ADVANCEMENT. A gift by anticipation from a parent to a child of the whole or a part of what it is supposed such child will inherit on the death of the parent. Hengst's Estate, 6 Watts (Pa.) 87 ; Sampson v. Samp son, 4 S. & R. (Pa.) 333 ; Osgood v. Breed's Heirs, 17 Mass. 358 ; Jackson v. Matsdorf, 11 Johns. (N. Y.) 91, 6 Am. Dec. 355 ; Parish v. Rhodes, Wright (Ohio) 339; Dames' Ex'r v. Lloyd, 82 Va. 859, 5 S. E. 87, 3 Am. St. Rep. 123. The doctrine applies only to in testate estates, and proceeds upon the pre sumption, in the absence of a will, that the gift is in anticipation of the parent's death, and that he intended equality ; but a subse quent disposal by will rebuts the presump tion ; Marshall v. Rench, 3 Del. Ch. 239, per Bates, Ch.
But an advancement, properly so called, though a thing known under certain ancient customs in England, is now a creature of statute, and, by the statute, is confined to intestate estates, and never applied to lands devised; Marshall v. Rench, 3 Del. Ch. 239, 253, where the opinion states fully the Eng lish statutes and policy.
An advancement can only be made by a parent to a child; Callender v. McCreary, 4 How. (Miss.) 356; Shiver v. Brock, 55 N. C. 137 ; Bisph. Eq. 84 ; or in some states, by statute, to a grandchild ; 4 Kent 419; Dick inson v. Lee, 4 Watts (Pa.) 82, 28 Am. Dec. 684 ; 4 Ves. 437. It must be ejusdent gener is; 3 Yo. & Coll. 397; as is the rule with re spect to ademption, q. v.
It is held that a gift to a husband by wife's father is considered an advancement to the wife; Bruce v. Slemp, 82 Va. 352, 4 S. E. 692 ; and that it is a question of fact, where decedent in his lifetime made a con veyance to his daughter-in-law ; Palmer v. Culbertson, 65 Hun 625, 20, N. Y. Supp. 391.
The intention of the parent is to decide whether a gift is intended as an advance ment ; Lawson's Appeal, 23 Pa. 85 ; Jackson v. Matsdorf, 11 Johns. (N. Y.) 91, 6 Am. Dec. 355; McPaw v. Blewit, 2 McCord Ch. (S.
O.) 103. See Weatherhead v. Field, 26 Vt. 665.
A mere gift is, presumptively an advance ment, but the contrary intention may be shown ; Brown v. Burke, 22 Ga. 574 ; Grat tan v. Grattan, 18 Ill. 167, 65 Am. Dec. 726; Lawrence v. Mitchell, 48 N. C. 190; Hatch v. Straight, 3 Conn. 31, 8 Am. Dec. 152; Scott v. Scott, 1 +Mass. 527; Bruce v. Slemp, 82 Va. 352, 4 S. E. 692; Culp v. Wilson, 133 Ind. 294, 32 N. E. 928. The maintenance and education of a child, or the gift of money without a view to a portion or settlement in life, is not deemed an advancement ; Ison v. Ison, 5 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 15 ; Sherwood v.
Smith, 23 Conn. 516. If security is taken for repayment, it is a debt and not an advance ment; High's Appeal, 21 Pa. 283; West v. Bolton, 23 Ga. 531; Barton v. Rice, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 508 ; and see Procter v. Newhall, 17 Mass. 93; Osgood v. Breed's Heirs, 17 Mass. 359; Stewart v. State, 2 Harr. & G. (Md.) 114. Payment of a son's debts will be con sidered an advancement; Steele v. Frierson, 85 Tenn. 430, 3 S. W. 649; or the payment by the father as surety of the notes of his son who had no estate; Reynolds' Adm'r v. Reynolds, 92 Ky. 556, 18 S. W. 517.
No particular formality is requisite to in dicate an advancement; 1 Madd. Ch. Pr. 507; 4 Kent 418; Brown v. Brown, 16 Vt. 197; unless prescribed by statute; 4 Kent 418; Hartwell v. Rice, 1 Gray (Mass.) 587; Mowry v. Smith, 5 R. I. 255 ; Sayles v. Bak er, 5 R. I. 457.
Where a father divides his property equal ly between two sons, conveying to one his share, it is considered an advancement where no deed is delivered to the other ; O'Connell v. O'Connell, 73 Ia. 733, 36 N. W. 764.
The effect of an advancement is to reduce the distributive share of the child by the amount so received, estimating its value at the time of receipt; Oyster v. Oyster, 1 S. & R. (Pa.) 422; Nelson v. Wyan, 21 Mo. 347; Burton v. Dickinson, 3 Yerg. (Tenn.) 112; Warfield v. Warfield, 5 Harr. & J. (Md.) 459; Beckwith v. Butler, 1 Wash. (Va.) 224; Hall v. Davis, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 450; in some states the child has his option to retain the advancement and abandon his distribu tive share; Clark v. Fox, 9 Dana (Ky.) 193 ; Taylor v. Reese, 4 Ala. 121; to abandon his advancement and receive his equal share of the estate; Knight v. Oliver, 12 Gratt. (Va.) 33; Andrews v. Hall, 15 Ala. 85; Phillips v. McLaughlin, 26 Miss. 592 ; Grattan v. Grat tan, 18 111. 167, 65 Am. Dec. 726; but this privilege exists only in case of intestacy ; Newman v. Wilbourne, 1 Hill, Ch. (S. C.) 10; Sturdevant v. Goodrich, 3 Yerg. (Tenn.) 95 ; Howland v. Heekscher, 3 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 520; Hawley v. James, 5 Paige, Ch. (N. Y.) 450; Ves. Ch. 323. See ADEMPTION ; GIFT.
It is not chargeable with interest; Miller's Appeal, 31 Pa. 337; until the settlement of the estate.