Estate of Lippincott

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania January 27, 1896

Estate of Lippincott, 173 Pa. 368 (Pa. 1896)

34 A. 58; 1896 Pa. LEXIS 711

Dean, Fell, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Sterrett, Williams

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

Appellant’s contention here, as it was in the court below, is that under the words “ and personal effects,” in the seventh item of his will, the testator intended she should take the personal effects in his house, such as pictures and furniture. This eon*374struction was very forcibly presented by ber learned counsel in his argument; but our consideration of the subject has led us to the conclusion that the words employed by the testator were rightly construed by the learned auditing judge whose decree was approved by the court in banc. On his opinion we affirm the decree and dismiss the appeal with costs to be paid by appellant.

Reference

Full Case Name: Estate of William Lippincott. Appeal of Margaret Lardner Reakert
Cited By: 29 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Will — •“ Personal effects ” — Ejusdem generis — Construction of will. When a testator enumerates particular kinds of chattels and couples with them the word “ effects,” or equivalent words, the generality of his expression is to be restricted to such species of property as are ejusdem generis with the particular words. A bequest of “my jewelry, wearing apparel, and personal effects, except such of the same as are herein otherwise disposed of,” does not include furniture in the testator’s dwelling, where the excepted articles. “ otherwise disposed of” were associated with the person of the testator.