May's Estate

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

May's Estate

102 A. 422, 259 Pa. 115, 1917 Pa. LEXIS 527

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided June 30, 1917·No. Appeal, No. 230·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The provision in the will of the testatrix for Mary E. McManemy, now Mary E. Mulliken, was for income only, and, with the codicil’s revocation of that provision* there was, as the court below correctly held, an intestacy as to such income, without affecting the testamentary disposition of the corpus or principal from which it accrued : Reiehard’s App., 116 Pa. 232.

Appeal dismissed at appellants’ costs.

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

Per Curiam,

The provision in the will of the testatrix for Mary E. McManemy, now Mary E. Mulliken, was for income only, and, with the codicil’s revocation of that provision* there was, as the court below correctly held, an intestacy as to such income, without affecting the testamentary disposition of the corpus or principal from which it accrued : Reiehard’s App., 116 Pa. 232.

Appeal dismissed at appellants’ costs.

May's Estate, 102 A. 422, 259 Pa. 115, 1917 Pa. LEXIS 527 (Pa. 1917).

Pincite

102 A. 422 (May's Estate) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related