M'Conkey v. M'Conkey
This text of 9 Watts 352 (M'Conkey v. M'Conkey) 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
Ilgenfritz’s appeal was decided without adverting to the statute of 1833, which declares that “the issue of such deceased child, grandchild, or other descendant, shall take, by representation of their parents respectively, such share only as would have descended to such parents had they been living at the death of the intestate.” On this principle of representation, and not of substitution, had been decided Earnest v. Earnest; and the oversight in Ilgenfritz’s appeal, is one for which it is difficult to account. It is very plain that the construction put upon the statute in the present case is the proper one.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
9 Watts 352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mconkey-v-mconkey-pa-1840.