Legal Opinion · Dissent

Estate of Stewart

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 11, 1984No. 2044Published

1DissentBrosky, Judge

I respectfully dissent. I would agree with the court below that the term “handle” was intended to be a “word of administration” rather than a “word of disposition” and, therefore, that appellant was not given a general power of appointment. Initially, I note that:

“It is, of course, a cardinal rule that a will, is to be construed according to the intent of the testator.” To ascertain this intent, a court examines the words of the instrument and, if necessary, the scheme of distribution, the circumstances surrounding execution of the will and other facts bearing on the question. Should the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Estate of SykesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  2. Wright EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
  3. Swope EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
  4. In Re Estate of KohlerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API