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. 1901 edition. Excerpt: ...the will, either expressly or necessarily implied.55 Where this principle is not expressed in such sweeping language, it is always held by the courts where the will is equally susceptible of two constructions, one in favor of the heirs and the other in favor of some more distant relative, that the one in favor of the heir will be preferred.56 So in construing a will, the courts, in case of doubt, lean toward a construction which conforms as nearly as possible to the Statutes of Descent and Distribution.57 Thus, in a devise to testator's children in existence at the time of his death, it will be presumed that testator intended an equality of distribution among them.58 In the case of the death of some of testator's children, the law will, unless the contrary appear on the face of the will, assume that a distribution per stirpes in accordance with the principle of lineal representation is intended,58 if lapse is prevented in any way. "Tabor v. Mclntire, 79 Ky. 505. 499; Fahnestock's Estate, 147 Pa. B3 Pendleton v. Larrabee, 62 Conn. St. 327. 393; Wilder v. Holland, 102 Ga. 58 Pinkham v. Blair, 57 N. H. 44; Mathews v. Krishcr, 59 O. S. 226; Patterson's App., 128 Pa. St. 562; Bell's Estate, 147 Pa. St. 389, 269. 1892; 23 Atl. 577; Stewart's Es-on Doe v. Considine, 6 Wall. 458; tate, 147 Pa. St. 383. Dale V. White, 33 Conn. 294; Teele o Pendleton v. Larrabee, 62 Conn. v. Hathaway, 129 Mass. 164: Edger 393: Downing v. Bain, 24 Ga. 372; ly v. Barker, 66 N. H. 434: 28 L. Thompson v. Shackelford, 6 Tex. R. A. 328; Goebel v. Wolf, 113 N. Civ. App. 121. Y. 405; Dunlap's Appeal. 116 Pa. 57Geery v. Skelding, 62 Conn. St. 500; Chess's Appeal, 87 Pa. St. 362; 30 Am. Rep. 361. Where a residuary clause is capaMe of two constructions, one of...