Lessee of Cheesman v. Wilt
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
EjECTMBNP for a lot of ground in the city of Philadelphia. The question turned on the last will of James Parrock, dated 24th May 1754, who, it was admitted, died seized of the premises.
Read the full summary
EjECTMBNP for a lot of ground in the city of Philadelphia. The question turned on the last will of James Parrock, dated 24th May 1754, who, it was admitted, died seized of the premises. He therein (inter alia,) devised all the rest and residue of his real and personal estate to his grand children, John Parrock and Sarah Parrock, their heirs and assigns. ‘ ‘ Provided always, the legacies hereinbefore devised “to the said John and Sarah are upon this special condition, “that if both my said grand children shall happen to die “under age and without any lawful issue, then it is my will ‘ ‘ that…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Cur.
The present case is extremely clear, and would have been deemed so before the resolution in Soulle v. Ger-rard, Temp. Eliz. Where the words of a will are plain, the intent always follows the words. (See 2 And. 17. 4 Burr. 2246. 5 Bac. Abr. 525.)
It is true, the intent of a devisor may be implied where the words are defective, but not against the words of the will. [Moor, 464.] We cannot from arbitrary conjecture, though founded on the highest degree of probability, add to a will, or supply the omissions. [3 Burr. 1634.] We should do manifest violence to the testator’s expressions; if…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lessee of Hauer v. SheetzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1807
3Cited by5 opinions
- Thompson v. MusserSupreme Court of the United States · 1789
- Doe v. WatsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1850
- English's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
- Fosdick v. DelafieldNew York Surrogate's Court · 1876
- Fergus v. RobinsonSuperior Court of Delaware · 1835