Jones v. Cable

7 A. 791, 114 Pa. 586, 1887 Pa. LEXIS 441
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJanuary 3, 1887
StatusPublished
Cited by27 cases

This text of 7 A. 791 (Jones v. Cable) 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
Jones v. Cable, 7 A. 791, 114 Pa. 586, 1887 Pa. LEXIS 441 (Pa. 1887).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Paxson

delivered the opinion of the court,

John Cable, the testator, devised his farm to his two sons iu the following words: “I give and bequeath unto my two sons John and Edward Cable, all my farm after my death to them as long as they do live, and after their death to their children,” etc.

Our construction of this will is that John and Edward take a life estate, with remainder to their children as purchasers, upon the death of the survivor. It is plain that this was the intention of the testator, for the devise over to the children does not take effect until after “their” death, which evidently means the death of the survivor. It is true the Act of 1812 has abolished joint tenancy in this state, but that Act has never been held to prevent a testator creating a joint tenancy by the express language of his will, or by necessary implication. On the contrary it was held in Arnold v. Jack's Executors, 24 Penn. St. R., 57,'that while survivorship as an incident to joint tenancy was abolished by the Act of 1812, it may be expressly given by will or deed. The third survivorship results as a necessary implication from this will so far as the life estate is concerned, and as Edward Cable has survived John, and is still living, it is clear the plaintiffs cannot recover the possession of any portion of this farm at present, whatever may be their lights upon the death of Edward.

This is as far as it is necessary for us to go at present.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Estate of Robinson
262 Cal. App. 2d 32 (California Court of Appeal, 1968)
Haug v. Robinson Padgett
262 Cal. App. 2d 32 (California Court of Appeal, 1968)
Bough v. King
167 F. Supp. 191 (Virgin Islands, 1958)
Goodhart Estate
12 Pa. D. & C.2d 403 (Cumberland County Orphans' Court, 1957)
City National Bank v. McCoy
79 N.W.2d 376 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1956)
In Re Young's Will
79 N.W.2d 376 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1956)
Holohan v. Melville
249 P.2d 777 (Washington Supreme Court, 1952)
Union National Bank v. Hunter
209 P.2d 621 (California Court of Appeal, 1949)
Loeffler Estate
73 Pa. D. & C. 300 (Beaver County Court of Common Pleas, 1949)
Interboro Bank and Trust Co. Appeal
59 A.2d 101 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1948)
Maxwell v. Saylor
58 A.2d 355 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1948)
Wright Estate
34 A.2d 57 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1943)
Montgomery v. Keystone Savings & Loan Ass'n
29 A.2d 203 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1942)
Erickson v. Erickson
115 P.2d 172 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1941)
Barclay-Westmoreland Trust Co. v. Dollar Savings Bank
12 A.2d 586 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1940)
Commonwealth Ex Rel. Flowers v. Flowers
191 A. 914 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1937)
Davidson's Estate
185 A. 782 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1936)
In re Scott
22 Pa. D. & C. 351 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1934)
Craig's Estate
10 Pa. D. & C. 299 (Carbon County Orphans' Court, 1927)
Leach's Estate
4 Pa. D. & C. 392 (Philadelphia County Orphans' Court, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 A. 791, 114 Pa. 586, 1887 Pa. LEXIS 441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-cable-pa-1887.