Train v. Fisher
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. This case was tried before Gibson, J., at Nisi Prius, in March■ last, and a verdict was found in favour of the plaintiff for the sum of two thousand seven hundred and fifty-two dollars, and sixty-two eents, subject to the opinion of the court, whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover. The suit was by Mary Train, executrix of Hannah Nunez, against S. 2?. Fisher.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. This case was tried before Gibson, J., at Nisi Prius, in March■ last, and a verdict was found in favour of the plaintiff for the sum of two thousand seven hundred and fifty-two dollars, and sixty-two eents, subject to the opinion of the court, whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover. The suit was by Mary Train, executrix of Hannah Nunez, against S. 2?. Fisher. On the 27th of March, 1760, Jacob Phillips made his last will, containing the following clauses : Thirdly.. “My will and pleasure is, and I do hereby empower and authorize my executor hereafter named, to sell all the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Duncan, J.
The right of the plaintiff depends on the construe» tion of the clauses in the will of Jacob Phillips, by which he directs his executors, to sell his real and personal estate, and t( that the interest of one half of the proceeds shall yearly, and every year, be paid by his executors to Hannah Nunez, her heirs and assigns for ever, during her •natural life. But, in default of issue of the said Hannah Nunez, the said moiety of the principal and interest shall descend to the next of kin, or heirs at common law, and their heirs and assigns for…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Executors of Moffat v. StrongNew York Supreme Court · 1813
- Deihl v. KingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1820