Appeal of Washington & Lee University

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Appeal of Washington & Lee University

3 A. 664, 111 Pa. 572, 15 W.N.C. 487, 1886 Pa. LEXIS 539

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedFebruary 1, 1886

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 3 A. 664 (Appeal of Washington & Lee University) 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 Washington & Lee University, 3 A. 664, 111 Pa. 572, 15 W.N.C. 487, 1886 Pa. LEXIS 539 (Pa. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was filed February 1st, 1886.

Per Curiam.

This legacy in contention was not given to either the appellant or the appellee by its correct name. Which one of them is the more likely to have been intended by the testator as the object of his bounty; must be determined by a consideration of all the language used.

It cannot be questioned that he intended to give the four thousand dollars in cash to that institution which was indebted to him in the sum of one thousand dollars. He directs the bond for $1,000 to be “ surrendered and cancelled by his trustees, thus making the legacy to that college five thousand dollars.” In fact he held two bonds of $500 each, instead of one for $1,000, against the appellee. He held none against the appellant. It would be a forced construction of the language to divide the legacy, when the whole $5,000 was given to one institution. It was impossible to surrender and cancel a bond against the appellant, as none such existed. We therefore think the decree is right.

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

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

The opinion of the court was filed February 1st, 1886.

Per Curiam.

This legacy in contention was not given to either the appellant or the appellee by its correct name. Which one of them is the more likely to have been intended by the testator as the object of his bounty; must be determined by a consideration of all the language used.

It cannot be questioned that he intended to give the four thousand dollars in cash to that institution which was indebted to him in the sum of one thousand dollars. He directs the bond for $1,000 to be “ surrendered and cancelled by his trustees, thus making the legacy to that college five thousand dollars.” In fact he held two bonds of $500 each, instead of one for $1,000, against the appellee. He held none against the appellant. It would be a forced construction of the language to divide the legacy, when the whole $5,000 was given to one institution. It was impossible to surrender and cancel a bond against the appellant, as none such existed. We therefore think the decree is right.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A. 664, 111 Pa. 572, 15 W.N.C. 487, 1886 Pa. LEXIS 539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/appeal-of-washington-lee-university-pa-1886.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack