Holme v. Harrison
This text of 2 Whart. 283 (Holme v. Harrison) 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.
Opinion
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
The devise to the widow of “ a house to live in,” is but a life-estate. The garden is an incident to the house ; and the same interest passes. As to the other property the testator devises to his wife “ one-third part of all the estate.” The words “ all the estate” are now well settled to be referable to the quantity of interest, and to pass the fee. They therefore give her a fee-simple in all the rest of the property not previously disposed of. In the first-mentioned premises, therefore, Frances Maghee had an estate for life. In the rest of the property referred to, she had a vested estate in fee-simple in one-third part thereof, which by the partition was allotted to her and her heirs, in the second-mentioned premises in the case stated; and therefore, in the second-mentioned premises, she had an estate in fee-simple. Judgment must be entered according to the case stated, for the plaintiff, for one-ninth of the first-mentioned premises ; and for the defendant for the second-mentioned premises.
Judgment accordingly.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2 Whart. 283, 1837 Pa. LEXIS 173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holme-v-harrison-pa-1837.