Schwem v. Calloway

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Schwem v. Calloway

75 A. 22, 226 Pa. 51, 1909 Pa. LEXIS 875

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 5, 1909

DocketAppeal, No. 199

StatusPublished

This text of 75 A. 22 (Schwem v. Calloway) 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

Schwem v. Calloway, 75 A. 22, 226 Pa. 51, 1909 Pa. LEXIS 875 (Pa. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

If the instrument in question was testamentary it was of course revocable, and was revoked by the subsequent conveyance.

If, however, it was a deed, then the alleged trust created an estate in fee simple or at least in fee tail, which was executed by the statute, in the five heirs of Sarah E. Dinsmore, and the plaintiff, holding a conveyance from all the said heirs, has the entire title.

In either view the judgment must be affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

If the instrument in question was testamentary it was of course revocable, and was revoked by the subsequent conveyance.

If, however, it was a deed, then the alleged trust created an estate in fee simple or at least in fee tail, which was executed by the statute, in the five heirs of Sarah E. Dinsmore, and the plaintiff, holding a conveyance from all the said heirs, has the entire title.

In either view the judgment must be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 A. 22, 226 Pa. 51, 1909 Pa. LEXIS 875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwem-v-calloway-pa-1909.