Estate of Brooks

Citations

• 140 Pa. 84
• 21 A. 240
• 1891 Pa. LEXIS 806

Syllabus

<p>(а) A testatrix bequeathed her residuary estate to trustees, to invest and to pay the income thereof to all her children in equal shares, for their sole and separate use and benefit, free and discharged from any debts, contracts or obligations they or any of them might make, with dispositions over.</p> <p>(б) It was provided, however, that, in the event that her husband did not divide his estate among their children as testatrix had done, or should give to their daughters a preference over their son, then the entire income should be paid to the son, during his life, free from debts, etc., and at his death to his children.</p> <p>(c) It was provided, further, that, until her husband’s death and the probate of his will, the whole of her residuary estate should be invested and kept invested, and that the income arising therefrom should accumulate until the death of her husband and the probate of his said last will:</p> <p>1. In such case, it being made to appear that, after the death of the testatrix, her husband had transferred considerable sums to each of the daughters, and had made no provision for the son, the whole of the residuary estate should go to the trustees in trust for the son, and the clause for accumulation became inoperative.</p> <p>2. Moreover, as the trust was to pay the income to the son during his life, and after his death the principal to his heirs, the estate would vest absolutely in the heirs of the son immediately upon his death, and, therefore, the rule against perpetuities was not violated by the provision for accumulation.</p>