Appeal of Seibert

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Appeal of Seibert

1 A. 346, 110 Pa. 329, 1885 Pa. LEXIS 428

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 5, 1885

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 1 A. 346 (Appeal of Seibert) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Appeal of Seibert, 1 A. 346, 110 Pa. 329, 1885 Pa. LEXIS 428 (Pa. 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was filed October 5th, 1885.

PeR Curiam.

— The intent of the testator is-to be deduced from the language of his will. An examination thereof clearly leads to the conclusion that its main purpose was to prevent his property from liability to a collateral inheritance tax. The property which he sought to transfer was not to take effect in enjoyment until after his death. This clearly subjects the property to a collateral inheritance tax under Section 1 of the Act of [331]*3317 tb April, 1826. The deed executed by the testator on the 14th of August, 1882, did not change the time of enjoyment previously designated in his will. It expressly declared the vendees should hold the “property in trust for the uses and purposes set forth in the said will.” The learned judge correctly entered judgment in favor of the Commonwealth, and the decreeing accordingly is right: Reish v. Commonwealth, 10 Out. 521.

Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at the costs of the appellants.

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

The opinion of the Court was filed October 5th, 1885.

PeR Curiam.

— The intent of the testator is-to be deduced from the language of his will. An examination thereof clearly leads to the conclusion that its main purpose was to prevent his property from liability to a collateral inheritance tax. The property which he sought to transfer was not to take effect in enjoyment until after his death. This clearly subjects the property to a collateral inheritance tax under Section 1 of the Act of [331]*3317 tb April, 1826. The deed executed by the testator on the 14th of August, 1882, did not change the time of enjoyment previously designated in his will. It expressly declared the vendees should hold the “property in trust for the uses and purposes set forth in the said will.” The learned judge correctly entered judgment in favor of the Commonwealth, and the decreeing accordingly is right: Reish v. Commonwealth, 10 Out. 521.

Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at the costs of the appellants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A. 346, 110 Pa. 329, 1885 Pa. LEXIS 428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/appeal-of-seibert-pa-1885.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack