Ash-kum vs. Sorin. the land is exempt, from all the ordinary burdens and incidents which the law of the state imposes upon the owners of lands. He must assert his rights against a trespasser, or a person in possession under color of title, the same as any other person. The cases which have been cited by the counsel for the plaintiff, where land belonging to the Indian tribes has been held not to be taxable under the law of the states, have no application in this case. Here the land was severed from the mass of public lands by the grant, the selection of the President, and the issuing of the patent, and the United States could make no claim that the land belonged to an Indian tribe, or to a member of an Indian tribe as such, and I think the plaintiff has lost as to the land thus in possession of the defendants all right to the maintenance of this bill for dower by the delay in the application. More than thirty years elapsed between the death of her husband and the filing of this bill. Thirteen years elapsed between the issuing of the patent and the filing of the bill. During all this time, or the greater part of it, some of this property has been held adversely under a grant from her husband. That in a case of an application for dower on the part of the widow in lands held by her husband during coverture the statute of limitations applies, is settled by several cases.' The only question, therefore, is whether because she is a Pottawattomie won an, she is exempt from the operation of the general rules applicable in such cases; and whether any special disability attaches to her social and political status? I think not, and therefore I shall dismiss the bill as to these defendants thus in possession. In giving this opinion I do not wish to be understood as deciding that some of the other defenses made in this case may not be valid; but I prefer to place the decision on the 1Owen vs. Peacock, 38 Illinois 33; Steele vs. Gellatly, 41 do. 39; Whiting vs. Nicholl, 46 do. 230; Gilbert vs. Reynolds, 51 do. 513. Yale College vs. Runkle. ground of the laches of the plaintiff. It is difficult, for instance, to believe, in view of her husband's connection with the treaty of Tippecanoe, he himself being one of the signers of that treaty, and the fact that he made a conveyance of this tract of land long before he left Indiana and went to Kansas, that this claim was entirely unknown to his wife; but however that may be, it seems to me that when the title was conveyed by the Government, she must be placed in the same condition as any other person, and for the consequences of her acts and of her non-action where the rights of third parties are concerned, she has no special immunity. See also, Elwood vs. Flannigan, 104 United States, 562, where this same title was in question, and it was held that on the issuing of the patent to the grantee after his death, the title vested in his alienee.[REPORTER. THE PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF YALE AND OTHERS, EXECUTORS, ETC. TRUSTEES OF HAMILTON COLLEGE VS. SAME. CIRCUIT COURT-NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS-MAY, 1881. 1. WILLS-BEQUEST UPON CONDITION.-A testator by codicil to his will devised to his executors the residue of his estate for the purpose of founding an agricultural school at Knoxville, upon condition, “that before or within six months after my decease, responsible citizens of Knoxville and Knox county shall pledge at least forty thousand dollars Yale College vs. Runkle. to the same object and purpose." Held, that the testator by the last clause of the above condition did not contemplate the payment of the whole sum of $40,000 from the citizens of Knoxville, within six months after his decease, and a valid subscription for that amount payable at a future day by responsible citizens was a sufficient compliance with the condition of the bequest. 2. VALID SUBSCRIPTIONS.-The fact that these subscriptions were not payable in full until four years from date, in view of the fact that a long time must necessarily elapse before the estate of the testator could be settled and the money to pay the bequests realized from the sale of his property, does not make the subscriptions inoperative, provided they were in other respects responsible pledges; nor are they affected by making them payable to the executors of the will. 3. IRRESPONSIBLE SUBSCRIPTIONS.-The court is of opinion, from the character of the subscriptions made, they being in small amounts, by a large number of persons of limited means, and some of them conditional, that the subscription list in question was not a pledge of $40,000 by responsible citizens, as contemplated by the testator. 4. CODICIL REPEAL OF WILLS-PAYMENTS DURING LIFE-The testator by the original will and by a codicil, after making donations to certain institutions, declared that all sums paid by him in his lifetime to such institutions should be deducted from such bequests. By a second codicil other bequests were made to the same institutions, and it was declared that by such second codicil he repealed, annulled and declared void all clauses in his will and first codicil, inconsistent with the second codicil, otherwise they were to remain in force. Held, that taking into view the general scope and purpose of the original will as well as the codicils, it must be considered that the testator intended that all payments made during his lifetime should be deducted from the bequests made. The facts in these cases were as follows: James Knox, of Knox county, Illinois, died on the 8th day of October, 1876. By his will dated January 27th, 1872, he made various bequests to his relatives and friends, varying from $1,000 to $10,000 each. He also left an annuity to his sister of $1,200. He gave to the city of Knoxville, in Knox county, $2,000 in trust for specific purposes; to the Ewing Female University in Knoxville, $10,000, upon condition that a like sum should be procured within one year by subscriptions for the purpose of enlarging the university building; to Hamilton and Yale Yale College vs. Runkle. Colleges, $15,000 each, but he "expressly provided that any donations which in my lifetime I may make to either of the three institutions of learning above mentioned, shall be deducted from the legacy and bequest in favor of such institution." He added a codicil to his will on the 2d day of January, 1874, in which he stated that he had in the meantime given $10,000 each to the Ewing Female University, Hamilton College, and Yale College. By this codicil he gave to the Ewing Female University or St. Mary's School, at Knoxville, the further sum of $10,000 upon certain conditions, among others, that an equal sum should be pledged to the same object by other responsible parties. By this codicil he devised to his executors all the rest and residue of his estate for the founding of an agricultural school to be located near Knoxville; and he repeated the provision and condition in the original will as to payments made in his lifetime to any of these legatees. On the 12th day of January, 1875, he added another codicil to his will, in which he declared that in his opinion, the "donations" which had been made to Hamilton and Yale Colleges, and which were unpaid, could be better used in the cause of education in the Mississippi valley, and he therefore annulled the clauses in his will and codicil having reference to such bequests. By this codicil he also reduced the legacies by $1,000 each, which had been given to certain of his relations, where they amounted to more than $1,000 each, for the purpose of increasing the bequest in favor of the agricultural school. In this way, he stated, he could make additions ($31,000) for the purpose of founding and building up that school. The bequest, together with the conditions, is in the following terms: "And now I give, bequeath and devise to my last named executors, the survivors or survivor of them, all the rest and Yale College vs. Runkle. residue of my estate, for the benefit of the school last referred to, but with the express condition and proviso that, before or within six months after my decease, responsible citizens of Knoxville and Knox county shall pledge, at least, forty thousand dollars to the same object and purpose. Fearing that without such moral and material aid my earnest wish and purpose will be fruitless, I hereby revoke and declare null and void all I have heretofore written in regard to the contemplated school near Knoxville, unless the said sum of $40,000 shall be pledged and subscribed as above written. If this be not done, then, and in lieu of the money I intended for said agricultural school, I give and bequeath to the trustees, and to their successors, of Hamilton and Yale Colleges, $40,000 each, in addition to $10,000 heretofore paid by me to each of said institutions." In January, 1876, he paid to Hamilton and Yale Colleges, $10,000 each. The provision and condition contained in the original will and in the first codicil as to payments made during his lifetime were not in terms repeated in the second codicil. All the rest and residue of his estate he gave to the trustees of Ewing Female University. By this codicil he repealed, annulled and declared void, all clauses and provisions of the will and first codicil inconsistent with this. The bills filed in this case alleged that the condition of the last codicil of the will has not been complied with as required by the testator; and, therefore, that the bequest to Yale and Hamilton Colleges has taken effect. It was alleged in their answer by the executors that a subscription paper was prepared by which the subscribers promised to pay to the executors the sums set opposite their names, for the purpose of raising the required fund for carrying into effect the provisions of the will; and that subscriptions to the amount of $43,061 were made by responsible parties, which |