
    Noble et al. v. Ayers et al.
    
      Terms of will — Interpretation of — Intention implied, in words “and also."
    
    A testator devised 208 acres of land, definitely described, to his daughter, “and also” 83 acres on which “she now lives” for life. Held, that the use of the copulative words “and also” indicates his intention to have been to apply the limitations to the first as well as to the second tract.
    Decided January 9, 1900.
    Error to the Circuit Court of Butler county.
    
      Millikin, Shotts & Millikin, for plaintiffs in error, cited the following authorities.
    
      Smith v. Berry, 8 Ohio St., 367; Lessee of Thompson v. Hoop, 6 Ohio St., 489; Niles v. Gray, 12 Ohio St., 329; Platt v. Sinton, 37 Ohio St., 355; Crane v. Doty; I Ohio St., 279; 1 Jarman Wills, 465; Ben
      
      son v. Corbin, 145 N. Y. 351; Parker v. Parker, 13 Ohio St., 105; 2 Redfield on Wills, 595; Linton v. Laycock, 33 Ohio St., 129; Bolton v. Bank, 50 Ohio St., 290; 1 Redfield, 433-4; 1 Redfield Wills, Sec. 8; 1 Washburn Real Property, 102, Sec. 30; Pollock v. Speidel, 17 Ohio St., 439; 2nd Williams on Executors, 937; 3 Jarmen on Wills, 174; Sanders et al.. 4 Paige Ch., 293; Nightingale v. Burrough, 15 Pick., 104; 1 Leading Cases Amer. Law Real Pr., 200; Powell on Devises, 494; 1 Washburn on Real Pr., 72, Sec. 22; Mattack v. Roberts, 54 Pa. St., 148; 1 Washburn, 173, Sec. 23; Harkness v. Corning, 24 Ohio St., 416; 1 Washburn, top page 167, margin 132.
    
      Slaybach & Harr, for defendant in error, cited the following authorities:
    Washburn on Real Prop., Vol. 1, p. 107, 5th Ed.; Goodrich v. Pierce, 83 Ga., 781 (10 Southeastern Reports, 45); Robinson et al. v. Robinson et al., Sup. Ct. Va., S. W. Rep., Vol. 14, page 916; Guthrie’s Appeal, 37 Penna. St., 9; Redfield on Wills, Vol. 2, p. 57; King v. Beck, 15 Ohio, 563; Amer. and Eng. Encyc. of Law, Vol 2, p. 177, Second Edition; Morgan v. Morgan, 41 N. J. Eq., 235; Williams v. Veach, 17 Ohio, 171; Brasher v. Marsh, 15 Ohio St., 103; Townsend v. Townsend, 25 Ohio St., 477; Carter v. Reddish, 32 Ohio St., 1; Edwards v. Rainer, 17 Ohio St., 597; Decker v. Decker, 3 Ohio, 157; Rhodes v. Wildy, 46 Ohio St., 234; Amer. & Eng. Ency. of Law, Vol. 29, p. 349.
   By the Court :

This was a suit to quiet title; and the question arises upon the construction of an item in the will of Elias Ayers, deceased, which reads as follows:

“Fifth: I give and devise unto my daughter, Marcella McLean, my home farm in Union township, Butler county, Ohio, containing about two hundred and eight acres of land; and also eighty-three acres of land in Liberty toAvnship, Butler county, Ohio, and on which she noAV lives, for and during her natural life time only, and at her death I give and devise said land to her children; and if she should die without children, then I give and devise the same to my grandchildren, Weller Ayers, David H. Ayres and Bertha J. Ayres absolutely — share and share alike.”

It is claimed by the plaintiff, a residuary legatee of Marcella McLean, the latter having died leaving a will, that she took a fee-simple in the 208-acre tract; on the other hand, it is claimed that the limitation, “for and during her natural life time only,” applies to the 208-acre tract as Avell as to the 83 acres. We think the latter is the proper construction. The words “and also” couples the two tracts together as one devise, so that both are affected by the same limitation of title; and there are no circumstances to indicate a contrary intention. This conforms not only to what seems to be the natural, but to the usual construction of devises, so coupled. The words are equivalent to “in like manner.” 2 Am. & Eng. Ency. L., 2d Ed., 177; Morgan v. Morgam, 41 N. J. Eq., 235.

Affirmed.  