2 Years Transportation Progress Volume 127

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1911 Excerpt: ...16 L. R. A. 321, 34 Am. St. Rep. 64; Lomax v. Lomax, 218 111. 629, 75 N. E. 1076, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 942. The question raised in the Asten Case is quite similar to the one here presented. There the testator owned four houses in a given locality. He had four sons. By his will he attempted to give to each son, naming him, one house by the following description: "All that newly built house, being No. Sudeley Place, Cotsfield Road, with the piece of ground In the rear thereof." The four houses in Sudeley Place were all built by the testator himself at about the same time and shortly prior to the time the will was executed. The piece of ground in the rear of the houses referred to in the will was at the date thereof and at the testator's death fenced off from the adjoining land, but was not in any way divided or partitioned between the houses, and was still unbuilt upon. The four houses were not numbered at the date of the will. The testator had no other houses in Sudeley Place. It was held that the gifts failed for uncertainty. Romer, J., who delivered the opinion, said: "The testator had four houses in Sudeley Place. Now, on this will I cannot come to the conclusion that the testator intended to give one of these four houses to each son, without any selection on the part of the testator; on the contrary, it appears to me clear from the will that what the testator intended was to give a particular house to each son, and not to give any right of selection or election to any son. Owing, unfortunately, to the houses not being numbered at the date of the will and their description as given in the will being undistinguishable, I cannot tell from the will which house the testator intended to give any of the sons. Under these circumstances, I cannot rem...