Majority
Headnote
1. Descent and Distribution—Kiqhts oe Widow—Amendment oe Statute.This is a proceeding to compel an amendment of an inventory, and involves the construction of chapter 406, Laws 1889. In this case the intestate died seised in fee of real estate valued at $1,150, and personal property amounting to about $500. The appraisers, seeking to comply with the act cited, set apart to the widow' a tract of land valued at $1,000 and the $150 in personal property provided by chapter 157 of the Laws of 1842, and also the enumerated articles of household furniture designated in the Revised Statutes, so far as the scant penates of decedent permitted.
The contention of the widow is that the appraisers have not set apart sufficient personal property to meet the requirement of section 2 of the act of 1889. That act first adds an additional section to chapter 2 of part 2 of the Revised Statutes, and purports to give a widow something in addition to any interest she may have by the preceding sections of that chapter. The occult significance of this is unfathomable, in view of the fact that chapter 2 relates solely to title to real property by descent, and does not, by express terms or by implication, give a widow anything whatever. It seems plain, however, that the meaning of this additional section 30 is to give the widow of an intestate the use of real estate of the value of $1,000 unless he leaves no descendant, in which event her title is absolute in fee; and this interest in real property is in addition to any title she may otherwise have in the estate of her deceased husband, for it does not assume to restrict, or be in lieu of, her dower right.
Section 2 of this act is, however, an amendment of chapter 157 of the Laws of 1842, and relates to personal property, and is contingent, in its scope and effect, upon the previous section. If the decedent leaves real estate, so that the actual present value of the portion set apart to the widow in compliance with section 30, and the actual present value of her dower interest, and the $150 provided for in this section, amount to $1,000, then the appraisers are not to set apart to her any other personal property; but, if these together make less than $1,000, then they are to appraise for her use sufficient personal property to make up for this deficiency. That is, to render effectual these new duties foisted upon the appraisers, it is their office—First, to set apart to the
The counsel for the widow argues that, in making the computation for the purpose of arriving at the amount of personal property to be set apart to her, the value of the dower interest and the $150 are not to betaken into account; that is, that the design of the statute is to increase the interest of the widow by $1,000 in any event, and the words in section 2, “in addition to the dower rights,” etc., are words of exclusion. The language does not warrant this construction. The first section relates exclusively to real estate, and it is, clearly, an enhancement of the widow’s interest therein; but no mention is made of her dower. In the second section, specific reference, by words; of inclusion, are made, not alone to the preceding section, but also to the dower right and the $150, using the significant term “together” to show the unity of these two, and the equally pointed phrase “in addition” to indicate they are to be taken in the computation with the interest referred to in section 30. If the intention was to have the computation based solely upon the first section, there was no necessity of lugging in any language referring to the dower interest; for there had been no mention of that right in the preceding portion of the statute. If the design had been to restrict this calculation to the value of the land mentioned in section 30, there would have been, an entire omission of the words, “in addition to her dower right, and together with said one hundred and fifty dollars.” Either that language must be given its ordinary significance, or else treated as surplusage; and the latter course will not be followed where the words can be given their usual acceptation without repugnance to the general scope of the statute. Again, the words “in addition” do not, ordinarily, mean “exclusive of,” but are diametrically opposed to the idea of diminution or abatement, but signify an increase of; an accession to.
There is still another question, of grave importance, involved in the construction of this statute. Does this portion set apart to the widow apply as against the creditors of decedent? 1 am inclined to think it must have that effect. Section 2 of the act is an amendment of the statute extending the list of articles exempted “from distress for rent and sale under execution;” and, surely, so far as that section is'concerned, the interest the widow takes in the property is absolved from any interference by the creditors of the deceased husband. The $150 set apart to her by this statute are not amenable to the husband’s debts, and the other property coming to her by virtue of this same statute would also be freed from the debt charge, as they pass by the same language. It would hardly be consistent to make the property set apart under the first section of this act of 1889 subject to the claims against the
The actual present value of her dower interest is, - - $105 49
ÜÍ the land set ¡ip.,i t to her by the appraisers, - . - 275 20
Add property set apart by appraisers, - 150 00
Total, ------- $530 69
— Leaving, to make up the cum of $1,000, $469.31, which the appraisers must set apart to the widow from U? personal property, or, in case there is insufficient for that purpose, so muck thereof as there may be; and an order will
be entered aceoioiki-ly.