Hackett v. Milnor

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Hackett v. Milnor

26 A. 738, 156 Pa. 1, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1300

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 31, 1893

DocketAppeal, No. 22

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 26 A. 738 (Hackett v. Milnor) 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

Hackett v. Milnor, 26 A. 738, 156 Pa. 1, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1300 (Pa. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

There was no error in entering judgment for the plaintiff in [5]*5tbis case stated. All that can be profitably said on the questions presented will be found in the opinion of the learned president of the common pleas, sent up with the record. On that opinion we affirm the judgment.

In the third item of her will, wherein the testatrix directs her “ executor by and with the advice, consent and approval of my said named daughters and legatees, if he shall see fit, at any time after my decease, to sell,” etc., the words, “ said named daughters and legatees,” evidently refer only to her three daughters, Elizabeth, Rachel and Mary Ellen, the chief objects of her bounty, named in the first item. The expression above quoted is merely a sort of double designation of said three daughters. The word “legatees ” refers to them alone, and was not intended to include other legatees for whom more remote provision is made in the will. The assignment of error is not sustained.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

There was no error in entering judgment for the plaintiff in [5]*5tbis case stated. All that can be profitably said on the questions presented will be found in the opinion of the learned president of the common pleas, sent up with the record. On that opinion we affirm the judgment.

In the third item of her will, wherein the testatrix directs her “ executor by and with the advice, consent and approval of my said named daughters and legatees, if he shall see fit, at any time after my decease, to sell,” etc., the words, “ said named daughters and legatees,” evidently refer only to her three daughters, Elizabeth, Rachel and Mary Ellen, the chief objects of her bounty, named in the first item. The expression above quoted is merely a sort of double designation of said three daughters. The word “legatees ” refers to them alone, and was not intended to include other legatees for whom more remote provision is made in the will. The assignment of error is not sustained.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A. 738, 156 Pa. 1, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hackett-v-milnor-pa-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack