Yes. Although I had seen it before and vaguely remembered the gist of the solution. It certainly a better solution then Solomon's might have been.

Very clever!

Often when there is such a probate issue here what happens when the item(s) cannot be divided, (common, for instance, when a home is involved) is that it or they are sold and the funds apportioned as the will requests.

I love it jasdip. I'll certainly remember the story. I am lucky I guess. I always think there's a way, if you dig hard enough, or are patient enough. Not too many things haven't fit into one of those categories in my life. So far ;)

I dunno Bob, Solomon surely got a quick answer. I bet he knew no one would allow the baby to be cut up.

Nice!

The eldest is better off than the middle son, and both are better off than the youngest son. That's why the father divided the horses accordingly.

Brushworks....I like Jasdip's moral better. :0) Very cool story!

Eh, not so clever a premise in my mind. The fractions don't add up to 100% so there will always be a remainder, whether or not the fractions result in whole numbers or not. If the dead guy HAD had 18 horses, as an example, there would have been one horse left over. Makes no sense.

If 17 is divided by 2, by 3, and by 9 (the bequest ratios) and each quotient (answer) is rounded up to the next whole number, you get exactly the same results. Adding the friend's horse to the group doesn't change anything so the so-called "moral" of the story is forced and really not demonstrated.

If you think "it works", fine.

each quotient (answer)

condescending! Also elmer just let go and enjoy. It's one of those things that helps people see a concrete answer in an abstract world. That's the problem the sons face at the beginning. No one wants half a horse. How do you solve it? Everyone is happy in the end. Unless they are upset it doesn't add up to 100%.

rob, why not send me your email address, so I can alert you when I make a comment in this forum. That way you won't have to look for what I've done as you seem to do, to add your disagreement or scorn with what I've said.

I'm happy to discuss and hear disagreeing opinions but your consistency in doing so seems forced. Why not mix it up a bit?

I'm just glad they didn't decide to make applesauce! (Old joke...)

I was always terrible at storybook problems!

The arbitrator Farmer settled the argument by not satisfying the will. He realized that the sum of 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/9 adds to 17/18 which is less than one. To satisfy the will mathematically, he'd have to carve up several horses and that was not a happy solution. He saw that if he added one horse, he could parcel out whole numbers of horses and since he was parceling out 17/18 of 18 horses, there would be a horse left over. The recipients were satisfied, however, the will was violated because the original division of chattel was not satisfied.

I'm a mathematical imbecile, but I love the "solution" offered by the wise neighbor.

Could one or more of the horses been in foal? While not a guarantee of an increase in the number of animals, it may have been a solution, too.

Yes I like the neighbour's mental sleight of hand as well.

Other totally silly solutions. Maybe one horse could be co owned. One takes care of the front of the horse, one the middle and one the back. :) Hey manure is good for something. A foal would belong to the horse's middle brother and the affection to the front brother. I'd love to have a third even of a horse to love.

Could there be a lawsuit declaring the will void? One could call the deceased's faculties into question. Just saying.

Have you ever heard the suggestion that people in some parts of the world are much more inclined to lawsuiting than is comon in some other parts of the world?

o j

I hope you're not suggesting that legal actions by heirs (or would-be heirs) to contest wills is less common in Canada than in the US, because I doubt very much if that's true.