Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

30 Pa. 225

Rose v. Quick

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 1, 1858

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1858-07-01

This was an amicable action of covenant by Levi T. Quick, surviving executor of Henry C. Middaugh, deceased, against Elijah Rose, to recover ‘the unpaid purchase-money of certain real estate of the alleged testator, which the defendant had contracted to purchase from the executors.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1858-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently February 1990

13 state decisions

40185818601870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The opinion of the court was delivered by

Porter, J.

¶2— This paper is a will. It is in writing. It is signed by the testator at the end thereof. It has been proved by the oaths of two witnesses. It is to take effect after his death. It starts like a power of attorney, but soon loses that character. It describes the bodily and mental condition of the writer, in the usual phraseology of wills. Its directions are given expressly for the benefit of his heirs after his decease. He confers on the persons whom he nominates, full powers as executors, by imposing the duties which the law would impose if he had simply named them as executors; for to act fully, promptly, and prudently with the property of a dead man for the benefit of his heirs, is the substance of an executor’s duty. He directs the administration *227of his estate, real and personal, and authorizes its sale or retention according to the discretion of the appointed agents. He might have employed more words, and, in this, professional counsel might have assisted him; but no part of his intention is left unexpressed. Of its character as a will, the paper contains intrinsic evidence: and, therefore, the case finds no precedent in the decisions cited in the argument respecting memoranda, endorsements, and letters which required other evidence to help them out. This is the only question on which a doubt seems to have arisen. The power of sale is ample. The estate may be sold as fully and promptly as if he had been present and ordered it. Under these powers a perfect title may be made.

¶3Judgment affirmed.

/30/pa/225 · .json · Public domain