Taylor v. Martin
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to Common Pleas No. 2 of Philadelphia County to review a judgment for the defendants in a case stated in an action of ejectment. Reported below: 3 Pa.
Read the full summary
Error to Common Pleas No. 2 of Philadelphia County to review a judgment for the defendants in a case stated in an action of ejectment. Reported below: 3 Pa. Co. Ct. 146. The case stated was as follows: It is agreed by George Northrop, Esq., in behalf of the plaintiffs, and William W. Wiltbank and Edwin Gaw Flanigen, Esqs., in behalf of the defendants, that an amicable action be entered as if a writ in ejectment had issued, been served, and duly returned, and the defendants had appeared and the cause had thereafter been at issue; and thereupon the facts are stated to the court for judgment as…
1Per curiam
It is true that the words “wish” and “desire” are sometimes considered and held to be precatory merely, in wills, and not mandatory. Where they are used as expressing a desire for an act to be done by some person or persons named by the testator, they may be held in many cases to be merely precatory; but no such presumption necessarily arises when the words are used to express the intention and will of the testator. In such case they are held to be mandatory.
An examination of the whole will in the present case satisfies us that the testator intended to give to his wife a life estate only, and…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Moseley v. BolsterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
- Estate of MayneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
- Cargill Commission Co. v. CampbellSupreme Court of Iowa · 1930
- Downs v. CaspersonCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1934
- Will of Platt v. Bank of BarabooWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931