
    
      In re SCHULZ’S ESTATE.
    Wills — Widow’s Election — Distribution or Estate.
    A testator bequeathed to his wife all of his household goods, and gave her a life estate in the residue of his property, real and personal. Specific bequests were made to five persons, who were also made residuary legatees in proportion to the sums-bequeathed to them. It was further provided that, if any of said legatees should be dead at the time of the decease of the wife, the heirs of such deceased legatee should take the legacy bequeathed to him. The widow elected to take under the law, and not under the will. Held, that the legatees were entitled to an immediate distribution of the estate.
    Case made from Wayne; Adams, J., presiding.
    Submitted June 8, 1897.
    Decided July 13, 1897.
    The petition of a legatee under the will of Martin F. Schulz, deceased, for the distribution of the estate, was granted by the probate court, and Herman Kleinow, administrator with the will annexed, appealed to the circuit court-. The order of the probate court was reversed in the circuit, and the legatees assign error.
    Reversed.
    Martin F. Schulz died testate. By his will he bequeathed his household goods to his wife, and all the rest and residue of his estate, both real and personal, to his said wife for life. By the third clause he provided that his executor should, as soon as convenient after the decease of his wife, sell and convey all his real estate for the purpose of paying expenses and “the legacies hereinafter bequeathed by me.” By the fourth clause he bequeathed certain amounts to five persons, and by the fifth clause made these five persons the residuary legatees in propor tion to the sums bequeathed to them. By the sixth clause he provided that, if any of the said legatees be dead at the time of the decease of his wife, the heirs of said deceased legatee should take the legacy bequeathed to him or her. The widow elected to take under the law, and not under the will. Dower was assigned to her. The real estate was sold by the administrator with the will annexed, under the order of the probate court; and, after paying the debts and the widow’s portion, there remained in his hands about $2,500. The administrator made report to the probate court, and asked for an order of distribution under the terms of the will, if the legatees were entitled thereto. One of the legatees also petitioned for such distribution. The probate court directed the distribution of the estate. Upon appeal to the circuit court this order was reversed, and it was held that the estate could not be distributed until after the death of the widow.
    
      William E. Henze, for appellants.
    
      Morse Rohnert, for appellee.
   Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). The judgment of the circuit court was wrong. The clear intent of the will was to secure to the widow the use of the entire estate for life, and that upon the termination of the life estate the legatees mentioned in the fourth and fifth clauses should take. The life estate in the widow was as effectually terminated by her election as it could be by her death. The will makes no provision for the care and control of the estate in the event that the life estate should be terminated by the election of the widow. It is conceded that, but for the sixth clause, the legatees named in the fourth clause would be entitled to receive their legacies at once. But it is insisted that the right to receive is limited upon the death of the wife. The clear intent of the testator was to create a life' estate, and it probably never occurred to him that his wife would take under the statute, and thus terminate such estate. It is equally clear that he intended that upon the termination of that estate his property should he distributed at once to his legatees. In re Woodburn’s Estate, 151 Pa. St. 586; Coover’s Appeal, 74 Pa. St. 143; Small v. Marburg, 77 Md. 11. Dean v. Mumford, 102 Mich. 510, has no application to this case.

Judgment reversed, and the case remanded to the probate court of Wayne county for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

Long, C. J., Montgomery and Moore, JJ., concurred. Hooker, J., did not sit.  