Painter v. Painter
Citations
- 220 Pa. 82
- 69 A. 323
- 1908 Pa. LEXIS 733
Syllabus
<p>Will — Conversion—Equitable conversion — Intention of testator — Necessity — Failure of purpose.</p> <p>The crucial test in the application of the doctrine of equitable conversion always is whether it is absolutely necessary to carry out the purpose and object of the testator or settlor. If its interposition is a necessity, then it may be invoked with all its legal consequences. Before the rule can operate, however, in the case of a will, the purpose of a testator must be ascertained. Until this is done there is no room for the application of the doctrine. The intent of the testator being ascertained, then so far, and only so far, as there is a necessity to carry that into effect will there be conversion, though an actual sale of the land has taken place. The doctrine is not an inexorable rule of law to control the inheritance of estates, or to defeat the intestate laws of the state which direct the disposition of the estates of the dead. It is not an inheritance law, nor is it a rule, enforcible at law or in equity, by which a court can divert the transmission of real property from the inheritable channel provided by the laws of the commonwealth. It is simply a fiction, a creation of equity, to carry into effect the purpose in the disposition of his real estate which a testator has expressed in his will and which, without its application, would be defeated.</p> <p>The sole purpose of the doctrine of conversion in the case of a will, being to effectuate the intention of the testator, it cannot be invoked when his intention fails, or is incapable of accomplishment. The reason of the rule then ceases, and the rule itself no longer obtains.</p> <p>A direction to sell, for a particular object, or with a view of a contingent event, will not work a conversion, if the object cannot be accomplished, or the contingency does not happen, unless the testator plainly intended that the sale should be an end, and not merely a means.</p> <p>Testator by his will gave a farm to hi
Judges: Brown, Elkin, Fell, Galbreath, Mestrezat, Mitchell, Potter, Stewart
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
10 cases in this archive cite this case.
- In re Estate of SanfordSupreme Court of Iowa· 1919-12-19· cited 28×
- Wagner v. ClausonIllinois Supreme Court· 1948-03-18· cited 26×
- Thompson's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1911-01-03· cited 24×
- Reed's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1912-07-02· cited 14×
- Moore v. KernachanSupreme Court of Virginia· 1922-06-15· cited 10×
- Schoen's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1922-04-10· cited 8×
- Carter's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1909-06-22· cited 6×
- Ramsey v. RamseySupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1910-01-03· cited 4×
- Acklin's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1912-10-14· cited 2×
- Pullinger's EstateSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1912-03-01· cited 1×
Cites
4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.