Taylor v. Martin
This text of 8 A. 920 (Taylor v. Martin) 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.
Opinion
It is true that the words “wish” and “desire” are sometimes considered and held to be precatory merely, in wills, and not mandatory. Where they are used as expressing a desire for an act to be done by some person or persons named by the testator, they may be held in many cases to be merely precatory; but no such presumption necessarily arises when the words are used to express the intention and will of the testator. In such case they are held to be mandatory.
An examination of the whole will in the present case satisfies us that the testator intended to give to his wife a life estate only, and that full effect should be given to the fourth and fifth items in the will. Thus construing the will the court committed no error in entering judgment in favor of the defendants on the case stated.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
8 A. 920, 6 Sadler 125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-martin-pa-1887.