Stevenson's Estate

Philadelphia County Orphans' Court

Stevenson's Estate

48 Pa. D. & C. 140, 1943 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 68

CourtPennsylvania Orphans' Court, Philadelphia County

DecidedJune 4, 1943

Docketno. 222

StatusPublished

This text of 48 Pa. D. & C. 140 (Stevenson's Estate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Orphans' Court, Philadelphia County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stevenson's Estate, 48 Pa. D. & C. 140, 1943 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 68 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

Van Dusen, P. J.,

The exceptions are dismissed for the reasons given by the learned auditing judge. We refer also to a somewhat analogous case: Carpenter’s Estate, 8 D. & C. 512. In that ease there was an absolute gift to a daughter, which was immediately cut down in the same paragraph of the will to a separate use trust for her life with remainder to her issue. She never married and had no issue, so that the whole of the limitation upon the first absolute gift failed. It was held that the absolute gift stood.

This case was followed in the Estate of Catharine A. Warner, July term, 1904, no. 241, in which there was [151]*151an absolute gift to a daughter which was cut down to a life estate with power of appointment. The appointment was so exercised as to violate the rule against remoteness; and I held that the first absolute gift stood. See also Gray’s Rule Against Perpetuities 437, §423.

The adjudication is confirmed absolutely.

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

Van Dusen, P. J.,

The exceptions are dismissed for the reasons given by the learned auditing judge. We refer also to a somewhat analogous case: Carpenter’s Estate, 8 D. & C. 512. In that ease there was an absolute gift to a daughter, which was immediately cut down in the same paragraph of the will to a separate use trust for her life with remainder to her issue. She never married and had no issue, so that the whole of the limitation upon the first absolute gift failed. It was held that the absolute gift stood.

This case was followed in the Estate of Catharine A. Warner, July term, 1904, no. 241, in which there was [151]*151an absolute gift to a daughter which was cut down to a life estate with power of appointment. The appointment was so exercised as to violate the rule against remoteness; and I held that the first absolute gift stood. See also Gray’s Rule Against Perpetuities 437, §423.

The adjudication is confirmed absolutely.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 Pa. D. & C. 140, 1943 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 68, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stevensons-estate-paorphctphilad-1943.