(A) wills. A taking away or revocation of a legacy, by the testator. 2. It is either express or implied. It is the former when revoked in express terms by a codicil or later will; it is implied when by the acts of the testator it is manifestly his intention to revoke it; for example, when a specific legacy of, a chattel is made, and afterwards the testator sells it; or if a father makes provision for a child by his will and afterwards gives to such child, if a daughter, a portion in marriage; or, if a son, a sum of money to establish him in life, provided such portion or sum of money be equal to or greater than the legacy. (B) wills. When a gift/bequest in a will fails due to the failure of the testator to own the property to be given at the time of his or her death, which may have been due to prior sale, destruction of the item or it being given away even to the intended beneficiary. If the property does not exist at the time of the testator’s death, the beneficiary gets no replacement for the property that failed to be passed to the beneficiary.
Law Dictionary – Alternative Legal Definition
The revocation, recalling, or cancellation of a legacy, according to the apparent intention of the testator, implied by the law from acts done by him in his life, though such acts do not amount to an express revocation of it. Kenaday v. Sinnott, 179 U. S. 606, 21 Sup. Ct. 233, 45 L. Ed. 339; Burnham v. Comfort, 108 N. Y. 535, 15 N. E. 710, 2 Am. St Rep. 462; Tanton v. Keller, 167 111. 129, 47 N. B. 376; Cowles v. Cowles, 56 Conn. 240, 13 Atl. 414. “The word ‘ademption’ is the most significant, because, being a term of art, and never used for any other purpose, it does not suggest any idea foreign to that intended to be conveyed. It is used to describe the act by which the testator grants to his legatee, in his life time, a general legacy which by his will he had proposed to give him at his death. (1 Rop. Leg. p. 365.) It is also used to denote the act by which a specific legacy has become inoperative on account of the testator having parted with the subject.” Langdon v. Astor, 16 N. Y. 40. Ademption, in strictness, is predicable only of specific, and satisfaction of general legacies. Beck v. McGMis, 9 Barb. (N. Y.) 35, 56; Langdon v. Astor, 3 Duer (N. Y.) 477, 541.