Pearsol v. Maxwell

• Decision Date: 05 October 1896
• Docket Number: Sept. Term,1896.,1
• Parties: PEARSOL et al. v. MAXWELL et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

76 F. 428

PEARSOL et al. v. MAXWELL et al.

No. 1, Sept. Term, 1896.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

October 5, 1896

Edward Campbell, for plaintiffs in error.

William G. Guiles, for defendants in error.

Before DALLAS, Circuit Judge, and BUTLER and WALES, District Judges.

DALLAS Circuit Judge.

The case of the plaintiffs in error rests upon their contention that by the will of Samuel N. Crawford there was vested in the children of Edith Pearsol an estate in remainder in the land in dispute upon determination of an estate for life in the said Edith Pearsol; but the conclusive answer to this contention is that the estate devised to Edith Pearsol is an estate of inheritance, and not for life only, and that no interest of estate whatever was devised to her children. The quantity of the estate which Edith Pearsol was to take was defined by the words, 'to have and to hold to the said Edith Pearsol and the heirs of her body,' and that these words, if alone considered, created an estate tail, is hornbook law. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs has however, strenuously insisted that the legal significance of technical words will not prevail against the true intent of a testator as disclosed by his entire will, and especially by its latest dispositions, which, when in conflict with any preceding part of it, are to be given controlling effect. These general principles need not be questioned,-- when correctly understood and rightly applied, they are unquestionable,-- but they are not determinative of the present controversy, for the reason that, even in a will, the presumption is that technical words have been used in their technical sense, and this presumption cannot be rebutted otherwise than by showing an unequivocally expressed intent to use them in some other sense. The only dispositive provision of Samuel N. Crawford's will affecting this land devices an estate tail to Edith Pearsol, and we are asked to infer or imply an inconsistent devise to her children because the testator, towards the end of his will declared that none of the family of his uncle, Joseph Crawford, should receive any benefit from his (testator's) estate, and more especially because the devise to Edith Pearsol is followed by these words:

'Provided however, that the children of the said Edith Pearsol do not marry or be given in marriage to any of the children of my uncle Joseph Crawford, or to any of his...