Estate of Lippincott
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 134, July T., 1895, by Margaret Lardner Reakert, from decree of O. C. Phila. Co.,. April T., 1894, No. 528, overruling exceptions to adjudication.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 134, July T., 1895, by Margaret Lardner Reakert, from decree of O. C. Phila. Co.,. April T., 1894, No. 528, overruling exceptions to adjudication. The auditing judge, Ferguson, J., after awarding the various legacies and bequests mentioned in the will to the persons therein designated, about which there was no dispute, proceeded as follows: The only question which was raised for the consideration of the auditing judge was as to the meaning of the words “ personal effects ” in the seventh clause of the will; it being contended on behalf of Margaret Lardner Reakert, the legatee,…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
Appellant’s contention here, as it was in the court below, is that under the words “ and personal effects,” in the seventh item of his will, the testator intended she should take the personal effects in his house, such as pictures and furniture. This eon*374struction was very forcibly presented by ber learned counsel in his argument; but our consideration of the subject has led us to the conclusion that the words employed by the testator were rightly construed by the learned auditing judge whose decree was approved by the court in banc. On his opinion we affirm the decree and dismiss…
2Cited by29 opinions
- Beisgen EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
- Erwin v. SteeleCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1950
- Stearns v. StearnsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1925
- Barney v. MaySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1917
- Arnold's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.