George W. Roberts v. Tamworth & A‪.‬

The will contains twenty-two clauses and names thirty-three as legatees or substituted legatees. The language of the will and the fact that an attesting witness was an attorney indicate that the draftsman was familiar with legal terms (Mulvanity v. Nute, 95 N.H. 526) and ""the principle of lapse of legacies."" Franklin Nat. Bank v. Gerould, 90 N.H. 397, 398. Thus four clauses of the will provided for substituted legatees ""in the event I outlive him."" Her bequests to two churches contained the express provision that they ""shall not lapse because of error in giving corporate names."" In another clause of the will bequeathing household furniture to two nephews in equal shares, the testatrix stipulated ""survivorship as of the time of my death."" The thirteenth clause of the will by its express terms called for survivorship of the testatrix and since both legatees predeceased her, the bequest falls into the residuary clause of the will. The fourteenth and fifteenth clauses of the will are not controlled by the antilapse statute (R. L., c. 350, s. 12) as its conditions are not met. The statute requires that the legatees must have ""heirs in the descending line"" in order that the legacies will not lapse. There being none, the bequests become a part of the residue of the estate. The testatrix knew how to prevent lapses when she so desired and the failure to do so in these two clauses is indicative of an intentional omission.