Pifer v. Locke
| Decision Date | 04 May 1903 |
| Docket Number | 292 |
| Citation | 205 Pa. 616,55 A. 790 |
| Parties | Pifer v. Locke, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued April 20, 1903
Appeal, No. 292, Jan. T., 1902, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. Centre Co., Aug. T., 1902, No. 162, in case of Harriet M. Pifer et al. v. Blanche M. Locke. Affirmed.
Case stated to determine the marketability of real estate.
The court below, LOVE, P.J., filed the following opinion:
This is a case stated to determine the legal title or rather the character of the title to a certain messuage, tenement and lot of ground situate in the Borough of Bellefonte: devised to Harriet M. Pifer under the last will and testament of George Livingston, deceased, and which the plaintiffs have sold by articles of agreement to the defendant. The case stated sets forth the location and description of the property in detail, that George Livingston died seized in his demesne of fee of said premises. That he made his last will and testament dated June 27, 1872, which since his death was duly probated, and recorded in the office of the register of wills, for Centre county in Will Book "C" page 495 etc.
By his said will, in item four, he devised and bequeathed as follows. "But the same is not to be made liable in any manner for the debts present or future of her husband."
The question submitted to the determination of the court upon the case stated, is the nature of the estate taken by Harriet M Pifer, under the devise in said will. It seems clear to us that the intention of the testator under the devise in his will was to constitute Harriet M. Pifer, and her children or issue the absolute beneficiaries of the premises devised. It is in our judgment unnecessary to discuss or review the authorities as to the meaning of the words children or issue in the devise. It might not be a distorted construction to say they were used in the sense of heirs.
We are of the opinion that the devise vested in Harriet M. Pifer an estate in fee tail and under the act of April 27, 1855, it is an estate in fee simple. We think the following cases sustain this construction: Haldeman v. Haldeman, 40 Pa. 29; Potts's Appeal, 30 Pa. 168; Ogden's Appeal, 70 Pa. 501; Armstrong v. Michener, 160 Pa. 21; Grimes v. Shirk, 169 Pa. 74; Hiester v. Yerger, 166 Pa. 445; Boyd et al. v. Weber, 193 Pa. 651; Shoup v. De Long, 190 Pa. 331.
In the case stated it is stated that Harriet M. Pifer and her husband and Mary P. Shontz, the only child of Mrs. Pifer and her husband, are ready to execute a deed to the purchaser for said premises.
We are of the opinion, in any event, that a deed executed by the said parties named would convey to the purchaser, Blanche M. Locke, a good and valid title in fee simple for the said premises mentioned.
It is therefore directed that judgment be entered in favor of the plaintiffs on the case stated against the defendant for the sum of $2,600, said judgment to be released, unless at the time of the execution and tender of the deed, the premises are free of liens or other incumbrances, the costs as per agreement in case stated to be paid by the plaintiff.
Judgment was entered for the plaintiff for $2,600. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned was in entering judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.
We think under this devise the plaintiff Harriett M. Pifer took an estate in fee tail general, which the statute of 1855 resolves into an estate in fee simple in her. The judgment of the court below is affirmed.
John Blanchard and Edmund Blanchard, for appellant.
A. O. Furst, for appellees, was not heard.
Before DEAN, FELL, BROWN, MESTREZAT and POTTER, JJ.
By articles of March 14, 1902,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pifer v. Locke
... 55 A. 790205 Pa. 616 PIFER et al. v. LOCKE. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. May 4, 1903. Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Center County. Action by Harriet M. Pifer and others against Blanche M. Locke. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed. The court below (Love, P. J.) ......