Preston v. Jones
Decision Date | 16 January 1848 |
Citation | 9 Pa. 456 |
Parties | PRESTON <I>v.</I> JONES. |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Jan. 16. BELL, J.
The decision of the question raised by the case stated, depends on the right construction of the will of Evans Jones, and the legal consequences flowing from the acts of his two sons under it.
Although very awkwardly constructed, and with occasional obscurity of expression, the testamentary instrument sufficiently discloses two leading objects the testator had in view. These are still more clearly indicated, if it be read in reference to the condition of the testator's family, and the relation he held to the property, which was the subject of it. Having but two children, he found himself, at the death of his wife, the owner in fee of a tract of land adjoining another, owned by his wife in her lifetime, and of which he was tenant by the curtesy; the two sons being tenants in common of the remainder in fee. Upon this tract the testator had made improvements. Under these circumstances, the first and principal object was to confer on Benjamin the testator's real estate, together with a small part, in severalty, of the descended tract, and to secure to John, in severalty, the enjoyment of the remaining portion, at least for life, and, in a certain event, in fee simple. To carry this object into effect, he entertained the desire to establish a more convenient line of division between the two tracts than then existed. Accordingly, he described a line of separation which he declared should be the boundary of his sons' respective possessions, and directed "both equally to support the fence and clean out the ditch." But, aware that he lacked the power to establish authoritatively the new boundary, or to devise the land which had been of his wife, he endeavoured to attain his object by imposing on the brothers certain conditional duties. To this end, after having given to Benjamin all his estate, with certain exceptions in favour of John — among which were the improvements he had made on his wife's farm — he willed, "if John marries and has children, Benjamin to make John a title for his half of his mother's land, which is a condition of this my will; still, John to have the use of Benjamin's half of his mother's farm, according to the above-described bounds." And again, he said, "I make the above a sine qua non; and if either attempts to break it, is to have no benefit to my estate, but all to go to the one willing to fulfil." Applying a strictly grammatical rule in exposition of a very ungrammatical clause, it is argued that the sentence I have italicised is only applicable to John's holding as tenant for life; and, consequently, the new line of division is to subsist only so long as John remained tenant for life of Benjamin's share, and will be at once obliterated by the performance of the condition creative of a fee. Literally, the clause may convey such a meaning. But looking to the whole will and the evident design of the devisor, this view of it is too narrow. No reason has been, or can be suggested, why a temporary character should be assigned to the new boundary; and as the idea is in direct hostility to the leading intent, to which reference has been made, we must not suffer this to be overborne by a technical construction of a sentence composed by one obviously ignorant of artificial rules. The best answer to the reasoning in support of such a construction, is a reference to all contained within the four corners of the paper. Read in a spirit of candour, it carries conviction that the testator regarded the new line...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Appeal of Kearns
... ... Kerns, by taking the whole of the real estate as an ... exemption: Maier's Estate, 1 Pears. 420; Cox v ... Rogers, 77 Pa. 160; Preston v. Jones, 9 Pa ... 456; Light v. Light, 21 Pa. 407; Hamilton v ... Buckwalter, 2 Y. 389; Cauffman v. Cauffman, 17 ... S. & R. 16; Taylor v ... ...
-
In re Meek's Estate
...The recital was never intended to influence any one for any purpose whatever. The authorities relied on by the claimant are Preston v. Jones, 9 Pa. 456; Miller Springer, 70 Pa. 269; Miller v. Springer, 88 Pa. 203; Burford v. Burford, 29 Pa. 221. Each of these cases is readily distinguished ......
-
Stone v. Cook
...in the notes to the text: Smart v. Easley, 28 Ky. 214, 5 J.J. Marsh. 214; Herbert v. Wren, 11 U.S. 370, 7 Cranch 370, 3 L.Ed. 374; Preston v. Jones, 9 Pa. 456; Smith Guild, 34 Me. 443; Hyde v. Baldwin, 17 Pick. 303; Benedict v. Montgomery, 7 Watts & Serg. 238; Smith v. Smith, 14 Gray 532; V......
-
Cooley v. Houston
...1 Swanst. 433, note; Hamilton v. Buckwalter, 2 Yeates, 389; Cauffman v. Cauffman, 17 S. & R. 16; Stump v. Findlay, 2 Rawle, 168; Preston v. Jones, 9 Pa. 456; Plummer v. Neile, 6 W. & S. 91; Fulton Moore, 25 Pa. 468; Armstrong v. Walker, 150 Pa. 585; Tomkins v. Merriam, 155 Pa. 440; Cummings......