Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

5 Watts & Serg. 198

Mullock v. Souder

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 15, 1843

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1843-03-15

THIS was a case stated for the opinion of the court, as follows: Elizabeth Peters, of Baltimore, made her last will dated the 3d of June 1831, which was proved in Baltimore county, Maryland, on the 10th July 1837, she having died on the 6th of the same month, and letters testamentary upon an exemplification filed in the Register’s Office for the city and county of Philadelphia, were issued to Caspar Souder, the executor named in the will, on the 17th July 1837.

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently October 1861

3 state decisions

Relies on Skerrett v. Burd

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1843-03-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Sergeant, J.

¶2The ground-rents in question must be considered as property acquired after the date of the will; Skerrett v. Burd, (1 Whart. 246); and the rule of law was, at the date of this will, and until the Act of 8th April 1833, that real estate acquired after the date of the will did not pass By any general devise contained in it. Girard v. The City of Philadelphia, (4 Rawle 323). But by the 10th section of that Act, the real estate acquired by any testator, after the making of his will, shall pass by a general devise, unless a contrary intention be manifest on the face of the will. If this Act applies to a will dated before its passage, where the testator died subsequently, then the parties to this suit have the title, and partition may be made. We think, however, that it does not. It could only do so by giving the Act a retro-active effect, which will never be done, where such does not expressly appear to be the design of the Legislature; but the Act of Assembly will be left to operate on wills made and executed after the Act comes into operation. A devise of real estate is in the nature of a conveyance ; Harwood v. Goodright, (Cowp. 90); and a statute will not be considered as altering the éffect of a conveyance already made, so as to pass more than it purported to pass when made. A retro-active effect will not be given to a statute so as to affect contracts or property. Dwarr. on Stat. 681. In the case of Ashburnham v. Bradshaw, (2 Atk. 36), a devise to charitable uses was made by a will dated in 1734. The testator lived till July 1736, a month after the Mortmain Act had been passed, and upon a case the Judges certified that the devise was good. And to the same effect are Attorney-General v. Lloyd, (3 Atk. 551); and Same v. Andrews, (1 Vez., Sen. 225). There the application of the statute would have abridged the rights of the devisee; here it would abridge the rights of the heirs; and there seems no difference in the principle;

¶3Leave to discontinue according to case stated.

/5/wattsserg/198 · .json · Public domain