Oyster v. Knull

Citations

• 137 Pa. 448
• 20 A. 624
• 1890 Pa. LEXIS 987

Syllabus

<p>(a) A testator provided as follows: “I give and bequeath to my son FT. K. O. my Mount Airy farm.....for his support, and if he should be spared to have family, I desire the above estate to go to use of his children.” When the testator died, the devisee was but ten years old, and remained unmarried and without issue:</p> <p>1. The word “ children ” in said will, was a word of purchase, not of limitation ; and, therefore, the devisee took but a life-estate. That such was the intention was indicated by the words “ for his support: ” Oyster v. Oyster, 100 Pa. 538; and the word “ desire ” as employed in the will, was not precatory, merely, but mandatory: Fox’s App., 99 Pa. 382.</p> <p>2. The word “ children ” in a will, is primarily and generally a word of purchase; and, while it maybe used to signify heirs, or heirs of the body, itwill not be so construed, unless the testator has employed other words indicative of an intention to use it as a word of limitation.</p>