Lumpkin v. Patterson

Russell, C. J.,

dissenting. 1 can not concur in the ruling contained in the third headnote, or in the judgment of affirmance which necessarily follows from that ruling. Considering the will of Mr. Garrard as a whole, I can reach no other conclusion than that the remainders having reference to the “legal heirs” of his three daughters are contingent remainders. It seems to me that the opinion of the majority has subordinated the manifest intention of the testator to the application of the rule in Shelley’s case, and has become affected by the bias which compelled the old ecclesiastical courts in…