Shenk v. Shenk

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Shenk v. Shenk, 150 Pa. 521 (Pa. 1892)
24 A. 680; 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1358
Heydrick, McCollum, Mitchell, Paxson, Stekrett

Shenk v. Shenk

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

The learned court below entered judgment for the defendant non obstante veredicto upon the reserved point. As he did not file an opinion, we have no means of knowing, the reasons for this ruling. The defence was that the will of Benjamin Shenk did not create a charge upon the land of the defendant; and, further, that, if it did create such charge, the said charge was *523barred by the statute of limitations. The plaintiff’s claim is certainly a stale one. The testator died December 9, 1864. The defendant, who was his grandson, and living with him, took immediate possession of the place devised to him, and has held it ever since. The widow died April 1, 1868. So that one part of the claim has been due about twenty-eight years, the balance of it about twenty-two years. The estate of Benjamin Shenk had been settled more than twenty-one years previous to the commencement of this suit. These facts justify us in saying that it is a stale claim. We need not concern ourselves about the statute of limitations, however, as we do not think the will of Benjamin Shenk creates a charge upon the land in question. Such charges can only arise from the express language of the will, or by necessary implication. Considering the will as a whole, we are not able to say that the testator intended to charge this sum of $2,000 upon the real estate devised to his grandson Samuel Shenk. It was a mere valuation or appraisement of the land.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
Shenk, Admr. v. Shenk
Cited By
2 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Will—Devise—Valuation—Charge on land. A charge on land can arise only from the express language of a will or by necessary implication. A will contained certain charges on the real estate fór testator’s wife and a bequest to her of the yearly interest of one third of the real estate “of the valuation hereinafter made thereof.” Testator then gave his grandson the real estate, charged with the gifts to the wife, and valued and appraised at a certain sum, providing that in case the grandson sold the property he should give his brothers and sisters the first offer to buy the same, upon the same conditions and for the same price at which it was valued and devised to him. The residue of the estate was given to his brothers and sisters, share and share alike, and it was further provided that if their respective shares should be greater than his share, the excess over his share should be equally divided between them all. Held, that the amount of the appraisement was not intended by the testator as a charge upon the real estate but merely as a valuation.