292 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

bill was filed by the widow, who married a second time, (and
whose second husband has also died,) and several of the
children of the testator, against other of his children, for the
sale of this property; upon the allegation, that it was not sus-
ceptible of partition, and, that it would be advantageous to all
parties concerned that it should be sold, and the proceeds di-
vided among them according to their several and respective
rights.

In the account of the Auditor reported on the 7th of July
last, the net proceeds of the sale, after assigning to the widow
a portion thereof, as an equivalent for her life estate, are dis-
tributed among the surviving children, and the grandchildren
of the testator, giving to the grandchildren the portions oftheir
respective parents; and the point to be decided is, whether
this distribution is the proper one.

The bill proceeded upon the hypothesis, that the whole estate
was disposed of by the will, and must be understood as conced-
ing, that the grandchildren had succeeded to the rights of their
parents, as otherwise there could have been no motive for
making them parties. It was, however, subsequently supposed
that these grandchildren of the testator, were not entitled to
any portion of this money, upon the ground that the limitation
over, after the termination of the life estate of the widow, was
restricted to the children who may be living when that event
shall occur. And in opposition to the right of the grand-
children, it was also insisted in the argument, that the children
of the testator, whether the benefit of the devise, was to be
confined to the survivors of the widow or not, took as joint
tenants, and that consequently, the children of the deceased
brothers must be excluded, upon the doctrine of survivorship
—the will having been executed prior to the act of 1822, ch.
162, which, abolishes thereafter, estates in joint-tenancy, ex-
cept where the deed, devise, or instrument of writing, expressly
declares, that the property shall be so held.

It appears to me, however, to be very clear upon authority,
that this devise does not create an estate in joint-tenancy.
Perhaps, in the present disposition of the courts in regard to