Appeal of Luffberry

17 A. 447, 125 Pa. 513, 1889 Pa. LEXIS 744
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided April 15, 1889·No. No. 158·Published·Cited by 14 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

It is very evident, that in authorizing his executors to sell his real estate, the sole purpose of the testator was a division of the proceeds among the three charities named in connection therewith. That purpose having failed by reason of testator’s death within one calendar month after execution of his will, the power to sell became unnecessary and inoperative, and the land intended to have been converted into money for the specific purpose above mentioned, descended to Ms heirs. The subject has been so fully considered and so satisfactorily disposed of by the learned president of the Orphans’ Court that the decree is affirmed on his opinion.

Decree affirmed, and appeal dismissed at the costs of appellant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal of Luffberry, 17 A. 447, 125 Pa. 513, 1889 Pa. LEXIS 744 (Pa. 1889).

17 A. 447 (Appeal of Luffberry) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Koehler Partition Case
61 A.2d 870 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1948)
Dumont v. Commissioner
4 T.C. 158 (U.S. Tax Court, 1944)
Hartman's Estate (No. 1)
182 A. 234 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1935)
Moore v. Gilbert
134 A. 462 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1926)
Appeal of Estate of Janson
3 B.T.A. 296 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1926)
Janson v. Commissioner
3 B.T.A. 296 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1926)
Kellner v. Stahl
7 Pa. D. & C. 95 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1925)
Arnold's Estate
94 A. 1076 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1915)
Reed's Estate
85 A. 138 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1912)
Pullinger's Estate
48 Pa. Super. 630 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1912)
Muderspaugh's Estate
80 A. 870 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1911)
Painter v. Painter
69 A. 323 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1908)