Cook v. Quincy United Brethren Orphanage & Home

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Cook v. Quincy United Brethren Orphanage & Home

87 A. 302, 240 Pa. 308, 1913 Pa. LEXIS 667

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 14, 1913

DocketAppeal, No. 62

StatusPublished

This text of 87 A. 302 (Cook v. Quincy United Brethren Orphanage & Home) 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

Cook v. Quincy United Brethren Orphanage & Home, 87 A. 302, 240 Pa. 308, 1913 Pa. LEXIS 667 (Pa. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Brown,

There is nothing in the brief will of George Cook to justify the contention of the appellant that he constituted his son Hiram trustee of the share of his estate which he devised to his daughter. He gave directly to her one-half of his real estate for life. No other meaning can be attached to his words; and, when he added, “after her death it shall go to her heirs and assigns,” his meaning is equally clear that it should descend from her. That she took a fee under the rule in Shelley’s case and the Act of April 27,1855, P. L. 368, is too plain [310]*310for discussion, and the only conceivable reason why this appeal was taken must have been the apprehension that, at some time in the future, some one, not a lawyer, might question the title of the testator’s daughter.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Brown,

There is nothing in the brief will of George Cook to justify the contention of the appellant that he constituted his son Hiram trustee of the share of his estate which he devised to his daughter. He gave directly to her one-half of his real estate for life. No other meaning can be attached to his words; and, when he added, “after her death it shall go to her heirs and assigns,” his meaning is equally clear that it should descend from her. That she took a fee under the rule in Shelley’s case and the Act of April 27,1855, P. L. 368, is too plain [310]*310for discussion, and the only conceivable reason why this appeal was taken must have been the apprehension that, at some time in the future, some one, not a lawyer, might question the title of the testator’s daughter.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 A. 302, 240 Pa. 308, 1913 Pa. LEXIS 667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cook-v-quincy-united-brethren-orphanage-home-pa-1913.