Ingersol v. Knowlton, 15 Conn. 468, 473; Minor v. Ferris, 22 Conn. 371; Peckham v. Lego, 57 Conn. 553, 560, 19 A. 392; Beers v. Narramore, 61 Conn. 13, 17, 22 A. 1061; Mansfield v. Mix, 71 Conn. 72, 76, 40 A. 915. The only disagreement among the courts is as to the test to be applied in determining whether a gift will be implied. In Wilkinson v. Adam, 1 V. B. 422, 466, 35 Eng. Rep. R. 163, Lord Eldon stated: ". . . necessary Implication means, not natural Necessity, but so strong a Probability of Intention, that an Intention contrary to that, which is imputed to the Testator, cannot be supposed"; and it has not infrequently been stated that this is the test to be applied in determining whether a gift will be implied. Daly v. Rogers, 132 N.J. Eq. 200, 205, 27 A.2d 885; Hunter v. Miller, 109 Neb. 219, 224, 190 N.W. 583; 2 Page, Wills (3d Ed.), 930; 2 Jarman, Wills (7th Ed.), p. 606. However, there has been a decided variance in the statements of the requirements which will suffice to give rise to the implication, even at times in different decisions of the same court. Boston Safe Deposit Co. v. Coffin, 152 Mass. 95, 100, 25 N.E. 30; Bond v. Moore, 236 Ill. 576, 580, 86 N.E. 386; Brown v. Quintard, 177 N.Y. 75, 84, 69 N.E. 225; Estate of Blake, 157 Cal. 448, 468, 108 P. 287.

The terms "necessarily implied" or "by necessary implication" are more restricted and limited in their meaning and connote not mere "natural Necessity, but so strong a Probability of Intention, that an Intention contrary to that, which is imputed to the Testator, cannot be supposed." Wilkinson v. Adam, 1 V. B. 422, 35 Eng. Reprint 163, 180. In Calloway v. Calloway, 171 Ky. 366, 188 S.W. 410, 412, practical application of the term "by necessary implication" is expressed as follows: "In the final analysis, however, it is upon the principle of carrying into effect the supposed intention of the testator that all the cases of devise by implication rest. If the language employed by the testator cannot reasonably be accounted for, except upon the supposition that he intended to make a certain disposition, but through lack of learning, want of advice, inadvertence, or mistake, failed to use the legal or proper phrases, the courts will carry into effect the intention so shown by implying such disposition, unless that disposition would contravene some well-established legal rule."

The rule, as stated by Jarman, took its final form, however, from a remark of Lord Eldon, in 1813, that "necessary implication means, not natural necessity, but so strong a probability of intention, that an intention contrary to that, which is imputed to the testator, cannot be supposed." Wilkinson v. Adam, 1 V. B. 422, 459, 466. If this be true, the presumption in favor of the heir is put on substantially the same ground as that in favor of the innocence of one on trial for crime.