Stokes v. Van Wyck

Citations

• 83 Va. 724
• 3 S.E. 387
• 1887 Va. LEXIS 116

Syllabus

<p>1. Wills—Construction—Rtde—True inquiry.—In interpreting wills, the intention of testator must be sought and followed, and that intention must be looked for in the will itself. Yet the true inquiry is not what testator meant to express, but what the words used by him do express. Burks v. Lee, 76 Va. 389.</p> <p>2. Idem—Rule in Shelley's case—Limitation over to testator's heirs— Vesting estates.—Where testator, dying in 1831, limited to his daughter, Mrs. W,, an estate for life, with remainder to her issue in fee, and in default of issue, with limitation over to his own heirs—</p> <p>Held :</p> <p>Under the law then in force (1 Rev. Code 1819, p.369, g 25), Mrs. W. took an estate-tail that by the statute was converted into a fee-simple, but the fee was determinable by her death without issue then living, with a limitation over to the person who was testator’s heir at the time of his death—the rule of law applying which favors the vesting of estates as soon as possible. Cooper v. Hepburn, 15 Gratt. 558.</p> <p>3. Idem—Heir—Heirs.—The word “heir” is nomen collectivum, and embraces all legally entitled to partake of the inheritance, and is interchangeable with the plural term “heirs,” and vice versa.</p> <p>4. Idem— Case at bar.—B., dying in 1834, by his will limited an estate in fee to his daughter, Mrs. W., for her life, with remainder to her issue in fee, and in default of issue, to his own heirs”. At the time of testator’s death Mrs. W. was his sole heir. In 1857 she sold and conveyed the estate. In 1884 she died without ever having had issue. In ejectment by S. and others, who were testator’s heirs living at Mrs. W.’s death, against her grantees, to recover the estate—</p> <p>Held :</p> <p>Mrs. W.’s grantees acquired perfect title by her conveyance.</p>