Scott v. Murray

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Scott v. Murray

67 A. 47, 218 Pa. 186, 1907 Pa. LEXIS 478

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 13, 1907

DocketAppeal, No. 26

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 67 A. 47 (Scott v. Murray) 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

Scott v. Murray, 67 A. 47, 218 Pa. 186, 1907 Pa. LEXIS 478 (Pa. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Testator devised all his estate, real, personal and mixed to his wife “ and her heirs and assigns forever.” This was a fee simple in the very language of the books, and if he had stopped here there could have been no question. But he added, “so long as she remains my widow.” These words, however, do not indicate any intention to cut down the quantum of estate granted, which is never done except in obedience to a clear intent. No such intent is expressed here. On the contrary, the words are equivalent to saying “provided she remains my widow,” and instead of cutting down the estate, merely attached a condition which made it defeasible in toto on a'breach. The widow not having remarried died seized in fee.

The learned court below thought the case governed by Cooper v. Pogue, 92 Pa. 254. But the operative language of the will there was “ to my wife, so long as she remains my widow, I give the income of the home farm .... also the Mansion House,” etc. There was no primary gift of the fee as in the present case, but a gift of income and profits, expressly limited to widowhood, and the court held that the devise of the Mansion House, etc., was limited to the same estate. The present case is more analogous to Redding v. Rice, 171 Pa. 301, and is a stronger case for a fee.

Judgment reversed and judgment directed to be entered for plaintiff.

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

Per Curiam,

Testator devised all his estate, real, personal and mixed to his wife “ and her heirs and assigns forever.” This was a fee simple in the very language of the books, and if he had stopped here there could have been no question. But he added, “so long as she remains my widow.” These words, however, do not indicate any intention to cut down the quantum of estate granted, which is never done except in obedience to a clear intent. No such intent is expressed here. On the contrary, the words are equivalent to saying “provided she remains my widow,” and instead of cutting down the estate, merely attached a condition which made it defeasible in toto on a'breach. The widow not having remarried died seized in fee.

The learned court below thought the case governed by Cooper v. Pogue, 92 Pa. 254. But the operative language of the will there was “ to my wife, so long as she remains my widow, I give the income of the home farm .... also the Mansion House,” etc. There was no primary gift of the fee as in the present case, but a gift of income and profits, expressly limited to widowhood, and the court held that the devise of the Mansion House, etc., was limited to the same estate. The present case is more analogous to Redding v. Rice, 171 Pa. 301, and is a stronger case for a fee.

Judgment reversed and judgment directed to be entered for plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A. 47, 218 Pa. 186, 1907 Pa. LEXIS 478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-murray-pa-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack