
    Matter of Bartlett.
    (Surrogate’s Court—Westchester County,
    July, 1893.)
    The will of B., among other things, stated that on July 1, 1890, he had given his daughter fifteen railroad bonds, which gift he, by his will, confirmed. He then provided as follows: “ All the rest, residue and remainder of my property and estate, I give to my wife Harriet for her use during her natural life, and at her death the whole thereof (including the indebtedness to my estate of my sons William C. and Edward O. for moneys heretofore lent and advanced by me to them, amounting altogether to §12,000), shall be divided into as many equal shares as shall equal the number of my children, seven in number * * * deducting from the share of each of my sons Wm. 0. and Edward O. §6,000 for moneys heretofore advanced by me to them, and the respective shares of my sons William 0. and Edward 0. are hereby charged with said sums.” Held, that the appraiser appointed to fix the value of the personal estate transferred by said will properly included in his valuation the $12,000 of indebtedness from the sons William O. and Edward O., as said amount, from a construction of the will, cannot be considered in the nature of an advancement.
    The deceased left an estate of over $200,000, about $195,000 of which was personal. He left a will in which, among other things, he states that on the 1st day of July, 1890, he gave to his daughter, Elizabeth W. Bartlett, fifteen railroad bonds of the denomination of $1,000 each, which gift he, by his will, confirms. He then provided as follows: “ All the rest, residue and remainder of my property and estate, I give to my wife Harriet for her use during her natural life, and at her death the whole thereof (including the indebtedness to my estate of my sons William C. and Edward C. for moneys heretofore lent and advanced by me to them, amounting altogether to $12,000), shall be divided into as many equal shares as shall equal the number of my children, seven in number * * *
    deducting from the share of each of my sons William C. and Edward C. $6,000 for moneys heretofore advanced by me to them, and the respective shares of my sons William C. and Edward C. are hereby charged with said sums.”
    The appraiser appointed to fix the value of the personal estate transferred by the will, fixed its value at $195,347.64, including the $12,000 of indebtedness from William 0. and Edward C. Bartlett, and the tax was fixed accordingly. They now appeal from so much of the decree as fixes a tax upon the $6,000 each, claiming it to be exempt on the ground that those sums were advancements to them respectively.
    
      Ed/wa/rd Wells, Jr., for appellants.
   Coffin, S.

Ho evidence is furnished in this matter other than the will of the deceased, and the decision of the question depends upon the construction of the will and the original intention of the testator as gathered therefrom, in reference to the several sums claimed to be exempt. An advancement is somewhat in the nature of a gift, in this respect, that the person making it, thereby abandons all right of control and ownership of the subject. Indeed, an advancement is an irrevocable gift by a parent to a child, in anticipation of such child’s future share of the parent’s estate. Clearly, the testator did not intend to make these sums advancements. He knew the nature of a gift and how it was to be accomplished, as is manifested by his recital of the gift of the bonds to his daughter Elizabeth. It is also manifest that he did not regard the furnishing of these sums to his sons as gifts, but as claims belonging to his estate, for he gives the rest and residue of his estate to his wife, and at her death the whole thereof \ include ing the indebtedness of the two sons for moneys theretofore lent and advanced to them, over. Hence, the widow is, by the will, entitled to the use of these sums. He did not consider himself, therefore, to have parted with the right to the control of the same, but actually exercises such right. Then, as above stated, the whole of his residuary estate, including the money so lent and advanced, was to be divided into seven equal shares, corresponding to the number of his children, and given to them, etc. What he says in regard to deducting the sums advanced to the two sons from their respective shares, indicates nothing more than what he probably intended as an easy mode of payment. There is a difference, in legal significance, between the words advance ” and advancement.”

The sums lent and advanced to the sons are not regarded as advancements, and hence are subject to the tax.  