TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Morris's Estate

Morris's Estate.

Morris's Estate, 147 A. 840 (Pa. 1929)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 3, 1929
Docket
Nos. s, 127 and 128
Judges
Moschzisker, Frazer, Walling, Simpson, Kephart, Sadler, Schaefer
Citations
147 A. 840298 Pa. 251929 Pa. LEXIS 563

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

Per Curiam, The testator died January 31, 1928; his will was dated November 25, 1927, and provided: “I give and *26 bequeath to my wife Jessie Clark Morris so much of my estate as she could claim under the intestate laws of the State of Pennsylvania.” He left the balance of his estate to his two business partners, appellants in these appeals. The court below awarded the widow “$5,000 and one-half of the remaining residuary estate”; these appeals followed.

Section 2(a) of the Intestate Act of June 7, 1917, P. L. 429, as amended by the Act of July 11, 1917, P. L. 755, provides that, where an intestate leaves a spouse surviving and other kindred, but no issue, if the estate for distribution exceeds in value $5,000, “the surviving spouse shall be entitled to the sum of five thousand dollars absolutely, to be chosen by him or her from real or personal estate, or both, and in addition thereto shall be entitled to one-half part of the remaining real and personal estate.”

Testator, instead of stating the exact amount of his property which the widow should take, provided that she should have so much of his estate “as she could claim under the intestate laws.” As said in Carrell’s Est., 264 Pa. 140, 144 , this provision “could not have been more direct had [it] been followed by a recital or specification of the preferences given by law to the widow in cases of intestacy.” In the words of the learned court below, “the [present] testator in effect says, ‘even should I die testate, I direct the portion of my wife in my estate shall be the amount which she could claim under the intestate laws if otherwise she fell within its provisions, and this is the method which shall be used in arriving at the determination of her share.’ ”

The award to the widow is affirmed at the cost of the appellants.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1933: 11935: 11936: 11944: 11957: 11961: 11976: 119332026peak 1933 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Harris Estate41 A.2d 715 (Pa. 1944)
  2. Dougherty's Estate178 A. 333 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1935)
  3. Silverman Trust9 Pa. D. & C.2d 197 (1957) · Dissent
  4. Kelly Estate73 Pa. D. & C.2d 532 (1976)
  5. Erk's Estate166 A. 656 (Pa. 1933)
  6. Tunnell's Estate27 Pa. D. & C. 18 (1936)

Most recent

  1. Kelly Estate73 Pa. D. & C.2d 532 (1976)
  2. Homsher Estate25 Pa. D. & C.2d 21 (1961)
  3. Silverman Trust9 Pa. D. & C.2d 197 (1957) · Dissent
  4. Harris Estate41 A.2d 715 (Pa. 1944)
  5. Tunnell's Estate27 Pa. D. & C. 18 (1936)
  6. Dougherty's Estate178 A. 333 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1935)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Carrell's Estate, 107 A. 664 (Pa. 1919) 9

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list