Haskins v. Tate
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Common Pleas of Fayette county. The action was ejectment, in which the parties agreed upon the following case stated, with leave for either party to take a writ of error.
Read the full summary
Error to the Common Pleas of Fayette county. The action was ejectment, in which the parties agreed upon the following case stated, with leave for either party to take a writ of error. John Tate being seised of the land in dispute, by his will dated September 4, 1799, proved December 13, 1799, which will is made a part of this case, among other things devised as follows, viz.: “ I will and devise that my son, Robert Tate, shall have that part of the plantation whereon I now live, to contain 170 acres, to live upon and make use of during his life, and at his decease to be equally divided…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Lowrie, J.
We think this case falls within the rule that, on a limitation to a class, which may include persons not yet born, the time of the distribution defines the members that are to constitute the class. It is very plain that Robert Tate took a life estate by the devise; but whether in the whole or not, we need not determine. The question is, do his children, born after the death of his father, the testator, take any estate ? The devise is, that the land shall be equally divided among Robert’s children, he and they enjoying the benefits of it while…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Appeal of CogginsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Friday's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- Billings's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
- Love EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
- Hague v. HagueSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.