
    The State use of Thomas vs. Mann.
    Ahp.eal from Kent County Court. This action was similar to the preceding, and on the same bond. The re~ plication to the plea of general performance stated, that Ann Smith, by her will bequeathed to her granddaughter Ann Woodall, (who is since deoeased,) the sum of £SQ, to be paid to her at her day of marriage; but if she should die without lawful issue of her body, that then and in such case the testatrix did bequeath, order and direct, that the., legacy aforesaid should fall over and be paid to the said Ann WoodaWs sjster, a certain Elizabeth Woodall, now Elizabeth Thomas, at whose instance and for- whose use this action was brought. That Ann Smith appointed George 
      
      V. 3Ia>M) since also deceased, her executor, &(t. That Ann Woodall afterwards intermarried with George Jackson, since deceased; that the said Ann háth since died intestate, and without Issue; and that the said legacy, or any part thereof, not having been- paid and satisfied either to the said Ann, whilst she was sole, or to George Jackson in his life-time, after their intermarriage, orto either of them, became due and payable to the said Elizabeth Thomas. The defendant rejoined to the replication, that the original Writ in this cause was Sued forth before the end or expiration of twelve months from the date of the letters of administration granted to the defendant on the estate of Ann Smith. To this rejoinder there was a demurrer, which fhe court overruled, and gave judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed to this court.
    
      A' S by her will bequeathed to A 'W a legacy to be paid to her at her day of marriape; but if she died wilhouflaSyful issue of,her bony, then the It f?«oy was to fall over and be paid to E \V. AW after-wards married G-.7, since deceased, atul A W is also since deceased, intestate, and without issue-Held, that thy legacy vested in A W, and that the limitation oyer •was void
    
      The cause was argued before Polk, Nicholson, and Johnson; 3* by
    
      James Scott and Houston, for the Appellant;
    and by
    
      Cannithael, for the Appellee.
   The questions were, that if the legacy vested in Ann Woodall, then the limitation oVer was void, or if the Suit was brought before it ought to have been, then tha judgment ought to be affirmed. The decision was upon the ground that the ¡imitation over was void.

JUDGMENT AJfMRMKD.  