Kohler's Estate

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Kohler's Estate

49 A. 286, 199 Pa. 455, 1901 Pa. LEXIS 631

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 27, 1901

DocketAppeal, No. 13

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 49 A. 286 (Kohler's Estate) 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

Kohler's Estate, 49 A. 286, 199 Pa. 455, 1901 Pa. LEXIS 631 (Pa. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Mb. Justice Mitchell,

The learned judge below very forcibly said: “ The will of John Kohler, father of the cestui que trust, was written thirty-six years before the decree of adoption, and that event therefore was not reasonably' within the contemplation of the testator. But as he gave the estate to those persons to whom the law would give it in the case of intestacy, he cannot be said to have had any particular class of heirs or next of kin in view, and he committed the question of determining who should take to the law itself.” And it is only necessary to add that a testator who commits the distribution of his estate to the law, upon the happening of an event necessarily future, must reasonably be presumed to have contemplated the possibility of a change in the law in the mean time. McGunnigle v. McKee, 77 Pa. 81, and Johnson’s Appeal, 88 Pa. 346, were decided on this principle.

Decree affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Mb. Justice Mitchell,

The learned judge below very forcibly said: “ The will of John Kohler, father of the cestui que trust, was written thirty-six years before the decree of adoption, and that event therefore was not reasonably' within the contemplation of the testator. But as he gave the estate to those persons to whom the law would give it in the case of intestacy, he cannot be said to have had any particular class of heirs or next of kin in view, and he committed the question of determining who should take to the law itself.” And it is only necessary to add that a testator who commits the distribution of his estate to the law, upon the happening of an event necessarily future, must reasonably be presumed to have contemplated the possibility of a change in the law in the mean time. McGunnigle v. McKee, 77 Pa. 81, and Johnson’s Appeal, 88 Pa. 346, were decided on this principle.

Decree affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A. 286, 199 Pa. 455, 1901 Pa. LEXIS 631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kohlers-estate-pa-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack