Legal Opinion · Dissent

Elvidge's Estate

Pennsylvania Orphans' Court, Philadelphia County

Decided May 20, 1938No. 1496 of 1937Published

1Dissent

Ladner, J.,

dissenting. — I regret I cannot agree with the majority opinion.

Canons of construction, rules of interpretation, and precedents cannot be applied to overcome the plain language in a will nor to supply words omitted.

The testatrix directed her “executor ... to deduct the unpaid balances thereon [i e., notes mentioned] from the respective shares of the persons owing the respective sums as evidenced by the aforesaid notes.” What is given to the wife falls within the general conception and definition of the word “share”. Bouvier defines “share” as “a portion of anything.' Sometimes the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Small v. SmallSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
  2. Jacob Tome Institute v. ShipleyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1906

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

Powered by the Exa API