Commonwealth v. Stauffer
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of Lancaster. Case stated. The question being the right to the surplus proceeds of the real estate of William Geigley, the younger, which had been sold under an order of the Orphans’ Court, for payment of debts.
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Pleas of Lancaster. Case stated. The question being the right to the surplus proceeds of the real estate of William Geigley, the younger, which had been sold under an order of the Orphans’ Court, for payment of debts. His will was as follows:— “ I will and bequeath to my loving wife, Susan Geigley, all my real and personal estate that I am possessed of (with a few exceptions that I will hereafter bequeath to my brother George), provided my wife Susan remains a widow during her life. But in case she should marry again, my will is, she then shall leave the premises, and…
1Opinion of the CourtGibson, C. J.
This action is brought for surplus proceeds of land devised to the testator’s widow, for life, on condition not to marry; but sold by order of the Orphans’ Court, for payment of his debts. She did marry shortly after the sale; and the question is, whether a subsequent condition, in general restraint of marriage, when annexed to a devise of land, is void, for reasons of public policy. When annexed to a legacy, the decisions of the ecclesiastical courts, followed in chancery, have certainly established that it is; and so the rule is held in Pennsylvania, both at law and in equity, as is shown…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Holbrook's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- Wilmington Trust Co. v. HoulehanCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1925
- Bennett v. Vinton Lumber Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- Matter of 1942 Gerald H. Lewis TrustColorado Court of Appeals · 1982
- Shackleton v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp.District Court, E.D. Illinois · 1958
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.