Wheatly v. Badger
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal from the Orphans’ Court of Bucks. March 28. Petition for the conveyance of the legal estate to the cestui que trust, devisee of Bela Badger. The only question raised was the jurisdiction of the court, and that depended on the question whether the trust was in the executor virtióte officii or not.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Orphans’ Court of Bucks. March 28. Petition for the conveyance of the legal estate to the cestui que trust, devisee of Bela Badger. The only question raised was the jurisdiction of the court, and that depended on the question whether the trust was in the executor virtióte officii or not. The material clauses of the will were as follows: a direction to pay debts “ by my executor and trustee hereinafter namedsome legacies were then given — “ Item, I do constitute S. Badger to be the sole executor of this, my last will and testament, and the trustee of my estate, and request him…
1Opinion of the CourtGibson, C. J.
It follows not that, because a trust has been created by will, it is cognisable in the Orphans’ Court. To give it that quality, it must be annexed to the office, and not to the person of the executor; it must be committed to him quasi executor, and performed virtute officii. Was it so here? “I do constitute and appoint my brother, Samuel Badger,” said the testator, “ to be the sole executor of this, my last will and testament, and the trustee of my estate, and request him to make payment of the above legacies.” I-Ie then devised to his “executor and trustee, Samuel Badger,” all his estate,…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Wilson v. Board of Directors of City TrustsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Estate of PhelpsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Herron v. ComstockCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1905
- Dewald v. BerkheiserSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1902