
    Loring v. Craft, Executor of Loring.
    
      Wednesday, May 29.
    A surviving wife is entitled to the sum of $300, allowed to her by 1 E. S., § 21, p. 251, notwithstanding she may have accepted the provision made for her by the will of her husband.
    APPEAL from the Ohio Circuit Court.
    
      W. S. BBolman, for the appellant.
    
      A. C. B)ovmey, for the appellee.
   Per Curiam.

Bradley B. Loring made his last will, dis

posing of all of his property, and died. He left a widow, who, with others, was a devisee in the will. The widow took the provision made for her in the will; and she now sues the executor for the sum of $300, which she claims is vested in her by statute, over and above the provision made for her in the will. 1 R. S., § 21, p. 251.

With some hesitation, we have concluded she is entitled to recover. Cheek v. Wilson, 7 Ind. 354; 8 id. 71; 1 R. S., § 41, p. 255. See Collier v. Collier, 3 Ohio St. Rep. 369.

The judgment is reversed, with costs. Cause remanded, &c. 
      
      .) By counsel for appellee : The will disposes of all the testator’s property, and the claim of the widow can not he allowed without defeating other bequests.
      
        “ A leading, if not the earliest decision as to election, is Noyes v. Mordaunt, a case of real estate, which was followed by Vincent v. Vincent, a case of personal estate, by French v. Standish, the case of a copy-hold estate, and by many other cases; the result of which appears to be, that a person shall not claim an interest under an instnment, whether a deed or a will, without giving full effect to that instrument as far as he can. This rule has been said to be universal, and without exception. It applies to interests of married women; interests immediate, remote, or contingent; of value or not of value.” 2 Maddock’s Chan. 47. See, also, 2 Story’s Eq. Jur. § 1075.
     