Lauer v. Hoffman

Citations

• 241 Pa. 315
• 88 A. 496
• 1913 Pa. LEXIS 782

Syllabus

<p>Wills — Construction—Devise of real estate — Rule in Shelley’s Case — Operation of rule — Estate in fee — Expressed intention.</p> <p>1. The touchstone, as unvarying as the needle to the pole, for the application of the rule in Shelley’s Case, is a clearly expressed intention by a grantor or dévisor that the remaindermen are not to take from him, but from his grantee or devisee of a life estate to which he has attached an inheritable succession in his grantee or devisee.</p> <p>2. Testator by will provided as follows: “I give and devise to my said wife......my real estate......she to have and to hold the same for and during the term of her natural life,......and immediately after the death of my said wife I give and devise the said real estate to my only child and daughter for and during the term of her natural life......and after the death of my said daughter the said real estate shall descend to and become vested in the children of my said daughter, should she have any, in fee simple, and in default of such children, then such person or persons as she may by her last will and testament direct, — but in no event whatever shall the fee simple to the said real estate vest in my wife......or my daughter..... .during their lifetime or the lifetime of either of them.” Held, that the daughter took a fee under the application of the rule in Shelley’s Case to the clearly expressed intention of the father, that upon her death the property should descend to her child, and subsequent words were utterly inoperative to prevent the legal consequence of the former, even though it be admitted that the testator intended that the rule in Shelley’s Case should not apply to it.</p> <p>Mr. Justice Mestrezat and Mr. Justice Moschzisker dissent.</p>