Gilchrist v. Empfield

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Gilchrist v. Empfield, 194 Pa. 397 (Pa. 1900)
45 A. 46; 1900 Pa. LEXIS 400
Brown, Dean, Fell, Green, McCollum, Mitchell

Gilchrist v. Empfield

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

We are clearly of opinion that the widow took a fee simple estate under her husband’s will. The third clause is an absolute and unqualified devise of the whole residue of the estate in fee simple. There is nothing in the fourth clause to modify this in the least degree. The fifth clause is in language such as is often used in similar cases, and does not reduce the estate given by the third clause. It recognizes the right of the widow to expend such parts of the estate as she chooses, and only disposes of what is left. We have often held such devises to carry the fee, even where there has been no absolute provision to that effect. Moreover, the will in the fifth clause gives the unexpended residue to the same persons who would have taken *399under the description of heirs, to wit: all the children of both the parents: Evans v. Smith, 166 Pa. 625, is almost precisely like this.

Judgment affirmed..

Reference

Full Case Name
Margaret A. Gilchrist v. Frank T. Empfield
Cited By
6 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Will — Construction—Fee simple estate — Widow. Testator gave all the residue of his estate, real and personal, to his wife and her heirs. He directed that his wife should “ properly educate ” his children. He then directed as follows: “ I will and direct that after the death of my said wife all the property hereby devised or bequeathed to her as aforesaid, or as much thereof as may then remain unexpended, shall descend to and vest in my son and my daughter and any other child or children that may hereafter be born to my said wife, and by me begotten.” Held, that the widow took a fee simple in the real estate.