¶1 after stating the question. — No rule is better established as to personal estate, though it is otherwise as to real, than that a residuary clause carries not only every thing Dot disposed of, but eyery thing that in, *216 the event tarns out not to be disposed of, as by lapse and the other means specified in the cases. (1 Ves. Jun. 109, 110. Ambler 138. 8 Ves. Jun. 25. 4 Ibid 732. 15 Ibid 509.) The law raises a presumption in favour of the residuary legatee against every one except the particular legatee. The testator is supposed to deprive the residuary legatee only for the sake of the particular; and the bounty to him being prevented by death, .the residuary legatee is preferred to the next of kin,
11 N.C. 215
Taylor v. . Lucas
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided December 5, 1825
Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1825-12-05
From Chatham. But one question wits presented in this case, viz, whether a legacy left to a legatee, which lapsed by his death in the lifetime of the testator, should be divided among his next of kin, or should belong to the -widow, tvho was residuary legatee.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1926
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1825-12-05
View the full empirical analysis of this case →