Shirlock v. Shirlock
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of Juniata. In 1838, Waldsmith and wife, by deed between them- ' selves of the one part, and “ Mary Shirlock, in trust for herself and ■her children of the other part,” in consideration of $2250, “paid by said Mary,” granted, &c., “unto the said Mary, in trust for herself and her children, and unto their heirs and assigns, all that,” &c., “ to have and to hold unto the said M. S. for herself and her children, their heirs and assigns, to the…
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Pleas of Juniata. In 1838, Waldsmith and wife, by deed between them- ' selves of the one part, and “ Mary Shirlock, in trust for herself and ■her children of the other part,” in consideration of $2250, “paid by said Mary,” granted, &c., “unto the said Mary, in trust for herself and her children, and unto their heirs and assigns, all that,” &c., “ to have and to hold unto the said M. S. for herself and her children, their heirs and assigns, to the only proper use, &c., of the said M. S,, in trust for herself and her children, their heirs and assigns.” Mary Shirlock was…
1Per curiam
There is no error in the record of which the defendant below can avail himself. Nor has the plaintiff ground to complain. True it is, that where a trust is created by will, a legal estate adequate to the purpose is to be implied; and had this trust not been created by deed, the life-estate given to the mother might have been sufficient to support the fee-simple trusts in favour of the children. In the interpretation of devises, to give effect to the general intent, the legal estate has often been extended by implication, and it has sometimes been supplied altogether; but as legal limitations…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Hague v. HagueSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
- Chambers v. Union Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- Ackerman v. AckermanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907