as making the condition apply to all generations, it means that the deceased’s share passes to those of his own generation if he leaves no children, and to his children if he does.

It is known with certainty from people’s conduct that someone who makes all generations joint beneficiaries would not transfer the deceased’s share solely to those of his own generation, excluding those above him, yet withhold it from his children when he leaves children, treating them merely as other beneficiaries. On this interpretation, he would have given those of the deceased’s generation priority over the deceased’s children, despite not observing the order of generations. Clearly, no reasonable person would intend this. A reasonable person either observes the order of generations, without allowing them to share concurrently, or transfers the deceased’s share to his children, as in inheritance.

But to make them joint beneficiaries while assigning the deceased’s share exclusively to his siblings rather than his children runs contrary to what is known of people’s conduct. Even if the pronoun were assumed to admit either reference—to all generations or to the final generation—this indication supplied by circumstances and customary practice would determine which of the two possibilities is intended.

If it is objected:

The same consequence follows from your interpretation if you take the pronoun to refer to all generations. The wording requires succession among four generations and concurrent sharing among the remaining generations. Your position concerning the remaining generations is therefore the same as ours.

We reply:

This is disputed. Should the remaining generations share concurrently, in accordance with the unrestricted sharing implied by the conjunction “and,” or should they succeed one another, by inference from the order in which