
    ADOLPHUS D. JONES vs. JOHN W. WILLIAMS & AL.
    A testator devised thus: “I leave all my property to remain in the hands of my wife for the use of the family, until my two sons,E. D. J. and A. D. J. become of age, or she marries; and in either event, the property or money are to be equally divided.” And then in another clause he says, “ I leave my son A. D. J. the amount that E. D. J. expends in Philadelphia, more than an equal division would say, on account of the completion of his med" ical education.” E. D-J. was then at a medical college in Philadelphia, and had been supplied by his father with §700 to cover the expenses of that ssssion of the college. Held that the legacy to A. D. J. in this last clause applied only to the §700 advanced in the father’s liletime to E. D. J., and not to any further sums that might be necessary or were expended by E. D. J. in completing his medical education.
    Appeal from the decree of the Court of Equity of Rock: ingham county, at Spring Term, 1843, his Honor Judge Battue presiding. The bill was filed by the plaintiff for the settlement of his father’s estate, and the payment of such balance as might be found due to him. -The defendants were the other legatees, who were also the executors of the father. The material facts relating to the question determined by the Judge below will be found stated in the opinion delivered in this court.
    No counsel for the plaintiff.
    
      Moi'ehad, Graham and Kerr for the defendants.
   'Daniel, J.

G. W. Jones had a wife and two sons. He ■made his will and devised his property thus: “I leave all my property to remain in the hands of my wife for the use ,o.f the family, until my two sons, E. D. Jones .and A. D. Jones become of age, or she marries. And in either event, the property and money are to be equally divided.” The testator then appoints his wife and two sons executors. His jntention tjjUS far appears to be equality of division between his wife and two sons. His eldest son, (Erasmus,) was then attending as a student the medical college at Philadelphia ; and he had been supplied by his father with $700, to cover expenses for that session of the college. The testator concluded his will with this clause, t! I leave my son A. D. Jones, the amount that E. D. Jones expends in Philadelphia, more than an equal division would say, on account of the completion of his medical education.” What excess in favor of A. D. Jones on the division of the property, did the testator mean by this clause in his will? The preceding clause shews that equality was his intention. And the last clause we think, shews the same intention as to the benefit he designed his two sons. He had placed a fund of $700 in the hands of his son Erasmus, who was then in a course of expending it, or the greater part of it, at Philadelphia, in obtaining or completing a medical education. The testator, therefore, must have meant such an amount of money, as should be expended by his son by his, the testator’s authority, at Philadelphia; he could not have intended by this clause any and whatever amount of money should ultimately be expended on Erasmus in completing his medical education at Philadelphia, by any guardian he might thereafter have. Such a construction would come too much in conflict with the provision he had intended for his wife; her share might then be very materially reduced, which we do not discover that he intended. We think that the decree made in the Superior Court was correct, and that it must be affirmed.

Per Curiam. Decree affirmed.  