most, a technical rule of construction, and must give way to the clear intention of the testator or donor, when that intention can be ascertained from the instrument in which the words supposed to he words of limitation are used.</p>