Huber v. Hamilton

60 A. 789, 211 Pa. 289, 1905 Pa. LEXIS 454
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided March 20, 1905·No. Appeal, No. 377·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This will gives to the wife an estate in fee simple under all the cases. The words which seem to import a restriction on her power to alienate it cannot affect the primary devise of the fee. A power of alienation is an inseparable incident of a fee: 4 Kent, 131; McWilliams v. Nisly, 2 S. & R. 507.

The learned judge .of the court below reached the same result by holding, on the authority of Henninger v. Henninger, 202 Pa. 207, that the measure of her enjoyment of the estate, was, under the devise, as full as if testator had attempted no restriction. It matters not on which theory the result is reached, the judgment is right, and is, therefore, affirmed.

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

Huber v. Hamilton, 60 A. 789, 211 Pa. 289, 1905 Pa. LEXIS 454 (Pa. 1905).

60 A. 789 (Huber v. Hamilton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mowers v. Mowers
22 Pa. D. & C.4th 499 (Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, 1994)
Skelly Estate v. Carlisle Hospital
7 Pa. D. & C.3d 124 (Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, 1978)
Stineman v. Stineman
114 A.2d 137 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1955)
Byrne's Estate
181 A. 500 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1935)
Koller's Estate
12 Pa. D. & C. 185 (Northampton County Orphans' Court, 1928)
Kidd's Estate
141 A. 644 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1928)
Seigworth's Estate
61 Pa. Super. 235 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1915)
Huber's Estate
94 A. 556 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1915)
Allen v. Hirlinger
67 A. 907 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1907)
Allen v. Hirlinger
33 Pa. Super. 113 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1907)