WILL.

1. The testator gave a certain sum to his executors in trust to invest and apply the income to the use of his son Daniel during his life. After his death one-half of said sum was directed to be divided equally among such of the testator's children as might then be alive, and "the heirs or legal representatives of any children or child now or then deceased, except the heirs or representatives of said Daniel, share and share alike.' In case Daniel's wife should survive him the other half was to be held for her benefit, and upon her death or remarriage it should be equally divided among such of the testator's children as might then be alive (except the heirs or representatives of his son Daniel), share and share alike, per stirpes and not per capita:

Held, that the trust fund in question, upon the death of Daniel vested in testator's then living children, and the heirs or issue of his deceased children, per stirpes and not per capita. (Coster agt. Butler, ante, 311.)

See COMPLAINT.

Norris agt. Norris, ante, 319.

2. The testatrix by her will directed that her residuary estate upon the death of her husband, who had a life interest therein, should be divided, after payment of certain legacies, into two equal parts; one of the two to be subdivided into seven equal parts, one of which she gave to each of six persons named and one to the children of another person, and directed that the "heirs of any or either of the foregoing persons who may die before my said husband take the share which the persons or person so dying would have taken if liv ing.

The husband of the testatrix survived her, but previous to his death several of the persons to whom the seven parts were given had died:

Held, that the substantial interest in these shares given to these persons was not to be absolutely vested in them until the death of the husband of the testatrix, and that whatever interest they took, although vested during his lifetime, was liable to be divested by the death of either in the lifetime of the tenant for life, and the heir or heirs of the person so dying took the share which he or she would have taken if living at the time limited by the will. Therefore the widow of one of the persons so dying, who by his will gave her all his interest in the property so bequeathed, did not thereby become the owner of such share, though his nearest relatives by blood at the date of his death were the children and grandchildren of a deceased sister, and the whole remainder be regarded as personal property, the widow is not included under the term "heir," as used by the testatrix, and can take nothing under the will and her husband's share must go to his nearest blood relatives. (Tillman agt. Sullivan, ante, 355.)

3. A testator by his will directed his executors to invest $100,000 in bonds, stock or public securities issued by the United States, or by certain cities or counties, particularly limited by him, and to keep the same so invested during the life of his wife, to whom the interest or income thereof was to be paid semi-annually during her life. Upon the death of his widow, the testator provided that the sum directed to be invested should be paid over, the one-half thereof to the testator's son, and the other half to the testator's grandson. The executors invested the sum in United States four and one-half per cent registered government bonds due in 1891, at an average premium of three and eleven-sixtyfourths per cent, so that the par value of the bonds purchased amounts to the sum of $96,700, the balance, $3,000 and upwards,