Appeal of Mendinhall

Citations

• 124 Pa. 387
• 16 A. 881
• 1889 Pa. LEXIS 1044

Syllabus

<p>1. It is a rule laid down that when a testator revokes by a codicil a devise or bequest iu Ms will,'or in a previous codicil, expressly grounding such revocation on the assumption of a fact which turns out to be false, the revocation docs not take effect, because considered conditional and dependent on a contingency which fails.</p> <p>2. This rule may be conceded to be correct when applied to oases in which the falsity or error of the alleged fact rested not in the personal knowledge of the testator, but was assumed upon information derived from others, as in: Campbell v. French, 3 Ves. Jr. 321; Doe d. Evans v. Evans, 10 Ad. & E. 228.</p> <p>3. But where a testator by a codicil revokes a legacy to his daughter, giving as a reason that Iks had made a gift of stock and a loan of money to her husband, the codicil will not be held inoperative on the ground that the transfer of the stock was a sale and. not a gift and no loan was ever made, when in fact the transaction was peculiarly within the testator’s knowledge and was in effect an advancement.</p>