¶1In the light of the clear and able argument of appellant’s counsel in support of its contention, we have fully considered the questions presented by the specifications of error; but for reasons given by the orphans’ court, we think the will of Charlotte S. Engles was rightly construed, and hence there is no error in the decree. The reasons referred to are clearly and concisely stated by the learned president of that court, and on his opinion the decree is affirmed and appeal dismissed with costs to be paid by appellant.
166 Pa. 280
Engles's Estate
Decided January 28, 1895
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1895-01-28
Appeal, No. 103, July T., 1894, by the trustee, from decree of O. C. Phila. Co., sustaining excep tions to adjudication. Exceptions to adjudication.
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently September 1908
Cited in Black's (1910)’s definition of “Contingent legacy” · Black's (1910)’s definition of “Legacy”
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Affirmed · Decided 1895-01-28
View the full empirical analysis of this case →