Stuhlmann's Estate

Philadelphia County Orphans' Court

Stuhlmann's Estate

9 Pa. D. & C. 49, 1926 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 12

CourtPennsylvania Orphans' Court, Philadelphia County

DecidedDecember 24, 1926

DocketNo. 491

StatusPublished

This text of 9 Pa. D. & C. 49 (Stuhlmann'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

Stuhlmann's Estate, 9 Pa. D. & C. 49, 1926 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 12 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Gest, J.,

The Auditing Judge was so clearly right in his adjudication that little need be added to it. Price’s Estate, 279 Pa. 511, is cited by the learned counsel for the exceptants to show that their interests are vested, and there is quoted from the opinion of the Supreme Court the following (taken from Jarman on Wills): “Where property is given to the children of A in the event of his leaving a child or children surviving him, and he has several children, some of whom die in his lifetime and others survive him, the interests of all the children vested on his death,” but the Supreme Court added, to the above, Jarman’s important qualification, which the court italicized, “But of course the principle does not apply when the contingency of survivorship is expressly attached to the class who are to take.” This was the case in Price’s Estate and is the case here.

The exceptions are dismissed and the adjudication confirmed absolutely.

Thompson, J., did not sit.

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

Gest, J.,

The Auditing Judge was so clearly right in his adjudication that little need be added to it. Price’s Estate, 279 Pa. 511, is cited by the learned counsel for the exceptants to show that their interests are vested, and there is quoted from the opinion of the Supreme Court the following (taken from Jarman on Wills): “Where property is given to the children of A in the event of his leaving a child or children surviving him, and he has several children, some of whom die in his lifetime and others survive him, the interests of all the children vested on his death,” but the Supreme Court added, to the above, Jarman’s important qualification, which the court italicized, “But of course the principle does not apply when the contingency of survivorship is expressly attached to the class who are to take.” This was the case in Price’s Estate and is the case here.

The exceptions are dismissed and the adjudication confirmed absolutely.

Thompson, J., did not sit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 Pa. D. & C. 49, 1926 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stuhlmanns-estate-paorphctphilad-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack