Cook v. Quincy United Brethren Orphanage & Home

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April 14, 1913

Cook v. Quincy United Brethren Orphanage & Home, 240 Pa. 308 (Pa. 1913)

87 A. 302; 1913 Pa. LEXIS 667

Brown, Elkin, Mestrezat, Moschzisker, Pell

Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Brown,

There is nothing in the brief will of George Cook to justify the contention of the appellant that he constituted his son Hiram trustee of the share of his estate which he devised to his daughter. He gave directly to her one-half of his real estate for life. No other meaning can be attached to his words; and, when he added, “after her death it shall go to her heirs and assigns,” his meaning is equally clear that it should descend from her. That she took a fee under the rule in Shelley’s case and the Act of April 27,1855, P. L. 368, is too plain *310for discussion, and the only conceivable reason why this appeal was taken must have been the apprehension that, at some time in the future, some one, not a lawyer, might question the title of the testator’s daughter.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: Cook v. Quincy United Brethren Orphanage and Home
Status: Published
Syllabus: Wills — Construction—Estate tail — Estate in fee — Buie in Shelley’s case — Act of April B7,1855, P. L. 868. A testator by will provided tbat after tbe death of his widow, there should be “an equal division between my son and daughter, ; he keeping all money in his hand and only paying her annual interest or such amounts as may be necessary for her comfort in life,” the daughter’s share to “remain in the property as long as she lives and after her death it shall go to her heirs and assigns. If none exists it shall go to her brother Hiram, or his heirs.’’ Held, the daughter took a fee in realty constituting a part of the estate under the rule in Shelley’s case and the Act of April 27, 1855, P. L. 368.