Legal Opinion · Dissent

Carmany Estate

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 10, 1947No. Appeals, 178 and 179Published

1Dissent

Me. Justice Allen M. Steaene,

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I do not agree that the daughter is granted a fee in the real estate here involved. On the contrary, under the plain provisions of this will, all she receives is but a life estate. An intestacy results because of testator’s failure to dispose of the remainder, which passes equally to the estates of testator’s widow and the daughter.

Because, in either event, partition is not proper, the court below correctly dismissed the petition, and I agree that its action in so doing should be affirmed. But I am not in accord with the…

2Cases cited37 opinions

  1. Kiebler v. McCutcheonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  2. Schuldt v. Reading Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  3. Beilstein v. BeilsteinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
  4. Lippincott's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
  5. Rosengarten EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1944

32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API