Schwem v. Calloway

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Schwem v. Calloway, 226 Pa. 51 (Pa. 1909)
75 A. 22; 1909 Pa. LEXIS 875
Brown, Elkin, Fell, Mestrezat, Mitchell, Potter, Stewart

Schwem v. Calloway

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

If the instrument in question was testamentary it was of course revocable, and was revoked by the subsequent conveyance.

If, however, it was a deed, then the alleged trust created an estate in fee simple or at least in fee tail, which was executed by the statute, in the five heirs of Sarah E. Dinsmore, and the plaintiff, holding a conveyance from all the said heirs, has the entire title.

In either view the judgment must be affirmed.

Reference

Status
Published
Syllabus
Deed — Testamentary paper — Will—Remainder to heirs — Rule in Shelley’s case. A deed by a husband and wife conveyed lands belonging to the wife to a trustee in trust, but reserving to the wife from the operation of the deed all of the lands described therein during her natural life under her full control and possession so that the control and possession of the trustee should only be exercised at the time of her death. The deed further provided that upon her death the trustee should hold the lands for the use of her children, naming them, and after the decease of any of the said children then to the right heirs of such deceased child. The deed further provided that the husband and wife might during the life of both of them by mutual consent, alter or amend the trust or alter or revoke the same. Held, (1) that if the instrument in question was testamentary, it was revocable, and was in fact revoked by a deed by the wife after the death of her husband; (2) that if the instrument was a deed, then the trust created an estate in fee simple or at least in fee tail, which was executed by the statute in the heirs of the wife, and that if the grantee in the deed from the wife also held a conveyance from all the said heirs, he had the entire title.