Legal Opinion

Edmunds Estate

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 27, 1953No. Appeals, 127 and 171PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Allen M. Stearne,

In this will construction we are required to determine whether a gift in remainder is vested or contingent. The court below, one judge dissenting, held that the remainder was contingent.

Testator’s residuary estate was placed in trust to pay the net income to three named children for life and upon the death of each named child: “to convey, transfer, assign and pay over the principal of one-third of my residuary estate to my right heirs at law under the terms of the intestate law of Pennsylvania, absolutely, clear of trusts.”

The share in litigation is that…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Moore v. SmithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1840
  2. Rickenbach EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
  3. Wilson EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1952

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Dinkey EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1961
  2. Walton EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
  3. McFadden EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
  4. Bald EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
  5. Estate of: McFadden, G. Appeal of: Harrison, R.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014

14 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