Russell v. Kennedy

Citations

• 66 Pa. 248
• 1871 Pa. LEXIS 22

Syllabus

<p>1. A devise was “ As to my wife, as she has helped to make the property, it is my will that she should have the Draper place, of 150 and 125 acres of land on the where we now live; and the Smith lot and the Possession lot, to have the use of in the family until July Ann and Clinton has their land set off to them. These other two lots, during her natural life, then to be divided amongst the children, as she direct.” Held, (1.) That “these other two lots” meant the lots first mentioned: (2.) That the wife took an estate for life with a limited power of appointment amongst the children.</p> <p>2. The wife devised the ‘‘ homestead” to one child and made no disposition of the other, which, therefore, went to the children in default of appointment. Held to be a valid execution of the power.</p> <p>3. The execution of the power was the same as if she had made the same disposition of the second lot as took place for default of appointment.</p> <p>4. An appointment of both lots to one, would have been void.</p> <p>5. Quoties in verbis nulla est ambiguitas, ibi nulla expositio contra verba Jienda est, applied.</p>