Barber v. Pittsburgh Ry Co
Decision Date | 01 March 1897 |
Docket Number | No. 341,341 |
Citation | 17 S.Ct. 488,166 U.S. 83,41 L.Ed. 925 |
Parties | BARBER et al. v. PITTSBURGH, F. W. & C. RY. CO. et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This was a certificate from the circuit court of appeals for the Third circuit of questions on which it desired the instruction of this court, and, as originally made, was (omitting the words printed in brackets below) as follows:
'This was an action of ejectment, and comes before this court on a writ of error to the United States circuit court for the Western district of Pennsylvania, which entered judgment for the defendants.
'First. The parties to the action both claimed title to the land in controversy under the will of James S. Stevenson, deceased, dated March 11, 1831, which is in the words following, to wit:
Jas. S. Stevenson.
'The said court of appeals, desiring the instruction of the supreme court of the United States for its proper decision of the following questions or propositions of law, respectfully certifies the same:
At the suggestion of both parties, and by order of the circuit court of appeals, the certificate was afterwards amended by inserting the words above printed in brackets in the second and third paragraphs thereof; by striking out those in italics in the second paragraph; by adding to the fifth paragraph copies of the opinions delivered, in the action therein described, by Judge Ewing in the court of common pleas of Allegheny county, not reported, and therefore (omitting the preliminary statement of facts) printed in the margin,1 and by the supreme court of Pennsylvania, as reported in 165 Pa. St. 645, 31 Atl. 67; and by adding to the sixth paragraph a copy of the opinion of the circuit court of the United States in the present case, as reported in 69 Fed. 501.
John S. Ferguson and S. Duffield Mitchell, for plaintiffs in error.
D. T. Watson and John McCleave, for defendants in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 88-90 intentionally omitted] Page 97
Mr. Justice GRAY, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
The real question between the parties, upon which the decision of this case must turn, is what estate Amanda Stephens took under the will of James S. Stevenson, by which he devised to her certain lots of land in Pittsburg, and further provided as follows: 'In the event of Amanda dying unmarried, or, if married, dying without offspring by her husband, then
these lots are to be sold, and the proceeds to be divided equally among the heirs of John Barber.'
The testator duly published his will on October 16, 1831, and died on the same day, being 50 years old. At that date John Barber was alive and married, and had children, some of whom are plaintiffs in this action of ejectment. Amanda Stephens, then a child of five years of age, and so described in the will, survived the testator, and afterwards married. She and her husband executed a deed of the land, intended and sufficient to bar an estate tail therein, and afterwards conveyed the land in fee simple to the defendants and others.
The testator died, and his will took effect before the passage of the statute of Pennsylvania of April 8, 1833 (chapter 128, § 9), providing that 'all devises of real estate shall pass the whole estate of the testator in the premises devised, although there be no words of inheritance or of perpetuity, unless it appear by a devise over, or by words of limitation or otherwise in the will, that the testator intended to devise a less estate'; and long before the statute of April 27, 1855 (chapter 387, § 1), providing that 'whenever hereafter, by any gift, conveyance or devise, an estate in fee tail would be created according to the existing laws of this state, it shall be taken and construed to be an estate in fee simple, and as such shall be inheritable and freely alienable,' Laws Pa. 1832-33, p. 249; Laws 1855, p. 368; Purd. Dig. (12th Ed.) 2103, § 11; Id. 810, § 8.
A former action of ejectment was brought by the administrator with the will annexed of the testator against these defendants in the court of common pleas of Allegheny county, in the state of Pennsylvania, which directed a verdict and rendered judgment for the defendants, on the ground that Amanda Stephens took an estate tail, which had been duly barred, and the title conveyed to the defendants.
Upon a writ of error, that judgment was affirmed by the supreme court of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hill v. Atl. & N. C. R. Co
...v. Berry, 8 How. (U. S.) 495, 12 L. Ed. 1170; Hatch v. Burroughs, 1 Woods (U. S.) 439, Fed. Cas. No. 6, 203; Barber v. Railroad, 166 U. S. 83, 17 Sup. Ct. 48S, 41 L. Ed. 925; Wood v. Brady, 150 U. S. 18, 14 Sup. Ct. 6, 37 L. Ed. 981. The charters of both the North Carolina Railroad and the ......
-
Messinger v. Anderson
... ... construction of a will, as they do in the construction of a ... statute. Lane v. Vick, 3 How. 464, 11 L.Ed. 681; ... Barber v. Pittsburg, etc., Ry., 166 U.S. 83, 99, ... 100, 103, 104, 17 Sup.Ct. 488, 41 L.Ed. 925 ... In ... Barber v. Pittsburg Railway, cited ... ...
-
Erie Co v. Tompkins
...272, 54 S.Ct. 671, 78 L.Ed. 1255, 93 A.L.R. 454. 17 Lane v. Vick, 3 How. 464, 476, 11 L.Ed. 681; Barber v. Pittsburg, F.W. & C. Ry. Co., 166 U.S. 83, 99, 100, 17 S.Ct. 488, 41 L.Ed. 925; Messinger v. Anderson, 6 Cir., 171 F. 785, 791, 792, reversed on other grounds 225 U.S. 436, 32 S.Ct. 73......
-
Edward Hines Yellow Pine Trustees v. Martin
...Peck, 18 How. 595, 598, 15 L. Ed. 915; Burgess v. Seligman, 107 U. S. 20, 2 S. Ct. 10, 27 L. Ed. 359; Barber v. Pittsburgh, etc., Railway, 166 U. S. 83, 99, 17 S. Ct. 488, 41 L. Ed. 925; Kuhn v. Fairmont Coal Co., 215 U. S. 349, 30 S. Ct. 140, 54 L. Ed. 228. This court has refused to follow......