Dickinson v. Lee
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the common pleas of Berks county. Joseph Dickinson and wife brought this action for a legacy against the executor of Isaac Lee deceased. William Lee was a son of, and died before the testator, leaving children, to one of whom the plaintiff was married ; and the only question in the cause arises out of the construction of the last clause of the following will of Isaac Lee deceased: “ Item.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the common pleas of Berks county. Joseph Dickinson and wife brought this action for a legacy against the executor of Isaac Lee deceased. William Lee was a son of, and died before the testator, leaving children, to one of whom the plaintiff was married ; and the only question in the cause arises out of the construction of the last clause of the following will of Isaac Lee deceased: “ Item. Further it is my will and I direct, that all the rest and remainder of my land and real estate shall be sold by my executors hereafter to be named ; and the proceeds thereof, as well as the 2000…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Gibson, C. J.
—Where it is necessary to effectuate a manifest intent, grandchildren may undoubtedly take by the designation of children, though that is by no means the legal acceptation of the word. They are suffered to do so principally, if not exclusively, in two cases: where the word is used evidently as co-extensive with issue, which is a word of very general import; and where there are no children literally to answer the description, and then grandchildren are let in ut res magis valeat quam pereat. Here the testator had children, and there is no…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Horwitz v. NorrisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1865
- Wickersham v. SavageSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1868
- Cummings v. PlummerIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
- McGuire v. WestmorelandSupreme Court of Alabama · 1860
- Urich's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1878
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.