Gorgas's Estate

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Gorgas's Estate, 166 Pa. 269 (Pa. 1895)
31 A. 86; 1895 Pa. LEXIS 1190
Dean, Fell, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Sterrett, Williams

Gorgas's Estate

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

After making sundry bequests, etc., the testatrix gave “ all the rest, residue and remainder of” her estate to four persons, by name, “ to be divided among them in equal shares absolutely.” She made no provision for survivorship or gift over in case either of the residuary legatees should die in her lifetime. One of them did pre-decease her, and the court, rightly holding that there was a lapse as to that share, awarded the same to a niece who was entitled to take under the intestate law. This, as is clearly shown in the opinion of the orphans’ court, is' in accordance with the well settled law of this state, that, as to a lapsed devise or bequest contained in a residuary clause, the testator must be regarded as having died intestate. There is nothing in the will under consideration to take this case out of the general rule. For reasons given in the opinion referred to, the decree should not be disturbed.

Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed with costs to be paid by appellant.

Reference

Full Case Name
Susan Gorgas's Estate. Catherine Robinson's Appeal
Cited By
8 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Will—Lapsed devise—Residuary clause—Intestacy. A testator dies intestate as to a lapsed devise or bequest contained in a residuary clause. Testator gave her residuary estate to four persons to be equally divided between them. One of these persons died in her lifetime. There was no provision for a survivorship among the residuary legatees nor gift over in case of the death of any of them. The person who was entitled to take under the intestate laws was a niece, as to whom the testatrix used the following language in her will: “ I entertain a feeling of love and affection for my niece, Susan Gorgas, of West Chester, and my sole reason for not making her a legatee under this will is the fact that she is already in receipt of a large income derived from her father’s and uncle’s estates.” Held, that the lapsed share of the residuary estate went to the niece, notwithstanding the clause in the will above quoted.