from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
- noun The failure of certain property to be passed on by will because such property is no longer owned by the testator or because the testator nullified the legacy by some act subsequent to the making of the will.
from The Century Dictionary.
- noun In law, the revocation of a grant, donation, or the like; especially, the lapse of a legacy, by the testator's satisfying it by delivery or payment to the legatee before his death, or
- noun by his otherwise dealing with the thing bequeathed so as to manifest an intent to revoke the bequest. See
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English.
- noun (Law) The revocation or taking away of a grant, donation, legacy, or the like.
from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License.
- noun law In the law of
wills, the determination of what happens when propertyleft under a will is no longer in the testator's estate when the testatordies.
from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition
from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
Marian, my good girl, turn over the dictionary for the word ademption, which may be Greek though, for all I understand of it.”
By reason of the ambulatory character (as Heineccius terms it) of man's will, legacies and trust-bequests (fidei-commissa) were subject to ademption and transfer to another legatee.
The word being explained, Solomon proceeded to repeat — “A man that marries must make up his mind to much ademption; he must be content to have his morning studies and his lucubrations disturbed, which will by no means adjuvate his improvements in the sciences.”
Solomon, with much precision and gravity, “must make his mind up to endure much ademption.”
Frustrated beneficiaries may challenge an ademption in court, especially if the property was not clearly identified in the first place alternate beneficiary
PORTION, advance of, no ademption of a bequest of residae, I. 083
($250,000.) to the University of Virginia should be in lieu of and in satisfaction of his said legacy of Two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) to said University, and the Board is now satisfied that the said gift did operate as an ademption or satisfaction of said legacy and that the University is not legally entitled to said legacy, and that it is its duty to renounce the same;
Whereas the question arose after the death of the said Oliver H. Payne as to whether said gift of Two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.) did not operate as an ademption or satisfaction of said legacy of Two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.), and the Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, having examined into the facts and being advised upon said facts as they then appeared that they were legally entitled to the legacy, passed a resolution at a meeting of the