
    Goodwin v. Taylor Executor of Williamson.
    April Term, 1795.
    Will — Construction—Case at Bar. — Devise to E. C., the testator’s daughter, of the interest of 40001. government securities, during her life, and at her death, the interest of the said 40001. to go to his four grand-daughters equally, and at their decease, the principal and interest to he disposed of by them to their heirs. E. C. released to the husband of one of the grand-daughters all her right to the interest of 10001. of the said securities. The grand-daughter dying in the life-time of E. C., her husband, as her administrator, filed a bill to recover the said 10001., which was decreed accordingly.
    Thomas Williamson by his will dated in 1787, devised as follows, viz. “I give to my daughter Elizabeth Clements the interest of ¿£4000 in government funds during her life, and at her death, I give the interest of the above money, one fourth to each of my grand-children S. Cocke, Elizabeth Clements, Frances Clements and John Clements, and at their decease, the principal and interest to be disposed of by them to their heirs, in such proportions, as they by their wills respectively may direct, and in case of the death of my grand-daughter Sarah Cocke without issue, I give her part to my grand-daughter Elizabeth Clements.”
    Elizabeth Clements the daughter of the testator, by deed duly executed, released, to the plaintiff Goodwin and to his wife Elizabeth Clements her daughter, and the grand-daughter of the testator, all her right and title in and to the interest of ,£1000 of the said certificates. The granddaughter died in the life-time of her mother intestate, and the plaintiff as her administrator filed his bill in the County Court of Southampton, to recover possession of ¿£1000 of the said certificates.
    
      
       Executory Limitation — “■Dying without Issue” — Chattels. — That a limitation over of personal estate, after an Indefinite failure of issue, is void, and the first devisee takes the whole, see the principal case cited and approved in wilkins v. Taylor, 5 Call 152, 150.157; Moore v. Brooks, 12 Gratt. 151; Newby v. Blakey, 3 Hen. & M. 60; Bradley v. Moahy, 3 Call 62.
      See Higgenbotham v. Rucker, 2 Call 313, and note.
      
      In Milhollen v. Rice, 13 W. Va. 531, the court said: ■‘In the case of Goodwin v. Taylor, 4 Cali 305, same case, 2 Wash.. 74, the testator bequeathed the interest on ,24,000 in government funds to his four grandchildren; and at their decease the principal and interest to be disposed of by them to their heirs, and snch proportion as they by their wills respectively direct. The court basing its decision on Shermer v. Shermer’s Kx’r, 1 Wash. 266, held, that a granddaughter took, not a life estate, but an absolute property, in this one-fourth of this A'4.000, she having died intestate. Upon her death she must be regarded by her intestacy, as having disposed of the property to her heirs, under the power conferred on her by the will; and then it was the same, as if the will had given her a life estate, remainder to her heirs: and under the rule in Shelley’s case she took an absolute property, and not a mere life estate.”
      “ Judge Allen, in delivering the opinion of the court in Moore v. Brooks, 12 Gratt. 151. refers to this case of Goodwin v. Taylor, 2 Wash. 74, as an instance of the application of the rule in Shelley’s case.* It is therefore clear, that these two cases of Shermer v. Shermer’s Bx’r, 1 wash. 266, and Goodwin ®. 'Taylor, 2 Wash. 74, 4 Call 305, were both decided, as they were, on this reasoning: if the powers conferred on the devisee had been executed, by devising or bequeathing the property to the heirs of the devisee or legatee (their suffering themselves to die intestate beihg regarded as the equivalent of this execution of the power) then, as a life estate would be regarded as given to the devisee or legatee, and a remainder to the heirs by the testator’s will, and the rule in Shelley’s case applying, the life estate given by the will became a fee simple estate or an absolute property.”
      The principal case is reported and annotated in 4 Call 305 (Ta. Rep. Anno.).
    
   *The court

decreed the defendant to pay and deliver to the plaintiff ¿£1000 of the certificates in the public funds, bequeathed by Thomas Williamson to Elizabeth the late wife of the plaintiff.

From this decree an appeal was prayed to the High Court of Chancery, where it was reversed and the bill dismissed ; from which an appeal was taken to this court, where the decree of the High Court of Chancery was reversed, and that of the County Court affirmed.  