Wilson v. Ott

Citations

• 160 Pa. 433
• 28 A. 848
• 1894 Pa. LEXIS 825

Syllabus

<p>Dower — Vested remainder — Posthumous child — Mortgage—Mistake of law.</p> <p>The owner oí a vested remainder in fee devised the estate absolutely to his wife. After his death a posthumous child was born. The child died prior to the death of the life tenant. Held, (1) that the will was revoked by the birth of the child, who took a fee in the real estate subject to the dower interest of the remainder-man’s widow; (2) that the widow, although not entitled to the enjoyment of the estate until the death of the life tenant, had an interest which she could convey.</p> <p>In the above case, after the death of the child, but before the death of the life tenant, the brothers of the remainder-man took a deed from the widow, in which she purported to convey to them a fee, and at the same time they gave her a mortgage to secure the purchase money. At the time the deed was given all parties were under the impression that the widow took a fee as the heir of her son. After the death of the life tenant, the brothers claimed that the fee was really in themselves as heirs at law of the blood of the ancestor from whom the estate came, and that it did not pass to the child’s mother. Held, that the widow was entitled to recover at least the value of her dower interest.</p> <p>Not decided whether the widow was entitled to recover the whole amount of the mortgage.</p>