( 880 )
July 18.1910 Mr. Bawa relied. See, for example, In re Zipp,1 where, by the way,the widow seems herself to have aequiessed in the view that she hadBshttok J. only on usufruct, Rahl v. De Jager,1 Nugara v. Nugara,* and EndisSamara- v" ^'6rnan^0>i where it was expressly pointed out by the Supremediwakarav. Court that if a bequest contains words of futurity, ihe question hasDe Saram ^ jje considered in view of all circumstances of the case, whetherthey were inserted for the purpose of postponing the vesting of thelegacy, or of merely deferring its fulfilment, as where the bequestto one person is made subject to a life interest in favour of another.In all these and similar cases the question arises, and has, to beanswered in the light of the special circumstances, whether theperson indicated is an usufructuary or a fiduciary legatee.
In the present case I think that the terms of clauses VII and VIII, .of the will vested the dominium in the surviving widow, with a fideicommissium in favour of Edwin Robert; that clause IX, in the sameway, created a fidei commieeum as regards the “ Synagogue ” afterthe death of Edwin Bobert, in favour of his “ lawful heirs ”, thaton the death of Edwin Robert the ” Synagogue ” became subjectin the hands of the textarix to a fidei commissum in favour of hislawful heirs; and that for the reasons already given the firstplaintiff-apellant is one of those heirs.
On these grounds I would affirm -the judgment of the SupremeCourt in each of the appeals now before us with costs.
* (1893) 3 0. L. R. 35* (1905) 9 N. L. B. 77
*(1878) Juta L. C. 126
(1680) Juta L. C. 166