38. 2 Jarman, Wills 1564; Theobald, Wills (6th Ed.), 633; Britton v. Thornton, 112 U. S. 526, 28 L. Ed. 816; Crane v. Cowell, 2 Curtis, U. S. 178, Fed. Cas. No. 3353; Chesebro v. Palmer, 68 Conn. 207, 36 Atl. 42; Jones v. Webb, 5 Del. Ch. 132; Fifer v. Allen, 228 111. 507, 81 N. E. 1105; Duering v. Brill, 127 Md. 104, 96 Atl. 269; Briggs v. Shaw, 9 Allen (Mass.) 516; Sims v. Conger, 39 Miss. 231, 77 Am. Dec. 671; Whitney v. Whitney, 45 N. H. 311; Dranow v. Sherry, 80 N. J. Eq. 447, 85 Atl. 189; Van-derzee v. Slingerland, 103 N. Y. 47, 57 Am. Rep. 701, 8 N. E. 247; Jackson's Estate, 179 Pa. St. 77, 33 Atl. 156; Durfee, Petitioner, 17 R. I. 639, 24 Atl. 50; Katzen-berger v. Weaver, 110 Tenn. 620, 75 S. W. 937; Shepard's Heirs v. Shepard's Estate, 60 Vt. 109, 14 Atl. 536.

39. This rule of construction does not apply in case there is any other time indicated in the will to which the dying can be referred, as for instance when the gift to A. is preceded by the gift of a life estate to another. Hervey v. McLaughlin, 1 Price 264; Woolverton v. Johnson, 69 Kan. 708, 77 Pac. 559; Hammett v. Hammett, 43 Md. 307; Fowler v. Ingersoll, 127 N. Y. 472, 28 N. E. 471; McLean v. McLean, 207 N. Y. 365, 101 N. E. 178; Theobald, Wills (6th Ed.) 634. And see cases cited ante Sec. 26, note 3a.

Time being named or indicated in the will, effect is given to the gift over as conditioned on occurrence of the death during testator's life, rather than as cutting down A's estate to an estate for his life.40 Such a case is to be distinguished from the case of a gift to A for life, followed by a gift over "in case of A's death," in which case the latter gift is regarded as in effect one "upon A's death,"41 and it is also to be distinguished from a gift in general terms to A, followed by a gift to another "at" or "upon" A's death.42

The fact that, after a gift to A, there is a devise over to another on A's death without issue or children, does not indicate that A has a life estate only, with a remainder implied in favor of his issue or children.43 But when there is a devise over on the first taker's death without issue and also a devise over in favor of issue if he leaves issue, the first devisee has been regarded as taking a life estate only.44

In spite of the modern statutes dispensing with words of inheritance and creating a presumption of an intention to give an estate in fee simple,45 a gift to one until marriage, or during widowhood, ordinarily receives'the same construction as at common law, as being intended to create a life estate only, determinable on marriage.46 But if words of inheritance are used, or an intention to create an estate of inheritance otherwise appears, the donee would take a determinable fee, that is, an estate in favor of the widow and her heirs, subject to termination on her remarriage,47 or, in case there is a limitation over upon her remarriage, what might properly be described as an estate in fee simple, subject to defeasance upon that event.48

40. In Ewing v. Winters, 34 W. Va. 23, 11 S. E. 718, such a rule of construction was repudiated, and the first taker was held to have a life estate only. Any such rule is ignored in O'Connor v. Rowland, 73 Ark. 422, 84 S. W. 472; Bean v. Kenmuir, 86 Mo 666.

41. Smart v. Clark, 3 Russ. 365; Hollister v. Butterworth, 71 Conn. 57, 40 Atl. 1044; Mullar-key v. Sullivan, 136 N. Y. 227, 32 N. E. 762; see post Sec. 137.

42. Ante at note 36.

43. Hill v. Terrell, 123 Ga. 49, 51 S. E. 81; McCallister v. Bethel, 97 Ky. 1, 29 S. W. 745; Elkins v. Thompson, 155 Ky. 91, 159 S. W.

617; Lockney v. Campbell (Mo.), 189 S. W. 1174; Howell v. Gifford, 64 N. J. Eq. 180, 53 Atl. 1074; Whitfield v. Garris, 134 N. C. 24, 45 S. E. 904; Anderson v. United States Realty Co., 79 Ohio St. 23, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 477, 86 N. E. 644; In re Allis' Will, 163 Wis. 452, 158 N. W. 330, 157 N. W. 548.

44. King v. King, 215 111. 100, 74 N. E. 89; Campbell v. Cole, 71 N. J. Eq. 327, 64 Atl. 461; Stonebraker v. Zollickoffer, 52 Md. 154, 36 Am. Rep. 364; In re Sunderland's Estate, 203 Pa. 155 52 Atl. 167.

45. Ante Sec. 21.

While the gift of a power of disposition to one to whom the property has been devised without words of limitation has been regarded as sufficient to show an intention to give him an estate in fee simple,49 no such effect properly follows from the gift of a power to one to whom a life estate has been explicitly given. In other words, the gift of a power of disposition does not enlarge an estate for life to an estate in fee simple.50

46. Estate of Reinhardt, 74 Cal. 365, 16 Pac. 13; Rose v. Hale, 185 111. 378, 76 Am. St. Rep. 40, 56 N. E. 1073; Cowman v. Glos, 255 111. 377, 99 N. E. 586; Brunk v. Brunk, 157 Iowa 51, 137 N. W. 1065; Morgan v. Christian, 142 Ky. 14, 133 S. W. 982; Nash v. Simpson, 78 Me. 142, 3 Atl. 53; Puller v. Wilbur, 170 Mass. 506, 49 N. E. 916; Hale v. Neilson, 112 Miss. 291, 72 So. 1011, 113 Miss. 29, 73 So. 865; Schminke v. Sinclair, 100 Neb. 101, 158 N. W. 458; Dubois v. Van Valen, 61 N. J Eq. 331, 48 Atl. 241; In re Brooks' Wills, 125 N. C. 136, 34 S. E. 265; Patton v. Church, 168 Pa. St. 321, 31 Atl. 1079; Joyce v. Bode, 74 S. C. 164, 54 S. E. 239; Haring v. Shelton, (Tex. Civ. App.), 114 S. W. 389.

47. Becker v. Becker, 206 111. '53, 69 N. E. 49; Busby v. Busby,

137 Iowa, 57, 114 N. W. 559; Haring v. Shelton, 103 Tex. 10, 122 S. W. 13.

48. See Cummings v. Lohr, 246 111. 577, 92 N. E. 970; Staack v.

Detterding, ------ Iowa ------, 161

N. W. 44; Huerkamp v. Huer-kamp, 145 Ky. 194, 140 S. W. 182; Redding v. Rice, 171 Pa. St. 301, 33 Atl. 330; Squier v. Harvey, 16 R. I. 226, 14 Atl. 862.

49. Ante Sec. 21(b) note 26.

50. Luscombe v. Fintzelberg, 162 Cal. 433, 123 Pac. 247; Mansfield v. Shelton, 67 Conn. 390, 52 Am. St. Rep. 285, 35 Atl. 271; Melton v. Camp, 121 Ga. 693, 49 S. E. 690; Bergman v. Arnold, 242 111. 218, 89 N. E. 1000; Wiley v. Gregory, 135 Ind. 647, 35 N. E. 507; Podaril v. Clark, 118 Iowa, 264, 91 N. W. 1091; Ernst v. Foster, 58 Kan. 438, 49 Pac. 527; Coats' Ex'r v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 92 Ky. 263, 17 S. W. 564; Stuart v. Walker, 72 Me. 145, 39 Am. Rep. 311; Brandan v. McCurley, 124 Md. 243, L. R. A. 1915C, 92 Atl. 540; Collins v. Wickwire, 162 Mass. 143, 38 N. E. 365; Reed v. Reed,

Somewhat singularly, in a few states, a contrary view has been asserted,51 provided the power is general in character.51a In a few states the statute gives such an effect to the gift of a power to the one who is otherwise the donee of a life estate.51b