Watson v. Martin

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Watson v. Martin

77 A. 450, 228 Pa. 248, 1910 Pa. LEXIS 464

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 9, 1910

DocketAppeal, No. 402

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 77 A. 450 (Watson 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.

Bluebook

Watson v. Martin, 77 A. 450, 228 Pa. 248, 1910 Pa. LEXIS 464 (Pa. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This was a case stated to determine the title to real estate claimed by the appellant under the following clause of her uncle’s will: “If their is enny cash left over it goes to Lizzie M. Watson.” The testator’s heirs were children of his deceased brothers and sisters. His estate at the execution of his will and at his death ten months later consisted of about $1,400 in money, shares of stock sold by his executor for $5,450, notes amounting to $2,500, household furniture worth $50.00, and a dwelling house for which he paid $2,650. The pecuniary legacies, fifteen [250]*250in number, amounted to $7,100. There was a balance of personal estate after the payment of legacies, debts and expenses of administration of $900, which was awarded to the appellant under the clause of the will above quoted. Her contention is that under this clause she is entitled to the dwelling house also.

The word “cash” cannot be construed to include real estate in the absence of a manifest intent that it was used for that purpose. We find no such intent in the will. No reference is made in it to the real estate, nor is there an expression of an intention to dispose of all the testator’s estate. The rule that a testator is presumed to have intended not to die intestate as to any part of his estate is not of greater force than the rule that an heir is not to be disinherited except by express words or necessary implication: Shaner v. Wilson, 207 Pa. 550.

The intent of a testator must be gathered from what he said. The search for his meaning is confined to his language: Woelpper’s App., 126 Pa. 562.

The'judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

This was a case stated to determine the title to real estate claimed by the appellant under the following clause of her uncle’s will: “If their is enny cash left over it goes to Lizzie M. Watson.” The testator’s heirs were children of his deceased brothers and sisters. His estate at the execution of his will and at his death ten months later consisted of about $1,400 in money, shares of stock sold by his executor for $5,450, notes amounting to $2,500, household furniture worth $50.00, and a dwelling house for which he paid $2,650. The pecuniary legacies, fifteen [250]*250in number, amounted to $7,100. There was a balance of personal estate after the payment of legacies, debts and expenses of administration of $900, which was awarded to the appellant under the clause of the will above quoted. Her contention is that under this clause she is entitled to the dwelling house also.

The word “cash” cannot be construed to include real estate in the absence of a manifest intent that it was used for that purpose. We find no such intent in the will. No reference is made in it to the real estate, nor is there an expression of an intention to dispose of all the testator’s estate. The rule that a testator is presumed to have intended not to die intestate as to any part of his estate is not of greater force than the rule that an heir is not to be disinherited except by express words or necessary implication: Shaner v. Wilson, 207 Pa. 550.

The intent of a testator must be gathered from what he said. The search for his meaning is confined to his language: Woelpper’s App., 126 Pa. 562.

The'judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 A. 450, 228 Pa. 248, 1910 Pa. LEXIS 464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watson-v-martin-pa-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack