Crawford v. . Wearn

After a careful examination of this ease, we have arrived at the conclusion that the rule in Shelley’s case does not apply, and that L. W. Crawford takes but a life estate in the property in question. Such seems the intention of the testator from the context of the will, and this intention, it is well settled, must prevail over technical language, when *542 such language is qualified by superadded words. We are also of the opinion that the power to “ invest or use ” all of the property, in view of other expressions in the will, authorizes a sale of the same by the life tenant, and on this ground, the judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.