In re Yetter's Estate
| Decision Date | 26 March 1894 |
| Docket Number | 61 |
| Citation | 160 Pa. 506,28 A. 847 |
| Parties | Yetter's Estate. Minton's Trust. Rouse's Appeal |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued March 5, 1894
Appeal, No. 61, Jan. T., 1894, by Sarah Rouse et al distributees, from decree of O.C. Monroe Co., distributing estate of Eve Yetter, dec'd. Affirmed.
Exceptions to auditor's report. Before STORM, P.J.
From the auditor's report it appeared that, on July 18, 1888 Eve Yetter died, leaving a will, the material portions of which are as follows:
John Minton, the son mentioned in the will, died intestate and without issue. After his death the trustee appointed by the orphans' court filed an account, showing a balance for distribution under the will of Mrs. Yetter. The executor of Mrs. Yetter had previously filed accounts which had been referred to auditors. At these audits the half-brothers of Mrs. Yetter had not appeared, and no distribution was made to them or their representatives out of the funds, but the whole amount of the funds had been awarded to the other residuary legatees. At the present audit, representatives of the half-brothers claimed to be awarded an amount sufficient to equalize them with the other legatees.
The auditor found that John Minton took only a life estate under the mother's will, and made distribution in accordance with the claim of the half-brothers.
Exceptions were dismissed by the court.
Error assigned was dismissal of exceptions and confirmation of report, not quoting exceptions.
The decree of the court below is affirmed at the cost of the appellants.
S. Holmes, S. S. Shafer with him, for appellants. -- A gift of the income arising from personal property, to one for life, followed by words expressing or implying a right to use the principal, even though followed by a gift over of the principal, or of any remaining portion thereof, is always construed to vest said personalty absolutely in the first taker: Hambright's Ap., 2 Grant, 320; Straub's Ap., 1 Pa. 86; Cox v. Rogers, 77 Pa. 160; Follweiler's Ap., 102 Pa. 581; Scholl's Ap., 18 W.N. 91.
Prima facie the first taker is the principal object of the testator's bounty, and in doubtful cases the construction leans in favor of making the gift to him as effectual as possible: Rewalt v. Ulrich, 23 Pa. 388; Fitzwater's Ap., 94 Pa. 141.
In the construction of wills the law in doubtful cases leans in favor of an absolute, rather than a defeasible estate: Amelia Smith's Ap., 23 Pa. 9; Second Reformed Presbyterian Church v. Disbrow, 52 Pa. 219; Watson's Estate, 14 W.N. 309; Brown's Ap., 14 A. R. 130.
In construing a will, the circumstances of the testator, his family, and the amount and character of his property, should be taken into consideration: Postlethwaite's Ap., 68 Pa. 477.
The auditor has no more right to make an unequal distribution now, on account of some inequality in the distribution of the residuary fund, than he would have, in a distribution of stocks and bonds specifically bequeathed, to give and withhold, for similar reasons. The will directs an equal distribution of this special fund and the auditor has no right to make an unequal distribution.
W. A. Erdman of Gearhart & Erdman for appellees. -- The legacy to John Minton was simply a life estate in the land.
The cardinal rule of construction is that the intent of the testator is to be gathered from the four corners of the will, taken as a whole: Stoner & Barr's Ap., 2 Pa. 428; Miller's Ap., 113 Pa. 459.
All technical rules of construction must yield to the expressed intention of the testator, if such intent be lawful: Wright's Ap., 89 Pa. 67; Biddle's Ap., 99 Pa. 525; Baker & Wheeler's Ap., 115 Pa. 590; Still v. Spear, 45 Pa. 168; Middleton's Ap., 103 Pa. 92; Haldeman v. Haldeman, 40 Pa. 29; Middleswarth's Admr. v. Blackmore, 74 Pa. 414.
A limitation over on the death of the first taker, or a direction that the interest of money shall be paid annually to him for life, is held to be evidence that he has but a life interest: Myers' Ap., 49 Pa. 111; Eichelberger's Est., 135 Pa. 160; Dull's Est., 137 Pa. 112; Reck's Ap., 78 Pa. 432.
The brothers and sisters of the half blood were entitled to participate in the distribution.
He who seeks equity must do equity: Adams and Smith v. Smith, 19 Pa. 182; Davidson v. Barclay, 73 Pa. 406; Rankin v. Simpson, 19 Pa. 471; Bleakley's Ap., 66 Pa. 187.
Within the limits of its jurisdiction the orphans' court is strictly a court of equity: Bayley's Ap., 60 Pa. 354; Johnson's Ap., 114 Pa. 132; Drennan's Ap., 118 Pa. 176; Milne's Ap., 99 Pa. 482; George's Ap., 12 Pa. 262.
One participating in former distribution is entitled to come in and participate in subsequent distributions to the extent of all the distributions: Grim's Ap., 109 Pa. 391; Grim's Est., 147 Pa. 190.
Before STERRETT, C.J., GREEN, MITCHELL, DEAN and FELL, JJ.
The will of Eve Yetter contains two residuary clauses. One is the clause which gives the fund of three thousand dollars bequeathed to a trustee for John Minton, or the remainder of it left at his death, "to be divided equally share and share alike to or among my brothers and sisters or their lineal heirs." And the other...
To continue reading
Request your trial