McChesney v. Bruce

Mason J., delivered the opinion of this court. The question involved in this case, in our opinion has been settled by the Court of Appeals, in the case of Walters vs. Walters, 3 Har. and John., 201, which decision was after-wards recognised and sanctioned by Chief Justice Buchanan, in Bell, vs. Holmes 6 Har. and John., 228. Although in the former case, that part of the court’s opinion which related to the clause in the will, resembling the one now before us, was lost, still it will be found on an examination of the case, that the question whether the terms “remainder of my estate,” were to be confined to the personalty, or were to be regarded as carrying the whole of the testators property real and personal, was distinctly presented and decided by the court. That case was a stronger one than that which is now before us.

There the testator in the different items of the will, was dealing indiscriminately with real and personal property; here the entire will is taken up with the disposition of personal property alone, and according to the maxim noscitur a sociis, it would seem proper to confine the word “estate” to the personalty, as was done in the case of Walters vs. Walters. The language employed by the testator, “together with all the residue of my estate,” is unquestionably sufficient to pass real estate, unless restrained by other words intimately connected with the devise, or unless so associated with bequests of personal property, as to show that the testator meant to use the language as merely applicable to personalty. We are warranted by the authority