class doctrine in Tennessee

1960The class doctrine rule was established in Tennessee by the case of Satterfield v. Mayes, 30 Tenn. 58 , decided in 1849, and has been followed in a long line of cases since then, down to and including 1959, — among which cases are Forrest v. Porch, 100 Tenn. 391 , 45 S. W. 676 ; Nichols v. Guthrie, 109 Tenn. 535 , 73 S. W. 107 ; Sanders v. Byrom, 112 Tenn. 472 , 79 S. W. 1028 ; Tate v. Tate, 126 Tenn. 169 , 148 S. W. 1042 ; Rinks v. Gordon, 160 Tenn. 345 , 24 S. W. (2d) 896 ; Jennings v. Jennings, 165 Tenn. 295 , 54 S. W. (2d) 961 ; Hobson v. Hobson, 184 Tenn. 484 , 201 S. W. (2d) 659 ; Felts

1917The class doctrine has been comprehensively treated of in the comparatively recent cases of Sanders v. Byrom, 112 Tenn., 472 , 79 S. W., 1028 , and Tate v. Tate, 126 Tenn., 169 , 148 S. W., 1042 .

2002The result required under the common law doctrine was that the gift to a nonsurviving member of the class would lapse, depriving even his children of any interest.23 The word “‘issue’ . . . includes all persons who have descended from a common ancestor; unless controlled by the context, it means lineal descendants.” ROBINSON & MOBLEY , supra, § 461. 23 The class doctrine first appeared as a judicially created rule of construction in Satterfield v. Mayes, 30 Tenn. 58 (1849).

1960Such constitutes the requirements for application of the class doctrine as prescribed in Satterfield v. Mayes, 30 Tenn. 58 , and all of those requirements are present in the instant case.

2002R EV at 30-31. 28 W e note that the Wilson court’s construction is similar to that of the court in Martindale v. Union Planters National Bank, 199 6 W L 2666 50, d iscusse d earlier. 29 Finding this conclusion a necessary consequence of the class doctrine statute, the court stated: In Nichols v. Guthrie, 109 Tenn. 535 , 73 S.W.107; Rinks v. Gordon, 160 Tenn. 345 , 24 S.W.2d 896 , and Felts v. Felts, 188 Tenn. 404 , 219 S.W.2d 903 , attempted conveyances, by will or by deed, of those who w ould have inherited if they had survived the life tenant and qualified as members of the class were design

1960The class doctrine rule was established in Tennessee by the case of Satterfield v. Mayes, 30 Tenn. 58 , decided in 1849, and has been followed in a long line of cases since then, down to and including 1959, — among which cases are Forrest v. Porch, 100 Tenn. 391 , 45 S. W. 676 ; Nichols v. Guthrie, 109 Tenn. 535 , 73 S. W. 107 ; Sanders v. Byrom, 112 Tenn. 472 , 79 S. W. 1028 ; Tate v. Tate, 126 Tenn. 169 , 148 S. W. 1042 ; Rinks v. Gordon, 160 Tenn. 345 , 24 S. W. (2d) 896 ; Jennings v. Jennings, 165 Tenn. 295 , 54 S. W. (2d) 961 ; Hobson v. Hobson, 184 Tenn. 484 , 201 S. W. (2d) 659 ; Felts

1960The class doctrine rule was established in Tennessee by the case of Satterfield v. Mayes, 30 Tenn. 58 , decided in 1849, and has been followed in a long line of cases since then, down to and including 1959, — among which cases are Forrest v. Porch, 100 Tenn. 391 , 45 S. W. 676 ; Nichols v. Guthrie, 109 Tenn. 535 , 73 S. W. 107 ; Sanders v. Byrom, 112 Tenn. 472 , 79 S. W. 1028 ; Tate v. Tate, 126 Tenn. 169 , 148 S. W. 1042 ; Rinks v. Gordon, 160 Tenn. 345 , 24 S. W. (2d) 896 ; Jennings v. Jennings, 165 Tenn. 295 , 54 S. W. (2d) 961 ; Hobson v. Hobson, 184 Tenn. 484 , 201 S. W. (2d) 659 ; Felts

1960The class doctrine rule was established in Tennessee by the case of Satterfield v. Mayes, 30 Tenn. 58 , decided in 1849, and has been followed in a long line of cases since then, down to and including 1959, — among which cases are Forrest v. Porch, 100 Tenn. 391 , 45 S. W. 676 ; Nichols v. Guthrie, 109 Tenn. 535 , 73 S. W. 107 ; Sanders v. Byrom, 112 Tenn. 472 , 79 S. W. 1028 ; Tate v. Tate, 126 Tenn. 169 , 148 S. W. 1042 ; Rinks v. Gordon, 160 Tenn. 345 , 24 S. W. (2d) 896 ; Jennings v. Jennings, 165 Tenn. 295 , 54 S. W. (2d) 961 ; Hobson v. Hobson, 184 Tenn. 484 , 201 S. W. (2d) 659 ; Felts

2002R EV at 30-31. 28 W e note that the Wilson court’s construction is similar to that of the court in Martindale v. Union Planters National Bank, 199 6 W L 2666 50, d iscusse d earlier. 29 Finding this conclusion a necessary consequence of the class doctrine statute, the court stated: In Nichols v. Guthrie, 109 Tenn. 535 , 73 S.W.107; Rinks v. Gordon, 160 Tenn. 345 , 24 S.W.2d 896 , and Felts v. Felts, 188 Tenn. 404 , 219 S.W.2d 903 , attempted conveyances, by will or by deed, of those who w ould have inherited if they had survived the life tenant and qualified as members of the class were design

2002R EV at 30-31. 28 W e note that the Wilson court’s construction is similar to that of the court in Martindale v. Union Planters National Bank, 199 6 W L 2666 50, d iscusse d earlier. 29 Finding this conclusion a necessary consequence of the class doctrine statute, the court stated: In Nichols v. Guthrie, 109 Tenn. 535 , 73 S.W.107; Rinks v. Gordon, 160 Tenn. 345 , 24 S.W.2d 896 , and Felts v. Felts, 188 Tenn. 404 , 219 S.W.2d 903 , attempted conveyances, by will or by deed, of those who w ould have inherited if they had survived the life tenant and qualified as members of the class were design

1967It is entirely possible that on the death of Mrs. Tigrett, Sr. there may have to be a marshalling of assets to completely and properly comply with the provisions of the will relating to the trust fund and the remainder interests in the several areas of real estate, particularly relating to the provisions of the class doctrine enunciated in the case of Walker v. Applebury, 218 Tenn. 91 , 400 S.W.2d 865 .

1967It is entirely possible that on the death of Mrs. Tigrett, Sr. there may have to be a marshalling of assets to completely and properly comply with the provisions of the will relating to the trust fund and the remainder interests in the several areas of real estate, particularly relating to the provisions of the class doctrine enunciated in the case of Walker v. Applebury, 218 Tenn. 91 , 400 S.W.2d 865 .

2002R EV at 30-31. 28 W e note that the Wilson court’s construction is similar to that of the court in Martindale v. Union Planters National Bank, 199 6 W L 2666 50, d iscusse d earlier. 29 Finding this conclusion a necessary consequence of the class doctrine statute, the court stated: In Nichols v. Guthrie, 109 Tenn. 535 , 73 S.W.107; Rinks v. Gordon, 160 Tenn. 345 , 24 S.W.2d 896 , and Felts v. Felts, 188 Tenn. 404 , 219 S.W.2d 903 , attempted conveyances, by will or by deed, of those who w ould have inherited if they had survived the life tenant and qualified as members of the class were design

2002R EV at 30-31. 28 W e note that the Wilson court’s construction is similar to that of the court in Martindale v. Union Planters National Bank, 199 6 W L 2666 50, d iscusse d earlier. 29 Finding this conclusion a necessary consequence of the class doctrine statute, the court stated: In Nichols v. Guthrie, 109 Tenn. 535 , 73 S.W.107; Rinks v. Gordon, 160 Tenn. 345 , 24 S.W.2d 896 , and Felts v. Felts, 188 Tenn. 404 , 219 S.W.2d 903 , attempted conveyances, by will or by deed, of those who w ould have inherited if they had survived the life tenant and qualified as members of the class were design

2002R EV at 30-31. 28 W e note that the Wilson court’s construction is similar to that of the court in Martindale v. Union Planters National Bank, 199 6 W L 2666 50, d iscusse d earlier. 29 Finding this conclusion a necessary consequence of the class doctrine statute, the court stated: In Nichols v. Guthrie, 109 Tenn. 535 , 73 S.W.107; Rinks v. Gordon, 160 Tenn. 345 , 24 S.W.2d 896 , and Felts v. Felts, 188 Tenn. 404 , 219 S.W.2d 903 , attempted conveyances, by will or by deed, of those who w ould have inherited if they had survived the life tenant and qualified as members of the class were design

2002R EV at 30-31. 28 W e note that the Wilson court’s construction is similar to that of the court in Martindale v. Union Planters National Bank, 199 6 W L 2666 50, d iscusse d earlier. 29 Finding this conclusion a necessary consequence of the class doctrine statute, the court stated: In Nichols v. Guthrie, 109 Tenn. 535 , 73 S.W.107; Rinks v. Gordon, 160 Tenn. 345 , 24 S.W.2d 896 , and Felts v. Felts, 188 Tenn. 404 , 219 S.W.2d 903 , attempted conveyances, by will or by deed, of those who w ould have inherited if they had survived the life tenant and qualified as members of the class were design

1960The class doctrine rule was established in Tennessee by the case of Satterfield v. Mayes, 30 Tenn. 58 , decided in 1849, and has been followed in a long line of cases since then, down to and including 1959, — among which cases are Forrest v. Porch, 100 Tenn. 391 , 45 S. W. 676 ; Nichols v. Guthrie, 109 Tenn. 535 , 73 S. W. 107 ; Sanders v. Byrom, 112 Tenn. 472 , 79 S. W. 1028 ; Tate v. Tate, 126 Tenn. 169 , 148 S. W. 1042 ; Rinks v. Gordon, 160 Tenn. 345 , 24 S. W. (2d) 896 ; Jennings v. Jennings, 165 Tenn. 295 , 54 S. W. (2d) 961 ; Hobson v. Hobson, 184 Tenn. 484 , 201 S. W. (2d) 659 ; Felts

1960The class doctrine rule was established in Tennessee by the case of Satterfield v. Mayes, 30 Tenn. 58 , decided in 1849, and has been followed in a long line of cases since then, down to and including 1959, — among which cases are Forrest v. Porch, 100 Tenn. 391 , 45 S. W. 676 ; Nichols v. Guthrie, 109 Tenn. 535 , 73 S. W. 107 ; Sanders v. Byrom, 112 Tenn. 472 , 79 S. W. 1028 ; Tate v. Tate, 126 Tenn. 169 , 148 S. W. 1042 ; Rinks v. Gordon, 160 Tenn. 345 , 24 S. W. (2d) 896 ; Jennings v. Jennings, 165 Tenn. 295 , 54 S. W. (2d) 961 ; Hobson v. Hobson, 184 Tenn. 484 , 201 S. W. (2d) 659 ; Felts

1960It is true there is another line of cases headed by Bridgewater v. Gordon, 34 Tenn. 5 , and including the comparatively recent case of Harris v. France, 1950, 33 Tenn. App. 333 , 232 S. W. (2d) 64 , 69 which advocate the doctrine of seizing slight grounds for refusing to apply the rule.

1956With reference to the latter question, Anderson, P. J., speaking for the Court of Appeals, said at page 349 of 33 Tenn. App., at page 71 of 232 S. W. (2d), after reviewing cases dealing with that subject, “It is clear, therefore, that the class doctrine is no fixed rule of law to be applied without regard to the testator’s intention, as for instance, is the rule against perpetuities.

1960The class doctrine rule was established in Tennessee by the case of Satterfield v. Mayes, 30 Tenn. 58 , decided in 1849, and has been followed in a long line of cases since then, down to and including 1959, — among which cases are Forrest v. Porch, 100 Tenn. 391 , 45 S. W. 676 ; Nichols v. Guthrie, 109 Tenn. 535 , 73 S. W. 107 ; Sanders v. Byrom, 112 Tenn. 472 , 79 S. W. 1028 ; Tate v. Tate, 126 Tenn. 169 , 148 S. W. 1042 ; Rinks v. Gordon, 160 Tenn. 345 , 24 S. W. (2d) 896 ; Jennings v. Jennings, 165 Tenn. 295 , 54 S. W. (2d) 961 ; Hobson v. Hobson, 184 Tenn. 484 , 201 S. W. (2d) 659 ; Felts

1960The class doctrine rule was established in Tennessee by the case of Satterfield v. Mayes, 30 Tenn. 58 , decided in 1849, and has been followed in a long line of cases since then, down to and including 1959, — among which cases are Forrest v. Porch, 100 Tenn. 391 , 45 S. W. 676 ; Nichols v. Guthrie, 109 Tenn. 535 , 73 S. W. 107 ; Sanders v. Byrom, 112 Tenn. 472 , 79 S. W. 1028 ; Tate v. Tate, 126 Tenn. 169 , 148 S. W. 1042 ; Rinks v. Gordon, 160 Tenn. 345 , 24 S. W. (2d) 896 ; Jennings v. Jennings, 165 Tenn. 295 , 54 S. W. (2d) 961 ; Hobson v. Hobson, 184 Tenn. 484 , 201 S. W. (2d) 659 ; Felts

1960It is true there is another line of cases headed by Bridgewater v. Gordon, 34 Tenn. 5 , and including the comparatively recent case of Harris v. France, 1950, 33 Tenn. App. 333 , 232 S. W. (2d) 64 , 69 which advocate the doctrine of seizing slight grounds for refusing to apply the rule.

1950Bridgewater v. Gordon, 34 Tenn. 5 ; Sanders v. Byrom, supra; Tate v. Tate, 126 Tenn. 169 , 148 S. W. 1042 ; Keeling v. Keeling, 185 Tenn. 134 , 203 S. W. (2d) 601 .

2002Wilson, 47 Tenn. App. at 206 , 337 S.W.2d at 461 .28 In Wilson the testator devised his real property to his wife in life estate with the remainder to be “equally divided between my brother and sisters, and the children of any deceased brother or sister.” This court held that the common law “Class Doctrine,” as applied or described in a long line of cases, including Harris and Denison, applied and that the interests of the members of the class, as individuals, could not be definitely ascertained until the death of the life tenant.

2002Wilson, 47 Tenn. App. at 206 , 337 S.W.2d at 461 .28 In Wilson the testator devised his real property to his wife in life estate with the remainder to be “equally divided between my brother and sisters, and the children of any deceased brother or sister.” This court held that the common law “Class Doctrine,” as applied or described in a long line of cases, including Harris and Denison, applied and that the interests of the members of the class, as individuals, could not be definitely ascertained until the death of the life tenant.

1965Since 1927 we have these important cases: Jennings v. Jennings, supra, stating that the statute is prospective; Denison v. Jowers, supra, stating that the statute did not change anything; Karsch v. Atkins, 203 Tenn. 350 , 313 S.W.2d 253 (1958), a tax case which held the statute was applicable and vested transmissible interests were created; and Moulton v. Dawson, 215 Tenn. 184 , 384 S.W.2d 233 (1964), holding, by dictum, that the legislature did what it said it was going to do in 1927 and changed the class doctrine.

1965Since 1927 we have these important cases: Jennings v. Jennings, supra, stating that the statute is prospective; Denison v. Jowers, supra, stating that the statute did not change anything; Karsch v. Atkins, 203 Tenn. 350 , 313 S.W.2d 253 (1958), a tax case which held the statute was applicable and vested transmissible interests were created; and Moulton v. Dawson, 215 Tenn. 184 , 384 S.W.2d 233 (1964), holding, by dictum, that the legislature did what it said it was going to do in 1927 and changed the class doctrine.

1965Since 1927 we have these important cases: Jennings v. Jennings, supra, stating that the statute is prospective; Denison v. Jowers, supra, stating that the statute did not change anything; Karsch v. Atkins, 203 Tenn. 350 , 313 S.W.2d 253 (1958), a tax case which held the statute was applicable and vested transmissible interests were created; and Moulton v. Dawson, 215 Tenn. 184 , 384 S.W.2d 233 (1964), holding, by dictum, that the legislature did what it said it was going to do in 1927 and changed the class doctrine.

1965Since 1927 we have these important cases: Jennings v. Jennings, supra, stating that the statute is prospective; Denison v. Jowers, supra, stating that the statute did not change anything; Karsch v. Atkins, 203 Tenn. 350 , 313 S.W.2d 253 (1958), a tax case which held the statute was applicable and vested transmissible interests were created; and Moulton v. Dawson, 215 Tenn. 184 , 384 S.W.2d 233 (1964), holding, by dictum, that the legislature did what it said it was going to do in 1927 and changed the class doctrine.

1964As was stated in Jordan v. Jordan, 145 Tenn. 378, 414 , 239 S.W. 423 , 433: “Certainly we have in the instant ease the three elements essential to the application of the class rule: (1) A class of persons subject to fluctuation by increase or diminution; (2) conveyance to a class; and (3) a time of distribution fixed at a subsequent period.” The Court. has in many cases commented upon the difficulty in applying the “Class Doctrine” as it existed prior to the 1927 Act, but has continued to recognize it in applicable cases.

1960The class doctrine rule was established in Tennessee by the case of Satterfield v. Mayes, 30 Tenn. 58 , decided in 1849, and has been followed in a long line of cases since then, down to and including 1959, — among which cases are Forrest v. Porch, 100 Tenn. 391 , 45 S. W. 676 ; Nichols v. Guthrie, 109 Tenn. 535 , 73 S. W. 107 ; Sanders v. Byrom, 112 Tenn. 472 , 79 S. W. 1028 ; Tate v. Tate, 126 Tenn. 169 , 148 S. W. 1042 ; Rinks v. Gordon, 160 Tenn. 345 , 24 S. W. (2d) 896 ; Jennings v. Jennings, 165 Tenn. 295 , 54 S. W. (2d) 961 ; Hobson v. Hobson, 184 Tenn. 484 , 201 S. W. (2d) 659 ; Felts

1960The class doctrine rule was established in Tennessee by the case of Satterfield v. Mayes, 30 Tenn. 58 , decided in 1849, and has been followed in a long line of cases since then, down to and including 1959, — among which cases are Forrest v. Porch, 100 Tenn. 391 , 45 S. W. 676 ; Nichols v. Guthrie, 109 Tenn. 535 , 73 S. W. 107 ; Sanders v. Byrom, 112 Tenn. 472 , 79 S. W. 1028 ; Tate v. Tate, 126 Tenn. 169 , 148 S. W. 1042 ; Rinks v. Gordon, 160 Tenn. 345 , 24 S. W. (2d) 896 ; Jennings v. Jennings, 165 Tenn. 295 , 54 S. W. (2d) 961 ; Hobson v. Hobson, 184 Tenn. 484 , 201 S. W. (2d) 659 ; Felts

1956Upon the contrary, in this state as elsewhere, the rule for determining whether the gifts to several persons are gifts to them as a class or as individuals, is to ascertain the intention of the testator. ” The case of Hassell v. Sims, 176 Tenn. 318 , 141 S. W. (2d) 472 , is another case involving the rule against per-petuities.

1956Upon the contrary, in this state as elsewhere, the rule for determining whether the gifts to several persons are gifts to them as a class or as individuals, is to ascertain the intention of the testator. ” The case of Hassell v. Sims, 176 Tenn. 318 , 141 S. W. (2d) 472 , is another case involving the rule against per-petuities.

1952“See Wilson v. Wilson, 134 Tenn. 697 , 185 S. W. 718 ; Hamilton County v. Bryant, 175 Tenn. 123 , 132 S. W. (2d) 639 ; Hamilton County v. Gerlach, 176 Tenn. 288 , 140 S. W. (2d) 1084 , and other cases.

1952“See Wilson v. Wilson, 134 Tenn. 697 , 185 S. W. 718 ; Hamilton County v. Bryant, 175 Tenn. 123 , 132 S. W. (2d) 639 ; Hamilton County v. Gerlach, 176 Tenn. 288 , 140 S. W. (2d) 1084 , and other cases.

1952“See Wilson v. Wilson, 134 Tenn. 697 , 185 S. W. 718 ; Hamilton County v. Bryant, 175 Tenn. 123 , 132 S. W. (2d) 639 ; Hamilton County v. Gerlach, 176 Tenn. 288 , 140 S. W. (2d) 1084 , and other cases.

1952“See Wilson v. Wilson, 134 Tenn. 697 , 185 S. W. 718 ; Hamilton County v. Bryant, 175 Tenn. 123 , 132 S. W. (2d) 639 ; Hamilton County v. Gerlach, 176 Tenn. 288 , 140 S. W. (2d) 1084 , and other cases.

1952“See Wilson v. Wilson, 134 Tenn. 697 , 185 S. W. 718 ; Hamilton County v. Bryant, 175 Tenn. 123 , 132 S. W. (2d) 639 ; Hamilton County v. Gerlach, 176 Tenn. 288 , 140 S. W. (2d) 1084 , and other cases.

1950Bridgewater v. Gordon, 34 Tenn. 5 ; Sanders v. Byrom, supra; Tate v. Tate, 126 Tenn. 169 , 148 S. W. 1042 ; Keeling v. Keeling, 185 Tenn. 134 , 203 S. W. (2d) 601 .

1950Bridgewater v. Gordon, 34 Tenn. 5 ; Sanders v. Byrom, supra; Tate v. Tate, 126 Tenn. 169 , 148 S. W. 1042 ; Keeling v. Keeling, 185 Tenn. 134 , 203 S. W. (2d) 601 .

1944If the Association is properly before the Court as in Powers v. Journeymen Bricklayers' Union, supra, its various members are likewise before the Court, since "they are privy to the proceedings touching the body of which they are members." Patch Manufacturing Co. v. Capeless, 79 Vt. 1 , 63 A., 938, 940 ; Jardine v. Superior Court, 213 Cal. 301 , 2 P.2d 756 , Annotated 79 A.L.R., 291, 305 ; Carpenters' Union v. Citizens' Committee, 333 Ill. 225 , 164 N.E. 393 , 63 A.L.R., 177 , and cases there cited.

1944If the Association is properly before the Court as in Powers v. Journeymen Bricklayers' Union, supra, its various members are likewise before the Court, since "they are privy to the proceedings touching the body of which they are members." Patch Manufacturing Co. v. Capeless, 79 Vt. 1 , 63 A., 938, 940 ; Jardine v. Superior Court, 213 Cal. 301 , 2 P.2d 756 , Annotated 79 A.L.R., 291, 305 ; Carpenters' Union v. Citizens' Committee, 333 Ill. 225 , 164 N.E. 393 , 63 A.L.R., 177 , and cases there cited.

1944In Brown v. Brown, 86 Tenn. 277 , 6 S.W. 869 , 7 S.W. 640 , the class doctrine was sustained, the Court holding: "`Where it is attempted to proceed against two or three individuals as representing a numerous class, it must be alleged in the bill that the suit is brought against them in that character,' otherwise the other members of the class will not be affected by the proceedings." We must concede without hesitation that, where members of a class are not sued as representatives of all others of the same class, the decree of the Court is binding only as to them.

1944In Brown v. Brown, 86 Tenn., 277 , 6 S. W., 869 , 7 S. W., 640 , the class doctrine was sustained, the Court holding: “ ‘Where it is attempted to proceed against two or three individuals as representing a numerous class, it must be alleged in the bill that the suit is brought against them in that character,’ otherwise the other members of the class will not be affected by the proceedings.” We must concede without hesitation that, where members of a class are not sued as representatives of all others of the same class, the decree of the Court is binding only as to them.

1944Under the authority of Powers v. Journeymen Bricklayers' Union, 130 Tenn. 643 , 172 S.W. 284 , L.R.A. 1915E, 1006 , as well as other authorities cited in the original opinion, we think the class doctrine was applicable and that the original decree was binding upon all who were represented.

1944If the Association is properly before the Court as in Powers v. Journeymen Bricklayers' Union, supra, its various members are likewise before the Court, since "they are privy to the proceedings touching the body of which they are members." Patch Manufacturing Co. v. Capeless, 79 Vt. 1 , 63 A., 938, 940 ; Jardine v. Superior Court, 213 Cal. 301 , 2 P.2d 756 , Annotated 79 A.L.R., 291, 305 ; Carpenters' Union v. Citizens' Committee, 333 Ill. 225 , 164 N.E. 393 , 63 A.L.R., 177 , and cases there cited.

1944If the Association is properly before the Court as in Powers v. Journeymen Bricklayers' Union, supra, its various members are likewise before the Court, since "they are privy to the proceedings touching the body of which they are members." Patch Manufacturing Co. v. Capeless, 79 Vt. 1 , 63 A., 938, 940 ; Jardine v. Superior Court, 213 Cal. 301 , 2 P.2d 756 , Annotated 79 A.L.R., 291, 305 ; Carpenters' Union v. Citizens' Committee, 333 Ill. 225 , 164 N.E. 393 , 63 A.L.R., 177 , and cases there cited.

1944If the Association is properly before the Court as in Powers v. Journeymen Bricklayers' Union, supra, its various members are likewise before the Court, since "they are privy to the proceedings touching the body of which they are members." Patch Manufacturing Co. v. Capeless, 79 Vt. 1 , 63 A., 938, 940 ; Jardine v. Superior Court, 213 Cal. 301 , 2 P.2d 756 , Annotated 79 A.L.R., 291, 305 ; Carpenters' Union v. Citizens' Committee, 333 Ill. 225 , 164 N.E. 393 , 63 A.L.R., 177 , and cases there cited.

1944If the Association is properly before the Court as in Powers v. Journeymen Bricklayers' Union, supra, its various members are likewise before the Court, since "they are privy to the proceedings touching the body of which they are members." Patch Manufacturing Co. v. Capeless, 79 Vt. 1 , 63 A., 938, 940 ; Jardine v. Superior Court, 213 Cal. 301 , 2 P.2d 756 , Annotated 79 A.L.R., 291, 305 ; Carpenters' Union v. Citizens' Committee, 333 Ill. 225 , 164 N.E. 393 , 63 A.L.R., 177 , and cases there cited.

1912In Jackson v. Everett, 3 Tenn. Cas., 811 , the words were “equally, share and share alike;” and in Fulkerson v. Bullard, supra, the word “shares” was used — that is, “equally amongst all my children, and in case any of my children should die before the time aforesaid, leaving lawful children, said last mentioned children shall take the shares of their parents,” etc. The use of the words “share” or “share and share alike” are in effect no more than the providing for equality as expressed in the words “equally” or “equally divided,” which is a thought essential to the class doctrine, since the p

1898Co. v. Webb, 54 Ala., 688 , coincides with New York in the application of * the class doctrine to such a policy, but both Courts agree that on the delivery of the policy the children then alive have a contingent interest in it, yet they also agree in holding it nontransmissible.