
    Samuel Cannon, Adm’r. Michael Dakert, and others, Legatees of Henry Caloff, vs. Thomas Raine & Abraham Jones, Executors of Henry Caloff.
    
    
      Testator and his wife had by deed divided their estate equally, each having the absolute disposition of a moiety. By his will, he devised his whole estate to his wife for life, at her death one half to be at her disposal, the other to be disposed of among his relations, m manner following, that is to say “ my half part to be divided” &c. Held that the wife took afee in one half of the husbands moiety reserved by the deed.
    
    This case depended upon the construction of a deed in connection with the will of Henry Caloff. Caloff and his wife executed a deed, by which they divided their estate equally, leaving to each the disposition of the moiety. By his'will Caloff devised all his estate to his wife, for life, one half to be at her disposal at her death, the other to be disposed of in .manner following, that is to say “ my half part to be divided,” &c. The complainants contended that this must be construed in connection with the deed, and that it was but a confirmation of it, as to the dispositions after the death of the wife, whereas it was- contended on the other side that the will conveys in fee, the half of the moiety reserved by the deed.
    
    
      Gaillard,'- Chancellor. — The testator Henry Caloff devised and bequeathed as follows: — “ The whole of the property I may possess at the time of my death (except any estate or property I may be entitled to' or have by the will of my mother, which I do hereby give to my sister Susan Silly and her heirs, after paying all just demands) I give and bequeath to my my wife, Mary Caloff, during her natural life; and at hfer death to be divided, one half to be at the disposal of my wife, in any manner she may in her lifetime think proper to give it, and the other half to be disposed of among-my relations, in the manner • following, that is to say, my half part to be divided into fifteen shares and given as follows,” then follow the names of different persons. There are lands about the quarter house and in the vicinity of Charleston, half of which, subject to a life estate in Mrs. Caloff, the testator could dispose of. It is contended than the wo; ds, “ myJhalf part” directed to be divided into fifteen shares, relate to the testators half of the lands mentioned, which he and his wife held under a deed, the whole ofthemto the survivor during life, one half at the absolute disposal of him, Caloff, and the other at the disposal óf his wife. This construction would do away the previous devise' fo the'wife:’by referring the'wórds, “ my half part” to the testators half .part or the fourth, which was all that remained, giving effect to the devise to his wife. — both clauses of the wjll are reconciled. This I take to be the true construction. The widow is therefore entitled to three fourths ofthe land in fee; two under the deed and one under the will of her husband, the bill is therefore dismissed with costs.
   On appeal,

Chancellor DeSaussussure

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The court is satisfied with the decree of the Circuit Judge. There appears at first sight to be some complexity or difficulty in the case. But pn a careful inspection of the deed and of the will the doubts vanish, and we do not see that any other con» struction could be put on them than that which has been done.

It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the decree of the circuit court be affirmed.

Gaillard, Waties and James, Chancellors, concurred.  