Appellate Court of
65 Ill.App.2d 89, 211 N.E.2d 897.
Johnson,
pp. 161-165
Facts: Effie Seymour granted all
of her estate to a trustee for the benefit of her son William, with the
remainder to go to William’s heirs. When
William died, his will left all his property to his wife. The wife sued to have Effie’s will interpreted such that she would have a fee simple devised by
William. The widow wins at trial and the
heirs of William other than William appeal.
Issue: Does the rule in Shelley’s
case apply to Effie Seymour’s will, thus granting William, and in turn his
widow, a fee simple absolute?
Rule: Whenever a freehold estate
is granted to the ancestor and a remainder is granted to his heirs, the word
“heirs” is taken to be a word of limitation rather than a word of purchase, and
thus the ancestor acquires a fee simple interest in the estate. The rule operates when all three of these
conditions are present:
1. A freehold estate must be
granted to the ancestor (in this case William).
2. A remainder must be granted
to “his heirs” using exactly those words.
3. The two estates must be of
the same quality (legal or equitable).
Analysis: William’s widow will prevail
if the rule applies. The defendants make
several arguments against it:
1. The second part of the rule
isn’t satisfied because, they claim, the word “heirs” isn’t used as a word of
limitation, but rather as a word of purchase (to refer to specific people).
2. It is claimed that the two
estates were not of the same quality because the life estate was equitable
while the remainder was legal.
The
court rejects both arguments! How come?
Conclusion: The trial court’s decision
is affirmed and the widow gets all the property.