Volume 291 — Pennsylvania State Reports

<p>The memoranda contain all the terms of the contracts sued on: Briggs v. Iron & Steel Co., 276 Pa. 826.</p>

<p>It was error on the part of the trial judge to leave to the jury the question as to whether plaintiff should have accepted one of the offers to repair. He should have charged that plaintiff should have accepted one of these offers, or explained its conduct in scrapping the machine without notice to defendants.</p> <p>There was error in the trial judge’s exclusion of the testimony that some months before the fire, plaintiff had a “for sale” sign painted, and that for some months before the fire this sign was maintained on the premises: Covanhovan v. Hart, 21 Pa. 495; Com. v. Yerkes, 29 Leg. Int. 60.</p>

<p>Testatrix charged her land with the payment of her debts and the legacies bequeathed by her, and this operates to sustain the inference that she intended her four children to take a fee simple title therein: Sloan’s App., 168 Pa. 422; Coane v. Parmentier, 10 Pa. 72; Crone’s App., 103 Pa. 571; Cook v. Petty, 108 Pa. 138; Gallagher’s App., 48 Pa. 121; Mellon’s App., 46 Pa. 165; Okeson’s' App., 59 Pa. 99; Riley’s App., 34 Pa. 291; Wertz’s App., 69 Pa. 173; Brisben’s App., 70 Pa. 405; Etter v. Greenawalt, 98 Pa. 422; Fidelity Trust Co. v. Bobloski, 228 Pa. 52; Jackson’s Est., 179 Pa. 77; Fahrney v. Holsinger, 65 Pa. 388.</p> <p>The clause relating to the deaths of the four children contemplates only death in the lifetime of testatrix: Coles v. Ayres, 156 Pa. 197; Mickley’s App., 92 Pa. 514; King v. Frick, 135 Pa. 575; Ault v. Karch, 220 Pa. 366; Richards v. Bentz, 212 Pa. 93; Engle’s Est., 180 Pa. 215; Jackson’s Est., 179 Pa. 77; Biddle’s Est., 28 Pa. 59.</p> <p>The law favors the heir and the first taker: Biddle’s Est., 28 Pa. 59; Corr’s Est., 202 Pa. 391; DeSilver’s Est., 142 Pa. 74; Jacob’s Est., 140 Pa. 268; Nebinger’s Est., 185 Pa. 399; Gillmer v. Daix, 141 Pa. 505; Hartley v. Hartley, 265 Pa. 115.</p>