In re Estate of Martin
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 159, Oct..T., 1896, by E. M. Sayers, from decree of O. C. Green Co., June T., 1887, No. 15, dismissing, exceptions to auditor’s report. Exceptions to auditor’s report. Before Dickey, P. J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court., Error assigned was in dismissing exceptions, to- auditor’s.report.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 159, Oct..T., 1896, by E. M. Sayers, from decree of O. C. Green Co., June T., 1887, No. 15, dismissing, exceptions to auditor’s report. Exceptions to auditor’s report. Before Dickey, P. J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court., Error assigned was in dismissing exceptions, to- auditor’s.report. It is a rule of interpretation that in doubtful eases estates are held to be vested rather than contingent: Peterson’s App., 88 Pa. 400; 2 Cooley’s Blackstone, p. 513. This legacy is not a vested one but a mere contingent legacy: Gilliland v. Bredin, 63 Pa. 393; Fairfax’s…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Fell,
The controversy in this case grows out of the following clause of the will of Ruth Martin: “ Third, I give and bequeath to. my grandson A. M. Vale, $1000.00 to he and remain in the farm whereon I reside to. be paid to him personally when-he shall come for it, but should he .never come for it then I direct it. to *418be divided among my other legatees equally hereafter mentioned.” In the same clause the testatrix directed that her daughter, Mary Higgle, should take the farm on which the legacy was charged at a valuation to be fixed by an appraisement, but provided that…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Stover's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1875