Lentz v. Lamplugh
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of Montgomery. Dec. 26. Ejectment. Catharine Lentz died seised of the premises in question. By her will she devised “to my son John $1000 more than one-fifth of my whole real estate, to he paid out of the remaining four-fifths to be willed to my daughters.” To three of her daughters she devised by several clauses “ one-fifth of my whole real estate,” and to another “ the remaining one-fifth of my real estate.”
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Pleas of Montgomery. Dec. 26. Ejectment. Catharine Lentz died seised of the premises in question. By her will she devised “to my son John $1000 more than one-fifth of my whole real estate, to he paid out of the remaining four-fifths to be willed to my daughters.” To three of her daughters she devised by several clauses “ one-fifth of my whole real estate,” and to another “ the remaining one-fifth of my real estate.” After disposing of her personal property, and making some provisions respecting the shares of two of the daughters, she added, “ it is my will, and I so…
1Opinion of the Court
Jan. 3.
Gibson, C. J.
There is little difficulty in determining that John Lentz had an estate by the will, which might have been bound by a judgment. The gift of a thousand dollars more than a fifth part of the whole real estate, was not a bequest of money, but an implied devise of land, the numerical amount being used only as a measure of quantity. John, therefore, took by implication a fifth part of the real estate, and the worth of a thousand dollars more, either in land or money, charged on the other four-fifths—it is unnecessary to say which. No power was given to sell, except by the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Colonial Tr. Co. (Mccully) v. FlanaganSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
- Mitek v. Ste-Mel Signs, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
- Hughes v. Dundee Mortgage & Trust Investment Co.United States Circuit Court · 1886