Plumly's Estate

Citations

• 261 Pa. 432
• 104 A. 670
• 1918 Pa. LEXIS 759

Syllabus

<p>IFills — Residuary clauses — “Balance”—Oonstruction—Intention —Disinterested heir.</p> <p>1. While it is true that a residuary clause carries all not well given, it is equally true that an heir can not be disinherited except by express words or necessary implication. Where the scales hang perfectly even, then the intent of the testator is to be gathered from the language of the will alone; and' if it be doubtful whether .a particular item was intended to carry the residue, a construction is to be favored which most nearly conforms to the intestate laws.</p> <p>2. A testatrix bequeathed $15,000 in fifteen separate legacies; in addition’to these legacies, and interlarded between them, she bequeathed to a brother-in-law “the interest of' four thousand dollars during his lifetime.” She further provided: “If my estate should not reach the amount as willed,- then I wish each one to receive pro rata of the amount as willed, and if on the other hand it should exceed the amount, I wish the balance to be divided between my nephew, Eugene K. Pl.umly, and my niece, R. May Swaim, or* their heirs. I wish......all taxes to be paid out of the estate on the four thousand I have left him [the brother-in-law] so he can have the full interest on what I have left him.” At the audit of the trustee’s account,- it appeared that the brother-in-law had died and that the excess of testatrix’s estate, after payment of legacies, including the trust legacy of $4,000 and all expenses, was less than $100. The Orphans’ Court decided that Eugene II. Plumly and R. May Swain were general residuary legatees and that the corpus of the $4,000 should be divided between them. Held, that such legatees were merely-given the balance remaining over and above the total,of the legacies previously named in the will and that the corpus of the $4,000 in which the brother-in-law had a life interest did not fall into the residue, but was distributable among- the next of kin, and the decree was reversed.</p>