Legal Opinion

Scott's Estate

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 2, 1930No. Appeals, 178 and 186PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mb. Justice Simpson,

The single question raised on these two appeals is, whether or not the residuary clauses of testator’s will are void, because they violate the rule against perpetuities? The court below correctly decided that they did violate it.

It seems to be admitted, certainly it is clear, that the ultimate distribution under paragraph (c) of the will, hereinafter quoted, cannot be made until the death of the last surviving child of testator’s son Carl, if he leaves children, though that last survivor may have been born after testator’s death and survive more than 21 years…

2Cases cited33 opinions

  1. Groninger's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
  2. Feeney's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
  3. Neel's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
  4. Appeal of CogginsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
  5. Beilstein v. BeilsteinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899

28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Quigley's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  2. Rickenbach EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
  3. Hood's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  4. Simpson's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  5. Wanamaker's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API