Argument for Plaintiffs in Error.

son, 30 Ch. Div., 390; Bacon, vice chancellor, In re Redfern, 6 Ch. Div., 133; Parfitt v. Humber, L. R. 4 Eq., 443; Smith's Executory Interests, chap. 13, 252; 2 Jarman on Wills, chap. 30; Woerner on Law of Administration, 897; Yarnall's Appeal, 70 Pa. St., 374; Schaefer v. Schaefer, 141 Ill., 337; 2 Jarman on Wills, 401; East v. Twyford, H. L. Cas., 517; Smith v. Block, 29 Ohio St., 488; Sinton v. Boyd, 19 Ohio St., 30; Davis v. Davis, 62 Ohio St., 411; Patterson v. Earhart, 6 Dec., 16; 29 W. L. B., 313; Mickley's Appeal, 92 Pa. St., 514; Bolman v. Lohman, 79 Ala., 63; Wolfer v. Hemmer, 144 Ill., 554; Wilson v. Turner, 164 Ill., 398; Hazel v. Hagan, 47 Mo., 277; Silvers v. Canary, 109 Ind., 267; Will of Burbank, 69 Ia., 378; Browning v. Southworth, 71 Conn., 224; Ewing v. Barnes, 156 Ill., 61; Lennen v. Craig, 95 Ind., 167; Mulvane v. Rude, 146 Ind., 476; Killmer v. Wuchner, 74 Ia., 359; Law v. Douglass, 107 Ia., 606; Hambel v. Hambel, 109 Ia., 459; McNutt v. McComb, 61 Kan., 25; 2 Redfield on Wills, 277; Webster v. Webster, 93 Ky., 632; Barth v. Barth, 38 S. W. Rep., 511; Jones v. Bacon, 68 Me., 34; Mitchell v. Morse, 77 Me., 423; Taylor v. Brown, 88 Me., 56; Bentz v. Bible Society, 86 Md., 102; Barrett v. Marsh, 126 Mass., 213; Damrell v. Hartt, 137 Mass., 218; Potter v. Merrill, 143 Mass., 189; Rothwell v. Jamison, 147 Mo., 601; Dodson v. Sevars, 52 N. J. Eq., 611; Hoxsey v. Hoxsey, 37 N. J. Eq., 21; Benz v. Fabian, 54 N. J. Eq., 615; In re Robeson v. Shotwell, 55 N. J. Eq., 318; Karstens v. Karstens, 29 App. Div. (N. Y.), 229; Thompson v. Hill, 87 Hun, 111; Van Horne v. Campbell, 100 N. Y., 287; Banzer v. Banzer, 156 N. Y., 429; Levy v. Griffis, 55 N. C., 236; Sproul's Estate, 105 Pa. St., 438; Pierce v. Sim

Argument for Plaintiffs in Error.

mons, 16 R. I., 689; In re Cooke, Admr., 18 R. I., 666; Pierce v. Simmons, 17 R. I., 545; In re Kimball's Will, 20 R. I., 619; Henderson v. Kinard, 29 S. C., 15; Bradley v. Carnes, 94 Tenn., 27; Stowell v. Hastings, 59 Vt., 494; Hall v. Palmer, 87 Va., 354; Cole v. Cole, 79 Va., 251; Wilmoth v. Wilmoth, 34 W. Va., 426; Engle's Estate, 180 Pa., 215; Goudie v. Johnston, 109 Ind., 427; Rusk v. Zuck, 147 Ind., 388; Hilger v. Dolle, 37 S. W. Rep., 492; Loeb v. Struck, 42 S. W. Rep., 401; Small v. Thompson, 92 Me., 539; Russell v. Werntz, 88 Md., 210; Keniston v. Mayhew, 169 Mass., 166; Johnson v. Battelle, 125 Mass., 453; Collins v. Wickwire, 162 Mass., 143; Ford v. Ticknor, 169 Mass., 276; Hunt v. Smith, 58 N. J. Eq., 25; Estate of Eichelberger, 135 Pa., 160; Appeal of Heppenstall, 144 Pa., 259; Derse v. Derse, 103 Wis., 113; Mansfield v. Shelton, 67 Conn., 390; Chase v. Ladd, 153 Mass., 126; Kent v. Morrison, 153 Mass., 137; Langley v. Tilton, 67 N. H., 88; In re Dunlap's Appeal, 182 Pa., 267; In re Tyson's Estate, 191 Pa., 218; 2 Jarman on Wills, 841; Perry on Trusts (4 ed.), sec. 508; Byrne v. Weller, 61 Ark., 366; Whall v. Converse, 146 Mass., 345; Inches v. Hill, 106 Mass., 575; Underwood v. Bank, 141 Mass., 305; Forbes v. Lothrop, 137 Mass., 523; Sise v. Willard, 164 Mass., 48; Wead v. Gray, 78 Mo., 59; Deegan v. Wade, 144 N. Y., 573; Robertson v. Hardy's Admr., 23 S. E. Rep., 766; Bowen v. Dean, 110 Mass., 438; Burbank v. Sweeney, 161 Mass., 490; Bank of Charleston v. Dowling, 52 S. C., 345; Forsythe v. Forsythe, 108 Pa. St., 129; Moseley v. Stewart, 52 S. W. Rep., 671; Milhollen's Admr. v. Rice, 13 W. Va., 510; In re Kelly's Estate, 193 Pa., 45; In re Schmid's Estate, 182 Pa., 267; 2 Jarman on Wills,

Argument for Plaintiffs in Error.

284; Brasher v. Marsh, 15 Ohio St., 103; Linton v. Laycock, 33 Ohio St., 128; Johnson v. Johnson, 51 Ohio St., 446; Findlay Brewing Co. v. Dick, 13 Dec., 581; O. L. R., April 4, 1904, 592; Perry on Trusts, sec. 320; Lewin on Trusts, 218, 230; Stoke's Appeal, 80 Pa. St., 337; Dodson v. Ball, 60 Pa. St., 492; Meacham v. Steele, 93 Ill., 135; Perry on Trusts, sec. 920; Baker v. McAden, 118 N. C., 740; Lansing v. Lansing, 45 Barb., 182; Post v. Case, 33 N. Y. S., 530; In re Cameron, 26 Ch. Div., 19; Dean v. Dean, L. R. 3 Ch., 150; Perry on Trusts, sec. 310a; Beach on Trustees, sec. 401, note 1; sec. 402; secs. 705 and 706; Washburn on Real Property (3 ed.), secs. 45, 461; Wells v. McCall, 64 Pa. St., 207; Roberts v. Moseley, 51 Mo., 282; Baker v. Nall, 59 Mo., 265; Liptrot v. Holmes, 1 Ga., 381; Robert v. West, 15 Ga., 123; Waters v. Tazewell, 9 Md., 291; Beaufort v. Collier, 6 Humph., 487; Shirley v. Shirley, 9 Paige, 363; Warland v. Colwell, 10 R. I., 369; Nightingale v. Nightingale, 13 R. I., 113; Morse v. Stinson, 144 Mass., 594; Winchester v. Machen, 92 Md., 339; Parker v. Converse, 5 Gray, 336; Snelling v. Lamar, 32 S. C., 72; Lynch v. Swayne, 83 Ill., 336; Megargee v. Naglee, 64 Pa. St., 216; Kuntzleman Estate, 136 Pa. St., 142; Lewin on Trusts, 924, 958; Tullett v. Armstrong, 4 Myl. & C., 377, and Scarborough v. Borman; Slater v. Hurlbut et al., 146 Mass., 308; Sears v. Choate, 146 Mass., 395; Martin v. Fort, 83 Fed. Rep., 19; Rosenbaum v. Garrett, 57 N. J. Eq., 186; Leacraft v. Hadden, 4 N. J. Eq., 512; Lare's Estate, 15 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep., 355; Meacham v. Graham, 98 Tenn., 190; Armistead's Exrs. v. Hartt, 97 Va., 316; 2 Perry on Trusts, sec. 920; Bowditch v. Andrew, 8 All., 339; Emery v. Darling, 50 Ohio St.,

Opinion of the Court.

160; Shank v. Dewitt, 44 Ohio St., 237; Hales v. Margerum, 3 Ves., 299; West v. Burney, 1 Russ. & M., 481; Miles v. Knight, 17 L. J. Ch., 458; Webb v. Shaftsburg, 2 Myl. & K., 599; Horner v. Swann, Turner & Russ., 430; Bispham's Equity (6 ed.), sec. 257; Davies v. Huguening, 2 N. R., 101; In re Elizabeth Chambers, 11 Ir. Eq., 518; Hammersley v. Debiel, 12 Cl. & Fin., 45; Walford v. Gray, 5 N. R., 235; Matthews v. Davis, 39 Ohio St., 54; Collins v. Davis, 32 Ohio St., 76; Yeoman v. Lasley, 36 Ohio St., 416; Wagner v. Railway Co., 38 Ohio St., 32; Male v. Williams, 48 N. J. Eq., 33; sec. 5970, Rev. Stat.

Mr. Herman P. Goebel and Mr. Albert Bettinger, attorneys for defendants in error, cited and commented upon the following authorities:

Mathews v. Meek, 23 Ohio St., 272; James v. Pruden, 14 Ohio St., 251; Baxter v. Bowyer, 19 Ohio St., 490; King v. Beck, 15 Ohio, 559; Thompson v. Hoop, 6 Ohio St., 480; Davis v. Boggs, 20 Ohio St., 550; Starling v. Price, 16 Ohio St., 29; Johnson v. Johnson, 51 Ohio St., 446; Greene v. Greene, 1 O. S. C. D., 679; 38 W. L. B., 205 (affirmed without report, 57 Ohio St., 628); Howe v. Fuller, 19 Ohio, 51; Stableton v. Ellison, 21 Ohio St., 527; 2 S. & C. Stat., 1615; 2 Jarman on Wills, 856; Kent v. Armstrong, 2 Hals. Eq., 559; Matthews v. Davis, 39 Ohio St., 54; Yeoman v. Lasley, 36 Ohio St., 416; Wagner v. Railway Co., 38 Ohio St., 32; Bullock v. Kilgour, 39 Ohio St., 543; O'Kill v. Campbell, 4 N. J. Eq., 13; Cantine v. Brown, 46 N. J. Law, 599; Martin v. Fort, 83 Fed. Rep., 19.

SPEAR, J. Edward Harwood died testate October 15, 1875, and his will was probated shortly after.

Opinion of the Court.

That instrument gave one-third of his estate to his wife absolutely, the remaining two-thirds being disposed of for the benefit of his three daughters, Adaline C. French and the plaintiffs, Harriet C. Robbins and Gertrude Gordon, in equal shares. The wife deceased before the testator, and the third given her has been disposed of and does not enter into the present controversy. The estate consisted of an interest in a manufacturing firm in Cincinnati and of several parcels of real estate, its value being about $250,000. Maynard French, husband of Adaline C. French, named as executor by codicil, qualified October 20, 1875, and served until his death, November 9, 1882, when Thomas McDougall was appointed administrator de bonis non with the will annexed, and served until his decease July 18, 1899. Shortly thereafter the present administrator de bonis non, Amor Smith, Jr., was appointed. The estate has been discreetly managed. During the twenty-five years prior to Mr. Smith's appointment, there was paid from all sources to the three beneficiaries about $1,000,000. The portion denominated the remaining two-thirds consisted for many years of 5045 shares of the stock of a manufacturing corporation, The Grasselli Chemical Company, and two pieces of real estate. Mrs. French deceased in June, 1903. She left a will, and, pursuant to the provisions of that instrument, the present trustee has delivered to her executor one-third of the shares of stock and conveyed one-third interest in the real estate, leaving in the hands of the trustee the remaining two-thirds of the shares of stock and two-thirds interest in the real estate. The stock yields in dividends an annual income of $26,906.50,