It is generally recognized that one who would otherwise take, as heir or distributee the whole or a part of decedent's property, cannot be deprived of his right in this regard by a mere expression of an intention to that effect in decedent's will, without a testamentary disposition of the property in favor of another or others. For instance, a statement in testator's will that his eldest son is not to share in his estate will not preclude the son from so sharing, unless all the estate is effectually disposed of by the will.6

Even though all of decedent's property is otherwise disposed of by the will, this is not necessarily effective, in many states, to deprive a child of decedent, or the issue of a deceased child, of a right to share therein, it being frequently provided by statute that a child, or the issue of a. deceased child, not provided for in the will, shall, subject to varying limitations, take the share which he would have received in case decedent had died intestate, and in many states there is such a provision, confined in its operation, however, to the case of a child who was born after the execution of the will.7

4. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec. 3163.

5. 2 Woerner, Administration. Sec. 553; 1 Dembitz, Land Titles, Sec. 248.

6. Denn v. Gaskin, Cowp. 657; Pickering v. Stamford, 3 Ves. Jr. 492; Campbell-kannanakoa v. Campbell, 152 Cal. 201, 92 Pac. 184; Lane v. Patterson, 138 Ga. 710, 7C S. E. 47 (semble); Tea v. Millen, 257 111. 624, 101 N. E. 209; Doe v. Lanius, 3 Ind. 441, 56 Am. Dec. 518 & note; Wells v.

Anderson, 69 N. H. 561, 44 Atl. 103; Nagle v. Conard, 79 N. J. Eq. 124, 81 Atl. 841. 80 N. J. Eq. 253, 86 Atl. 1103; Gallagher v. Crooks, 132 N. Y. 338, 30 N.e. 746; In re Trimble's Will. 199 N. Y. 454, 92 N. B. 1073; Atkins v. Kron, 2 Ired. Eq. (N.. C. ) 58, Vaughn v. Lanford, M S. C. 62 S. E. 316; Boisseau v.al-dridges, 5 Leigh (Tenn.) 222; Coflman v. Coffman, 85 Va. 459 8 S. E. 672.

7. See 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec.Sec. 2842, 2843, 1 Woerner,

Administration, Sec. 55.