Marshall v. Pearce
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL from the Twelfth Judicial District Court, Parish of Rapides. Harbin, J. The will contains a substitution, for the following reasons: 1. Because it is drawn in the exact language of the entail of the common law and the substitutions limited by the ordinance of 1747, and prohibited by the Code Napoleon, Kent, Yol. 4, pages 20 and 21, and what was an entail or substitution then, must be one now. 2. Because the devise of the movables is not included is the devise to…
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Twelfth Judicial District Court, Parish of Rapides. Harbin, J. The will contains a substitution, for the following reasons: 1. Because it is drawn in the exact language of the entail of the common law and the substitutions limited by the ordinance of 1747, and prohibited by the Code Napoleon, Kent, Yol. 4, pages 20 and 21, and what was an entail or substitution then, must be one now. 2. Because the devise of the movables is not included is the devise to Joshua Pearce, but is to Mrs. Pearce in absolute ownership; but they are devised to Mrs. Pearce by the same clause by whieh…
1Dissent
Dissenting Opinion.
Bermudez, C. J.
Guided by.the light of the jurisprudence of this State, I fail to see that the will of Joshua Pearce contains any prohibited substitution.
To my mind, it is apparent that, when he bequeathed to his wife his plantation and movable effects, ‘‘ to have and to hold during her natural life,'1'' he merely intended to give her the usufruct of that property, and that when he bequeathed to his grandson, Joshua Pearce, Jr., the same things, at the death of his wife, he meant to give him the naked ownership ■ first, and the absolute ownership next, at the demise of his…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Commonwealth v. VroomanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
- Wise v. WalkerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1887
- Fox v. WintersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1833
- Messinger v. MantzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888