LANGLEY v. TILTON

A devise to a wife "to her use and benefit forever," followed by a provision that she is to be amply supported "out of said estate during her natural life, and to use and dispose of the same as she sees fit," giving the remainder, if any, to the testator's brothers, does not vest in her an absolute estate.

Per Curiam.[fn*] [fn*] See foot-note on page 80.

The evidence furnished by the will shows that it was the intention of the testator to give his wife the residue of his estate for her use, support, maintenance, and disposal, and to give his brothers the remainder, if any, left undisposed of by her at her decease. When the testator's intention, ascertained from competent evidence, results in a legal disposition of his estate, as in this case, the will is so construed as to carry out that intention. If the last part of the residuary clause is literally inconsistent with the first part, the testator's intention is as evident as though it had been expressed in the most technical language. Both parts taken together disclose the purpose of the testator to provide amply for his wife, and to give his brothers whatever she should not dispose of during her life. Kimball v. Society, 65 N.H. 139, 151.

Case discharged.

BLODGETT, J., did not sit: the others concurred.