Legal Opinion · Dissent

Houston Estate

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 1, 1964No. Appeals, 145 and 146Published

1Dissent

*597Dissenting Opinion by

Mr. Justice Roberts:

My reading and study of decedent’s will and our past decisions1 preclude me from joining the majority. In my view, the majority have incorrectly construed testator’s gift of residuary principal.

Although almost three-quarters of a century span the years between decedent’s will and its present construction, his intention, as expressed in his will and reflected by the circumstances surrounding his. armchair, must prevail.

All must agree that the best evidence of decedent’s intention is his language. “And, while the words employed in a will necessarily…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Kiebler v. McCutcheonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  2. Lewis EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
  3. Riegel v. OliverSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
  4. Fahey EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
  5. Buzby EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API