{ "id": 5173599, "name": "Wm. Copeland, Elizabeth Lamm and Emily Wait v. A. G. Copeland et al.", "name_abbreviation": "Copeland v. Copeland", "decision_date": "1895-12-06", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "100", "last_page": "102", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "64 Ill. App. 100" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "8 Metc. 453", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Metc.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "88 Ill. 253", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "52 Ill. 62", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5301635 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/52/0062-01" ] }, { "cite": "44 Ill. 363", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5222215 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/44/0363-01" ] }, { "cite": "62 Ill. 425", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "44 Ill. 366", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "10 Wis. 166", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "112 Ill. 245", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "100 Mass. 348", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 2141823 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mass/100/0348-01" ] }, { "cite": "115 Mass. 124", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 717980 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mass/115/0124-01" ] }, { "cite": "9 Metc. 146", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Metc.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "8 Metc. 450", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Metc.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "112 Ill. 242", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2862299 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/112/0242-01" ] }, { "cite": "62 Ill. 417", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2608357 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/62/0417-01" ] }, { "cite": "21 Ill. App. 49", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 2415276 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/21/0049-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 312, "char_count": 3998, "ocr_confidence": 0.531, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.1560015661144723 }, "sha256": "e2eff3b20eff05abaadd625cf5bcef1b230ed1a7bf334839c030c69df99124dd", "simhash": "1:80d5dd785f852c8b", "word_count": 681 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:36.948645+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Wm. Copeland, Elizabeth Lamm and Emily Wait v. A. G. Copeland et al." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Pleasants\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nAppellants filed the bill herein for the construction of the will of Samuel Copeland, their father, which was as follows:\n\u201c I give and bequeath to my children now living, William H. Copeland, Perry Copeland, Andrew G. Copeland, Emily Wait and Elizabeth Lamm, share and share alike. Andrew G. Copeland having previously received $4,359.28, as shown by receipts, vouchers and book account, and now wishing to make my other children, named above, equal in heirship; and whereas, William H. Copeland having previously received $1,220, I now give and bequeath to him $3,139.20. Perry Copeland having previously received $3,598.50, I now give and bequeath to him $760.78. Emily Wait having previously received $1,445,1 now give and bequeath to her $2,914.28. Elizabeth Lamm having previously received $3,195, I also give and bequeath to her $1,164.28. This making all my living children above named to share and- share alike up to this date. And I hereby direct that after the above conditions are complied with I further direct that after my decease all my debts of every kind and character shall be paid. Then the residue of my estate to be equally divided among all of my lawful heirs.\u201d\nBesides the children named, the testator left as his heirs several grandchildren and great-grandchildren, descendants and heirs of other of his children deceased, respectively.\nThe sole question to be determined by the construction sought is whether as to the \u201c residue \u201d of his estate they take pjer stirpes or per capita; and the court below holding the latter, decreed its distribution accordingly.\nWe see no material difference between this case and that of Best v. Farris & Wall, 21 Ill. App. 49, in which this court so construed a similar testamentary provision, and for the reasons there stated the decree here will be affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Pleasants" } ], "attorneys": [ "E. R. E. Kimbrough and James A. Meeks, attorneys for appellants.", "Salmans & Draper, attorneys for appellee", "Lawrence & Lawrence, attorneys for appellees William Courtney, Samuel Courtney, Charles Courtney, and Eva Copeland." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Wm. Copeland, Elizabeth Lamm and Emily Wait v. A. G. Copeland et al.\n1. Wills\u2014Construction of a Residuary Clause.\u2014Where a testator who left as his heirs, children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, descendants and heirs of other of his children, deceased, respectively, provided that the residue Of his estate should be equally divided among all his lawful heirs, it was held that such heirs took per capita and not per stirpes.\nBill to Construe a Will.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Vermilion County; the Hon. Ferdinand Bookwalter, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the May term, 1895.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 6, 1895.\nE. R. E. Kimbrough and James A. Meeks, attorneys for appellants.\nA bequest of an estate \u201c to be divided equally among all heirs at law,\u201d not naming them, has reference to the statute of descent, and the heirs will takeper stirpes, as in cases of intestacy. Richards v. Miller, 62 Ill. 417; Kelly et al. v. Vigas et al., 112 Ill. 242; Daggett v. Slack, 8 Metc. 450. Tillinghast v. Cook, 9 Metc. 146; Rand v. Sanger, 115 Mass. 124; Bassett v. Granger, 100 Mass. 348.\nThis rule of construction, however, will yield to a very faint glimpse of a different intention in the context. Jarman on Wills, 5th Am. Ed., Vol. 2, p. 757; Kelly et al. v. Vigas et al., 112 Ill. 245.\nThere is a difference in designation as children or heirs of one. If the gift is to the children of A and of B, they take per capita. Lady Lincoln v. Pelham, 10 Wis. 166; Pitney v. Brown, 44 Ill. 366; Barnes v. Patch, 8 Ves. 604; Walker v. Moore, 1 Beav. 607; 2 Jarman on Wills (5th Am. Ed.), 756.\nSalmans & Draper, attorneys for appellee\nNancy Judy, contended that the words \u201c equally \u201d or \u201c share and share alike,\u201d or \u201cto be equally divided,\u201d import an intention. When they are used in a will they mean a division per capita. Richard v. Miller, 62 Ill. 425; Pitney v. Brown, 44 Ill. 363; Rawson v. Rawson, 52 Ill. 62; Gauch v. Ins. Co., 88 Ill. 253; Daggett v. Slack, 8 Metc. 453.\nLawrence & Lawrence, attorneys for appellees William Courtney, Samuel Courtney, Charles Courtney, and Eva Copeland." }, "file_name": "0100-01", "first_page_order": 98, "last_page_order": 100 }