Weekly Notes of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the County Courts of Philadelphia, and the United States District and Circuit Courts for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Volume 33

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1894 Excerpt: ...implication, and the burden is upon those who assert an adverse right, to establish it beyond all doubt: Rupp v. Eberly, 79 Pa. 141; Cowles v. Cowles, S3 Id. 175; Bender v. Deitrick, 7 W. & S. 284; Brendlinger v. Brendlinger, 26 Pa. 132. In conclusion, we think the construction we place upon the language of this will is fully sustained by the recent case of Cascaden's Estate, 153 Pa. 170, where the same question arose. There the testator directed his executors to invest the residue of his estate, and pay the income to his wife until his youngest child should arrive at the age of twenty-one years, when he further directed all his estate to be converted into money, a certain sum paid to his widow, and the residue divided among his children equally; but should any of his children die before the youngest child reached the age of twenty-one years, leaving children, then the said share shall be divided among said children, share and share alike. But if he or she die without leaving children, his or her share to be divided among the remaining children. A daughter of testator married and died, leaving surviving her husband and one child, who also died before the testator's youngest child attained majority. It was claimed that the grandchild had a vested interest, and her mother's share should be awarded to the administrator of the grandchild. This was the view taken by the Court below, but the Supreme Court reversed it, holding that the gift being to testator's children as a class, the gift was contingent upon a child living to the period of distribution, or leaving a child who should live until that period. And as the grandchild died before the period for distribution, her father took nothing as her heir or next of kin. In the present case, as before remarked, ...