Coates v. Hughes
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
A subsequent mamag'e and birth of posthumous or other issue, do not amount by the law of Pennsylvania to a total revocation of a will, eyen where the subsequent issue is the testator’s only child. They amount to a revocation pro tan-to, namely, so far as regards the widow and child, but not as to the appointment of executors, nor as to a power to sell for .the payment of -debts.
Read the full summary
A subsequent mamag'e and birth of posthumous or other issue, do not amount by the law of Pennsylvania to a total revocation of a will, eyen where the subsequent issue is the testator’s only child. They amount to a revocation pro tan-to, namely, so far as regards the widow and child, but not as to the appointment of executors, nor as to a power to sell for .the payment of -debts. As to personal property, the _ probate of a will is conclusive while it remains unrevoked:as to realty, it is but prima fade evidence. See Province Lam 30, act of 1705. THIS was an ejectment for a messuage and lot in…
1Opinion of the Court
Tit.ghman C. J.
Abraham Coates, the father of the plaintiff, made a will during the life of his first wife, by which he disposed of all his real and personal estate, and having ordered his debts &c. to be paid, he gave power to his executors to sell any part of his estate when necessary and expedient for the execution of his will. The first wife died, having never had issue. Afterwards, the testator married a second wife, the mother of the plaintiff, and died leaving his wife enseint. The plaintiff was born about two months after her father’s death. The question is, whether in consequence of…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Balliet's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1850
- Holliday v. WardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1852
- Smith v. OlmsteadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Warren v. MorrisCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1871
- Newlin's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.