Shalters v. Ladd
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 220, Jan. T., 1893, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. Berks Co., Aug. T., 1894, No. 84, on verdict for defendants. Partition. Before Endlich, J. From the record it appeared that Hannah R. Shalters died Sept. 7, 1882, leaving a will by which she left .the share of her son Francis B. Shalters, Jr., in trust. Hannah R. Shalters claimed to own in fee the real estate in controversy as devised to her by her father, Nicholas Seidel, by a codicil to his will.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 220, Jan. T., 1893, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. Berks Co., Aug. T., 1894, No. 84, on verdict for defendants. Partition. Before Endlich, J. From the record it appeared that Hannah R. Shalters died Sept. 7, 1882, leaving a will by which she left .the share of her son Francis B. Shalters, Jr., in trust. Hannah R. Shalters claimed to own in fee the real estate in controversy as devised to her by her father, Nicholas Seidel, by a codicil to his will. The codicil was as follows : “ I do hereby give and devise to my daughter, Hannah Shalters, the wife of Francis B. Shalters,…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Williams,
This casé depends upon the construction of a codicil to the last will and testament of Nicholas Seidel. A clause in the same will, containing a devise practically identical in character with that now before us, was interpreted by the court below in 1890. The same learned judge who decided this case delivered the opinion of the court below in that case. He then held that the devise gave a life estate to the first taker, and an estate in fee simple to “ her issue; ” and that the words “ her issue ” were used in the devise as words of purchase and not as words of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Shalters v. LaddSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891
3Cited by2 opinions
- James's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
- Succession of EdwardsSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1882