¶1
¶2 The word “heirs” in the residuary clause seems to have been used as a word of limitation suggested perhaps by the ordinary practice when real estate as well as personal property is included in a devise.
25 R.I. 254
55 A 696
Decided June 13, 1903
Supreme Court of Rhode Island · decided 1903-06-13
<p>(1) Wills. Residuary Clause. Survival.</p> <p>Testamentary provision as follows: “All the rest, and residue of my estate I give, devise, and bequeath to my nieces A., B., and C., share and share alike, to them and their heirs forever. It is my intention and meaning in this instrument that I have named all my beneficiaries, and in case any whom I have heretofore named in this instrument shall die before me, then the bequest to said beneficiary shall determine:” — ■</p> <p>Held, that the provision applied to the persons named as residuary legatees, but did not operate to create intestacy with respect to the share of such legatee; but had the effect of eliminating from the residuary clause the name of any beneficiary who should not survive the testatrix, and therefore the residuary estate passed to A. and B., who survived.</p> <p>Held, further, that the word “heirs” was used merely as a word of limitation.</p>
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1903-06-13
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently July 1982
1 district · 4 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1
¶2 The word “heirs” in the residuary clause seems to have been used as a word of limitation suggested perhaps by the ordinary practice when real estate as well as personal property is included in a devise.