## Facts

- A testator made a pecuniary bequest of a sum of money to a female beneficiary.
- The will provided that the money was to be paid to her at her age twenty‑one or on the day of her marriage, “to be paid unto her with interest.” ()  
- The beneficiary survived the testator, but died before reaching age twenty‑one and before marrying.
- The will language further contemplated that if she died before attaining 21 or marrying, the money should go to her executor (i.e., to her estate). ()  
- The dispute arose over whether the bequest was (a) merely contingent on her reaching 21 or marrying (and thus would lapse on her prior death), or (b) a present vested interest with payment postponed, such that the sum would pass to her personal representative (executor) despite her death before the specified date. ()  

## Issues

1. Whether a bequest of money “to be paid” at the legatee’s age twenty‑one or on marriage is a present vested interest with only the time of payment postponed, or instead a contingent gift that fails if the legatee dies before the specified age or event. ()  
2. Whether, when the legatee survives the testator but dies before reaching twenty‑one or marrying, the fund passes to the legatee’s executor (estate) or instead is treated as lapsed and retained or redistributed under the testator’s estate. ()  

## Decision

- The court held that where money is bequeathed to a person, simply “to be paid” at a future time (e.g., at age twenty‑one), and the legatee survives the testator, the gift is vested; only enjoyment is postponed. ()  
- Accordingly, in the bequest to the woman “at her age of twenty‑one years or day of marriage, to be paid unto her with interest,” because she survived the testator, the legacy was vested and, on her death before 21 or marriage, the fund passed to her executor. ()  
- By contrast, the court distinguished language making attainment of the age a true condition (e.g., a bequest “if” the legatee reaches twenty‑one). In such a case, if the legatee dies before fulfilling the condition, the gift is lost and does not pass to the legatee’s estate. ()  
- The case thus established that the outcome depends on whether the will’s wording is interpreted as (1) a vested gift with postponed payment or (2) a condition precedent to any vesting at all. ([journals.library.wustl.edu](https://journals.library.wustl.edu/lawreview/article/5000/galley/21833/download/))  

## Legal Principles

- **Vested gift with postponed enjoyment:** A legacy of money “to be paid” at a future time (such as age 21 or marriage), without clear conditional language, is ordinarily construed as a present, vested gift, with the specified age or event serving only to postpone the time of payment. If the legatee survives the testator but dies before the payment date, the fund passes to the legatee’s personal representative. ()  
- **True condition precedent (contingent gift):** Where the will clearly conditions the gift on the happening of an event (e.g., “if” or “provided that” the legatee attains a certain age or survives a particular person), the interest is contingent. If the condition is not satisfied during the legatee’s life, the gift fails and does not pass to the legatee’s estate. ()  
- **Construction of ambiguous timing language:** Whether language is merely postponing payment or imposing a condition is a matter of will construction; subtle differences in phrasing can determine whether a bequest vests immediately or remains contingent. ()  
- **Pre–anti‑lapse context:** Decided before modern anti‑lapse statutes, the case illustrates the common‑law approach: lapsed gifts (from failed conditions) would not pass to the legatee’s heirs but would instead fall back into the testator’s estate, whereas vested but unpaid gifts would be part of the legatee’s own estate. ()  

## Conclusion

Clobberie’s Case holds that a pecuniary legacy phrased as payable at a future age or marriage, without clear conditional wording, creates a vested interest upon the testator’s death; if the legatee then dies before the payment date, the legacy passes to her executor. The case remains an influential early authority on distinguishing vested future interests from contingent gifts in wills.


Clobberie's Case, 86 Eng. Rep. 476 (Ch. 1677)