Estate of Conway
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 433, Jan. T., 1896, by Mary Campbell et al., from decree of O. C. Phila. Co., Jan. T., 1896, No. 273, dismissing exceptions to adjudication. Exceptions to adjudication.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 433, Jan. T., 1896, by Mary Campbell et al., from decree of O. C. Phila. Co., Jan. T., 1896, No. 273, dismissing exceptions to adjudication. Exceptions to adjudication. The testator by a codicil to his will directed as follows : “ In reference to the rest, residue and remainder mentioned in foregoing will to be given to my three nephews, Bernard, Daniel and John Conway, I hereby revoke and make void, and said residue, after all the specific legacies mentioned, aforesaid, in my will are carried out and paid, I give, devise and bequeath unto all my spinster or unmarried nieces and…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Williams,
This appeal presents a new question which is by no means free from difficulty. The testator, Bernard Conway, after other devise and bequests, gave his residuary estate to his “ spinster or unmarried nieces.” Six of his nieces had never been married and were, therefore, properly described as “spinsters-.” Two of them had been married and were widows. All of them were actually unmarried at the time of his death. The question now raised- is whether one or both of these classes is entitled to take the residuary estate. The answer to this question must depend upon…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Myers v. Denver & Rio Grande RailroadSupreme Court of Colorado · 1916
- H & B American Mach. Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1935
- Mott v. ScanlanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
- Smith v. Grand High Court of Jericho of TexasCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1930
- Douglass v. Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church of AmericaNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1932