Reinhart v. Lantz

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Reinhart v. Lantz

37 Pa. 488, 1861 Pa. LEXIS 41

DecidedJanuary 7, 1861

StatusPublished

This text of 37 Pa. 488 (Reinhart v. Lantz) 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

Reinhart v. Lantz, 37 Pa. 488, 1861 Pa. LEXIS 41 (Pa. 1861).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered, by

Lowrie, C. J.

My brethren do not adopt the suggestion made by me in Price v. Taylor, 4 Casey 95, that estates tail ought, under our Intestate Act of 1883, to descend to all the children alike; and therefore we must still hold that they descend to the eldest son. It follows that the judgment in this case is right, unless the entail was docked by the Act of 1855, passed during the life of the first taker. Can we so interpret it ?

We think not. We understand it as applying to future creations of estates tail, and as declaring that any words in a conveyance or devise thereafter made, that would be creative of an estate tail, shall be construed as creating a fee simple. We cannot apply it to devises that went into effect before the passage of the act without disregarding or misplacing the word “ hereafter 4 Casey 107.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered, by

Lowrie, C. J.

My brethren do not adopt the suggestion made by me in Price v. Taylor, 4 Casey 95, that estates tail ought, under our Intestate Act of 1883, to descend to all the children alike; and therefore we must still hold that they descend to the eldest son. It follows that the judgment in this case is right, unless the entail was docked by the Act of 1855, passed during the life of the first taker. Can we so interpret it ?

We think not. We understand it as applying to future creations of estates tail, and as declaring that any words in a conveyance or devise thereafter made, that would be creative of an estate tail, shall be construed as creating a fee simple. We cannot apply it to devises that went into effect before the passage of the act without disregarding or misplacing the word “ hereafter 4 Casey 107.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 Pa. 488, 1861 Pa. LEXIS 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reinhart-v-lantz-pa-1861.