were all the next of kin of Calvin W. Cooke at the date of the said will of Eunice B. Cooke; the persons whose names were given in that clause being his brothers and sisters. The-sixth finding of fact of the referee is as follows:
“6. After the making of her said will and before the death of the testatrix, four of the persons named in the said tenth clause died, viz., Persis Parke, who died on July 23, 1880. She was born on May 8, 1796; Chester Cooke, who died September 2, 1880. He was bom March 27,1798; James Cooke, who died April 10, 1884. He was born October 4, 1794; and Nathan Cooke, who died May 25,1885. He was bom November 20, 1802.”
The appellants are the children and heirs-at-law, next of kin and successors in interest of the said Persis Parke, Chester Cooke, James Cooke and Nathan Cooke, who are mentioned in the tenth clause of the will. The surrogate held, as a conclusion, that the several legacies and devises to Persis Parke, Chester Cooke, James Cooke and Nathan Cooke, contained in the tenth clause of the will of said decedent on the death of the said devisees and legatees, lapsed, and that as to the portion of her estate given to them in that clause the testator dies intestate, and the same passed and descended to the testator’s next of kin and heirs-at-law, and excluded the appellants from sharing in its distribution. From this decree the appellants have taken an appeal.
Slickney & Shepard, for app’lts; Charles A. Hawley, for resp’ts.
—The precise legal proposition presented and discussed by the learned counsel for the appellants, and upon which he relies for the purpose of procuring a modification of the surrogate’s decree so as to permit the appellants to share in the distribution, received full and deliberate consideration in the case of Vanbeuren v. Dash ( 30 N. Y., 393 .) _ The facts upon which the legal propositions are based in this case are similar in every essential particular to those presented by that. The rule of construction there adopted must be followed in disposing of this appeal, which leads to a confirmation of the surrogate’s decree.
Decree affirmed, with costs.
All concur.