This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1860 edition. Excerpt: ...are given over to her surviving sisters. Now here is no direct provision for the issue; and it may be asked, why they were introduced. The answer appears to me obvious.-They were introduced, as marking the quantity of the estate, which their mother took in the slaves, and the event upon which they were, or were not, to go over to the survivor; or, as it is better expressed, in the quotation of the counsel from Cnjacins, they are mentioned not for their own sakes, but for the sake of the remainder over; and it would be a violation of the intention of the testator, to give them anything as against their parent. But the case of Carr v.-Porter, 1 McC. C., 60, isconclnsive of the question. These are words of limitation, and not of purchase, and the issue are not entitled to take. The limitation over to the survivor, or survivors, and to their respective heirs, lawfully begotten, like the bequest to the heirs of Ann Olney Summers, create an estate tail; and on that account, is void as to the personal estate, so far as it operates as a bequest to the heirs. Besides which, it could only operate in the event of the estate going over to the survivor; and that event has not happened, and with regard to Mrs. Deas, can never happen, she having died leaving issue. It is therefore ordered, decreed, and adjudged, that th_e decree of Chancellor THoMPsoN be wholly reversed; and that the defendants do account to the complainant, Charles Izard Manigault, administrator of David Deas, for the slaves bequeathed by the late Humphrey Summers, to his daughter, Mary Summers, and deliver such of the slaves as may be in their possession, to the said Charles Izard Maniganlt. And it is further W04 ordered, that the slaves be sold by the said Charles...