46 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. Then the value of each is ' o' or ' I,' and the true logical equations are as follows : — X -- y -- z = I (i)
- trj/ = O (2)
yz =0 (3) ZX = O (4) The lawyer practically refuses to acknowledge equation (i). If he writes anything, it is X -- y -{■ z = o, urging that as x, y, and z must each be deemed to be zero, unless they are proved to be unity, therefore X -- y -{■ z = o." To such a layman the lawyer's answer might indeed seem good law, but hopeless logic. This is a Law Review, but it may never- theless prove not uninteresting to examine one or two typical cases from this Philistine standpoint. Take, for instance, the case of the ambiguous devisee or legatee. .A testator gives his residue to " my nephew Jones." He has two and only two nephews named Jones, viz., Richard Jones and William Jones, both sui Juris, and it is quite certain that he meant one of them ; but, no evidence being forthcoming, it is impossible to ascertain which. Would it not be reasonable to allow Richard and William to join their claims and divide the property as they wished? It is not quite clear whether any such joinder was at- tempted in Stephenson, In re, Donaldson v. Bamber.^ Probably the law that an ambiguity counts as zero was too well accepted, but it certainly defeated the testator's intention in toto, whereas a joinder of the claims would have defeated it only pro tanto. Even if some of the claimants were infants, the court might well sanc- tion a compromise joining their claims, rather than let the whole property go to the heir, next of kin, or other persons whom the testator clearly intended to dispossess. To this small extent a leaning against intestacy would surely be permissible. Next take the case of the ambiguous devise or legacy. A testator seised of four freehold houses in Sudely Place leaves No. — Sudely Place to A, No. — Sudely Place to B, No. —Sudely Place to C, and No. — Sudely Place to D, the numbers of the houses being omitted. It will be noticed that the testator has not given " a 1 66 L. J. Ch. 93 ; [1897] i Ch 75.
