Estate of Taylor
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1DissentManderino, Justice
I dissent. The majority has done a beautiful job of weaving one technicality after another into a tapestry of injustice lacking in both reason and common sense.
In the second paragraph of his will testator left an undivided interest in land to appellant. It is well-settled that a will speaks as of the time of death, and at the time of his death testator had an interest in the land as he described. Moreover, it is also well-settled that all parts of a will are to be given effect if reasonably possible. Testator, without any question, made a testamentary gift to appellant, and at the time of his…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Houston EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
- Bulger v. Wilderman and PleetSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
- Randal v. Jersey Mortgage Investment Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Carter EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1969
- Whiteside's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.