Kelley's Estate

Citations

• 250 Pa. 172
• 95 A. 400

Syllabus

<p>Wills — Construction—Legacy — Revocation — Commissions — Surcharge — Life interest — Security.</p> <p>1. Testator by will gave to his nephew $10,000 absolutely. By a codicil he revoked this legacy and left “the same amount to my wife......in trust for” the nephew “to be disposed of as she may think best, either in buying a small farm or whatever is in her judgment for his best interest.” By a second codicil he provided “the legacy to” his nephew “I leave in trust to” testator’s wife “to dispose of as she thinks best.” Upon this second codicil there was the following endorsement: “It is my intention that my wife shall have all I am possessed of during her life, except in case of remarriage when I wish it placed in trust for her free from interference of any one.” Upon a contest between the heirs of the nephew and testator’s widow, the Orphans’ Court decided that the gift to the nephew by the will and first codicil was not revoked by the subsequent codicil and the same was awarded to the widow in trust for the nephew. Meld, no error.</p> <p>2. In such case the fact that the auditor appointed by the Orphans’ Court did not further distribute the trust fund to and among those legally entitled thereto, although he could properly have done so, is not error, as the. award neither concludes nor prejudices anyone having a standing to dispute a claim upon the fund.</p> <p>3. In such case where the estate was upwards of $100,000 in amount, mostly personal property, and very little of it was required to be converted, and the labor of the executrix was much less than in most estates of that size, the court did not err in cutting down tbe commissions from five per cent, to three per cent, and in sucbarging tbe accountant with the difference.</p>