Estate of Jacobs

Citations

• 140 Pa. 268
• 21 A. 318
• 1891 Pa. LEXIS 840

Syllabus

<p>1. As was said by Mr. Justice Rogers, in Bender v. Dietrick, 7 W. & S. 284, it is a maxim that an heir at law can be disinherited only by express devise or by necessary implication; and that implication has been defined to be, such a strong probability that an intention to the contrary cannot be supposed.</p> <p>2. When it is manifest, from the provisions of a will, that a testatrix did not intend to die intestate as to any portion of her estate, and that in her will she used the word “ money,” in its popular sense as the equivalent of property, land may pass by a bequest of “ the remainder and residue of my money.”</p> <p>(a) The will of a testatrix made no mention of real estate. After giving various pecuniary and specific legacies, she provided: “ The remainder and residue of my money I give and bequeath to the Hospital of the Protestant Episcopal Church in PhiladelpMa.” Some of her heirs at law were given nothing by the will.</p> <p>(b) Extrinsic evidence was admitted to show that at the date of the will the testatrix owned no real estate, her property then consisting principally of mortgages and securities; and that, by afterwards purchasing land, she reduced her personal estate so that it would not pay more than half her bequests :</p> <p>3. In such ease, there being no doubt that the testatrix intended to dispose of her estate to her legatees, excluding her heirs at law, a distribution applying a part of the proceeds of sale of the after-acquired land to the discharge of the particular legacies, and awarding the remainder to the residuary legatee was affirmed.</p>