Ramsey v. Hanlon
| Decision Date | 28 November 1887 |
| Citation | 33 F. 425 |
| Parties | RAMSEY et al. v. HANLON et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Ramsey & Maxwell, W. B. Rodgers, and George S. Hart, for plaintiff.
M. C Acheson and Brown & Stewart, for defendants.
The only ground upon which the plaintiffs question the title acquired by the purchaser at the sheriff's sale is that the sale was under a judgment against Sarah McCreery executrix of William McCreery, deceased, without joining the heirs or devisees, or warning them by scire facias, as required by the thirty-fourth section of the act of assembly of February 24, 1834. Purdon, 530 pl. 112. But if, as the defendants contend, the will of William McCreery worked an equitable conversion of his real estate into personalty, then it is clear that the act has no application to the case. Leiper v. Thomson, 60 Pa.St. 177. Did the will effect such a conversion? I am of the opinion that it did. Providing for the disposition of his estate upon the decease of his widow, the testator directs as follows: 'After the death of my said wife, I allow all my estate to be disposed of at public sale, and as soon as the proceeds of the sale is collected, it is my will that the amount be equally divided among my daughters, share and share alike, as follows, viz., Polly, Nancy, Sarah, and Rachel; and should any of them be dead before such distribution, then an equal distribution among the survivors. ' Now manifestly, the words 'I allow' are here used in the sense of positive direction, for without the sale the testator's expressed intention in respect to distribution could not be carried out. This interpretation is strongly confirmed by comparing the foregoing provision with a subsequent clause of the will, viz.: 'Should my said wife Sarah, at any time after my death get married, it is my will that as soon after such marriage that my estate be sold and distributed in the same manner as above provided for at the time of her death, giving to my said wife her legal dower, and no more. ' Thus hath the testator himself signified that he used the expression 'I allow' as the equivalent of 'I will.' Furthermore, the testator has made no other disposition of his real estate. Presumably, a partial intestacy was not within his contemplation. Without a sale of the real estate, the scheme of the will, indeed, would be frustrated.
There is no lack of authority to support the conclusion that a conversion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
De Vaughn v. McLeroy
...testator's death, (Adams, Eq., 7th Amer. Ed., top p. 136, and note 1; McWilliams' Appeal, [Pa.] 11 A. 383; Carr v. Branch, supra; Ramsey v. Hanlon, 33 F. 425.) estate which the testator's children took in the property under the will was a vested remainder. The direction to sell the land whe......
-
Beaver v. Ross
...3 N.J.L. 754 (4 Am. Dec. 414); Underwood v. Curtis, 127 N.Y. 523 (28 N.E. 585); Thomman's Estate, 161 Pa. 444 (29 A. 84); Ramsey v. Hanlon (C. C.), 33 F. 425. Shipman v. Rollins, 98 N.Y. 311; Vincent v. Newhouse, 83 N.Y. 505. Under the doctrine announced by these latter cases, until the tim......
- Laflin v. Chicago, W. & N.R. Co.