Estate of Cox

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Estate of Cox, 180 Pa. 139 (Pa. 1897)
36 A. 564; 1897 Pa. LEXIS 891
Dean, Fell, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Sterrett, Williams

Estate of Cox

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

The questions presented by this appeal were carefully considered and rightly decided by the orphans’ court in banc. There was no error in sustaining exceptions to the adjudication, or in holding that the testator, Abraham Cox, died testate as to the residue Of the estate remaining after deducting the sum of $30,000, set apart for his grandson; and hence the fund in question was rightly awarded to the widow and children of the testator’s deceased son Abraham R. Cox.

The will under which the question of intestacy arose was correctly construed by the court below, and, on its opinion, the decree is affirmed and appeal dismissed at appellant’s costs.

Reference

Full Case Name
Estate of Abraham R. Cox, Appeal of Holstein DeHaven, Guardian of the Estate of Robert T. Potts, a minor
Cited By
6 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Will — Intestacy—Qomtruetion of will. Testator leaving a wife, a son and a daughter to survive him gave the residue of his estate to a trustee in trust to pay the net income to his wife and two children share and share alike during their lives. He directed that after the death of his daughter, the trustee should set apart for the benefit of his daughter’s child a certain fund which was to be paid to the child when he reached the age of twenty-one. He further directed that after the death of the daughter and during the lifetime of the widow one half, and at the death of the widow, the entire income of his residuary estate, less that of the fund set aside for the daughter’s child, should be paid to the son for life; but if the son should die in the lifetime of the widow, his share of the income should be paid to his wife and children until the death of the widow, and thereupon the principal of the residue, less the fund set aside for the daughter’s child, should be divided between the son’s wife and children. The son survived the widow of the testator, and left surviving him a wife and children. Held, that although the will did not provide specifically for the contingency of the death of the son after the death of testator’s widow, no intestacy occurred as to the residue, since it was the manifest intent of the will that upon the death of testator’s widow and son, the principal of the residue was to go to the son’s widow and children.