wife of said son John, if she should survive her husband, shall enjoy during her life all the estate of her husband in all the other houses and lands mentioned in the instrument purporting to be his father’s will.  The court adjudge that this must have been “the real intent of the aforesaid John Endicott, Esq., deceased, who had during his life special favor and respect for her.”  They give the widow of the Governor “the goods and chattels” of the said John Endicott, Esq., her late husband, provided that, if “she shall die seized to the value of more than eighty pounds sterling” thereof, the surplus shall be divided between her two sons:  John to have a double portion thereof.  Finally, they appoint the widow sole administratrix, and require her to bring in a true inventory to the next court for the county of Suffolk, and to pay all debts.

John and his father-in-law had it all their own way.  The decision of the court was perhaps correct, according to legal principles; although it is not so certain that it was, in all respects, in conformity with the intent of Governor Endicott.  Undoubtedly, as the language of the deed shows, he had made up his mind to give to his son John and “his assigns” absolute, full, and final possession of the Bishop farm.  But it seems equally certain, that he meant to have the rest of his landed estate, including the Orchard Farm and the Ipswich-river farm, go directly and wholly to the survivor, if either of his sons died without issue.  The facts and dates are as follows:  His son John was married in 1653.  The Governor’s will was made in 1659.  It had then become quite probable that John might not have issue.  The will gives him and his heirs, but not his assigns, the Bishop farm.  In the event of his death without issue, his widow would have her dower and legal life right in it, but the final heir would be Zerubabel.  In 1662, the Governor, who had, some years before, removed to Boston, where he resided the remainder of his life, executed a deed, giving to his son John, “his heirs and assigns,” a full and permanent title to the Bishop farm.  This was a variation of the plan for the disposition of his estate as shown in his will.  He probably designed to make a new will, securing to his natural heirs, so far as his other landed property was concerned, what he had thus permitted to pass away from them in the Bishop farm; that is, the full and immediate possession by the survivor, if either of the sons died without issue.  It was a favorite idea, almost a sacred principle, in those days, to have lands go in the natural descent.  The sentiment is quite apparent in the tenor of the Governor’s will.  When he deprived, by his deed to John in 1662, Zerubabel’s family of the right to the final possession of the Bishop farm, it can hardly be doubted that he relied upon the provisions of his will to secure to them the immediate, complete possession of all his other lands, without the incumbrance of any claim of dower or otherwise of John’s widow.  But the pressure of public duties prevented his duly executing his will, and putting it into a new shape, in conformity with the circumstances of the case.  The troubles that followed teach the necessity of the utmost caution and carefulness in that most difficult and most irremediable of all business transactions,—­the attempt to continue the control of property, after death, by written instruments.