Cited by

While no Minnesota case expressly governs the decision here, indirect precedent supports appellant’s interpretation of “survivors.” See In re Bell’s Will, 147 Minn. 62, 69 , 179 N.W.

585 (1940); In re Bell’s Will, 147 Minn. 62 , 179 N.W.

6 In re Trust Under Will of Bell, 147 Minn. 62, 68 , ; Peck v. Peck, 76 Wash.

In In re Trust under Will of Bell, 147 Minn. 62, 67 , , this court said: “* * * When read as a whole, it appears to have been the predominant thought in the testator’s mind and his clear purpose to confine his bounty to his lineal descendants.

A case that has been repeatedly cited in this state is In re Trust Under Will of Bell, 147 Minn. 62, 68 , 179 N.W.

A case that has been repeatedly cited in this state is In re Trust Under Will of Bell, 147 Minn. 62, 68 , , wherein the court said: “* * * jt -s to be note(j moreover that there is no gift in the will except by way of a direction to the trustee to divide and pay at future times.

In re Trust Under Will of Bell, 147 Minn. 62 , 179 N.W.

In re Trust Under Will of Bell, 147 Minn. 62 , .

In re Trusteeship Under Last Will of Bell, 147 Minn. 62 , .

In re Trusteeship Under Last Will of Bell, 147 Minn. 62 , 179 N.W.

but they are not technical guides which will be followed to a result contrary to the intent derived from the reading of the will as a whole.” That opinion also recites (p. 449) : “The rule is that a will speaks as of the death of the testator, and that an early vesting of an estate is favored, but this rule will not be applied so as to defeat the testator’s intent,” citing in support In re Bell, 147 Minn. 62 , , and cases cited.

In re Trust Under Will of Bell, 147 Minn. 62 , .

In re Trust Under Will of Bell, 147 Minn. 62 , 179 N.W.

This is the so-called “divide-and-pay-over rule.” In re Trust Under Will of Bell, 147 Minn. 62 , .

To like effect is In re Trust of Bell, 147 Minn. 62 , 179 N.W.

To like effect is In re Trust of Bell, 117 Minn. 62 , , and cases cited.

It is also to be noted that Y. M. C. A. v. Horn, 120 Minn. 404 , , and In re Trusteeship Under Will of Bell, 147 Minn. 62 , , were cases where the trust was in writing but where it was definitely held that the trusts *464 were authorized by subd.

r the benefit of his wife for life “and after her death for the benefit of my children (or their survivors) in the proportion that each would be entitled to under law.” Other cases in this court of some aid here are Johrden v. Pond, 126 Minn. 247 , ; Savela v. Erickson, 138 Minn. 93 , ; Heffelfinger v. Appleton, 144 Minn. 208 , ; In re Will of Bell, 147 Minn. 62 , .

There is nothing contrary to so interpreting this will in what is said in In re Trust under Will of Bell, 147 Minn. 62 , .

There is nothing contrary to so interpreting this will in what is said in In re Trust under Will of Bell, 147 Minn. 62 , 179 N.W.

In re Will of Bell, 147 Minn. 62 , .

Moreover, it would disregard the rule, as sensible as it is well established, that a will is to be read as a whole and the testator’s “intention is to be gathered from everything contained within the four corners of the instrument.” Yates v. Shern, 84 Minn. 161, 165 , , Johrden v. Pond, 126 Minn. 247 , ; In re Will of Bell, 147 Minn. 62 , ; Bradford v. Martin, supra.

Walso v. Latterner, 140 Minn. 455 , at the foot of page 458 [ ] it is said: “It is true that New York statute does not limit the creation of trusts in personal property, and that our statute abolishing all express trusts, except such as are authorized by the chapter, applies to trusts in personal property, as well as in real property.” In re Trusteeship under the Will of L. H. Bell, 147 Minn. 62, 68 , it is said: *368 “The contention that the trust created by the will is invalid, if the construc

In re Swenson’s Estate, 55 Minn. 300 , ; Yates v. Shern, 84 Minn. 161 , ; Brookhouse v. Pray, 92 Minn. 448 , ; Johrden v. Pond, 126 Minn. 247 , ; In re Bell, 147 Minn. 62 , ; In re Estate of J. D. Anderson, 148 Minn. 44 , .