Evans v. James.

Counsel

Jocelyn for plaintiff: The devisees, Reece and David, were joint tenants. 12 Mo., 302 ; 1 Salk., 390.2d. The devisees took an estate for life. Only the charge of schooling the two youngest sons is not such an one as will create a fee where otherwise the words would make an estate for life only. Schooling is an annual charge; it is not a sum in gross, for it might be more or less according to future circumstances, as the death of the children, etc. Wright, e contra: The devisees took estates in severalty. All estates are so unless expressly made otherwise; no such expression is here; on the contrary, Reece is to hold 320 acres on the river, which is a particular designation of the spot intended for him; and the (153) remainder, of consequence, falls to David. They have no unity of possession so asserted to a joint tenancy. 12 Mo., 320 , and 1 Salk., 390, support the position laid down by us when compared with the words of our will. Besides, the construction of deeds and of wills is materially different. The one is construed most strictly against the grantor, the other according to the intent of the testator. That was in our case most evidently to create an estate in severalty or at least in common. As to the next question, this is an estate in fee in the devisees. The charge is not expressed to be payable out of the profits. It is expressly said at their own charge .