Hood v. Maires

Citations

• 255 Pa. 128
• 99 A. 481
• 1916 Pa. LEXIS 538

Syllabus

<p>Wills — Remainders—Tested and contingent remainders — Construction — Intention.</p> <p>1. If there is a present right to a future possession though that right may be defeated by some future event, contingent or certain, there is nevertheless a vested estate. An unpossessed estate is vested if it is certain to take effect in possession, by enduring longer than the precedent estate.</p> <p>2. The láw favors vested rather than contingent estates, and unless it clearly appears from the context or circumstances of the case that a contingent interest was intended, the remainder will be regarded as vesting at the death of the testator and not at the expiration of the life tenancy.</p> <p>3-. A testator bequeathed all his estate to his wife for her life or until her remarriage and provided that upon the termination of the wife’s estate all his property should go to “my five children” (naming them) “to be equally parted and divided among them share and share alike, and to be paid and delivered unto my son at his age of twenty-one years, and to my said daughters at their several respective ages of twenty-one years or the day of marriage, whichever shall first happen. And my will and meaning is that in case any of my said children shall depart this life before such time as the part or portion of him, her or- them so dying shall become payable, then and in such case the. part or portion to him, her or them so dying shall go to and be equally divided among the survivor or survivors at the time aforesaid.” The widow and children survived the testator; one of the daughters married during her minority and died intestate after her majority leaving a child. Held, that, such daughter’s share had become vested and her child became entitled thereto, upon the subsequent death of the widow.</p> <p>Bartholemew’_s Est., 155 Pa. 314, distinguished.</p>