Randall v. Dunlap
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 120, Jan. T., 1907, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1906, No. 2,435, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Samuel J. Randall in his own right as Executor and Trustee under the last will and testament of Ethel Allen Randall, deceased, v. William Dunlap. Assumpsit for purchase money of real estate.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 120, Jan. T., 1907, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1906, No. 2,435, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Samuel J. Randall in his own right as Executor and Trustee under the last will and testament of Ethel Allen Randall, deceased, v. William Dunlap. Assumpsit for purchase money of real estate. From the record it appeared that the defendant objected to take a deed on the ground that Mrs. Ethel Randall had not made provision for an after-born child. The plaintiff relied upon the last clause of Mrs.…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
This case is ruled by Newlin’s Estate, 209 Pa. 456. It was there distinctly and definitely decided that the only requirement of the Act of April 8, 1833, P. L. 249, in this respect is that the testator shall make such provision as he deems proper for the unborn child, and shall do it in such way as to show that he intended it for a provision. All that the statute requires is that the testator “ shall have the child in mind and shall make clear his intention that the will shall apply to it. Any provision which does that is sufficient, and the inquiry whether large or small, equal'or…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Newlin's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
3Cited by3 opinions
- Conn's EstateSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- City National Bank v. KellyOhio Probate Court of Franklin County · 1940
- Smith's EstatePennsylvania Orphans' Court, Philadelphia County · 1930