
    HENRY A. UTERHART ET AL. v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [Not reported in C. Cls. B.; 240 TJ. S. B., 598.]
    
      On the plaintiff's appeal.
    
    No opinion was delivered by the court below, but judgment was rendered for the defendants. On appeal the judgment was reversed and the cause remanded with direction to enter judgment in favor of the appellants.
    The Supreme Court decided:
    The right to succeed to property of a decedent depends upon and is regulated by State law. Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S., 41.
    The judicial construction of a will by a State court of competent jurisdiction determines not only legally but practically the extent and character of the interests taken by the legatees.
    The court of the State in which the decedent’s will was probated, and having jurisdiction to construe the same, having decided that, as to the residuary estate, the will involved in this case constituted a trust continuing until after July 1, 1902, and that no beneficiary was entitled to receive anything except on affirmative exercise of discretion conferred upon the executors and trustees, held that the interests of the residuary legatees were contingent and not vested prior to July 1, 1902, within the meaning of the refunding act of June 27, 1902, except as to such amounts as were actually paid to the legatees prior to that date by the trustees in the exercise of their discretion.
   Mr. Justice Pitney

delivered tbe opinion of the Supreme Court April 3, 1916.  