Harrah Estate

Philadelphia County Orphans' Court

Harrah Estate

67 Pa. D. & C. 69, 1949 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 357

CourtPennsylvania Orphans' Court, Philadelphia County

DecidedMarch 4, 1949

Docketno. 60

StatusPublished

This text of 67 Pa. D. & C. 69 (Harrah Estate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Orphans' Court, Philadelphia County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harrah Estate, 67 Pa. D. & C. 69, 1949 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 357 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Ladner, J.,

The exceptions filed raise the single question whether the learned auditing judge erred in ruling that testator’s gifts in remainder to the heirs and next of kin of Julius P. Harrah fail because of the rule against perpetuities.

Despite the able argument of the learned counsel for exceptant, we all agree with the auditing judge’s conclusion, whose careful, well-considered adjudication, supported by the controlling authorities he cites, makes it unnecessary for us to repeat what was there said. We share in his regrets that the application of the rule in this case results in an award to testator’s next of kin rather than to those of the deceased grandchild.

The change of public policy evinced by the Estates Act of April 24, 1947, P. L. 100, sec. 4, wherein the rule of remoteness must now be measured by actual rather than possible events, so far as instruments becoming effective after January 1, 1948, are concerned, makes our decision the more regrettable, but only the Supreme Court can overrule the former decisions which control us, and so bring about a desirable uniformity of construction that could be applied to all instruments, whether effective prior to or after January 1, 1948. The exceptions must be dismissed and the adjudication is now confirmed absolutely.

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

Ladner, J.,

The exceptions filed raise the single question whether the learned auditing judge erred in ruling that testator’s gifts in remainder to the heirs and next of kin of Julius P. Harrah fail because of the rule against perpetuities.

Despite the able argument of the learned counsel for exceptant, we all agree with the auditing judge’s conclusion, whose careful, well-considered adjudication, supported by the controlling authorities he cites, makes it unnecessary for us to repeat what was there said. We share in his regrets that the application of the rule in this case results in an award to testator’s next of kin rather than to those of the deceased grandchild.

The change of public policy evinced by the Estates Act of April 24, 1947, P. L. 100, sec. 4, wherein the rule of remoteness must now be measured by actual rather than possible events, so far as instruments becoming effective after January 1, 1948, are concerned, makes our decision the more regrettable, but only the Supreme Court can overrule the former decisions which control us, and so bring about a desirable uniformity of construction that could be applied to all instruments, whether effective prior to or after January 1, 1948. The exceptions must be dismissed and the adjudication is now confirmed absolutely.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 Pa. D. & C. 69, 1949 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrah-estate-paorphctphilad-1949.