6 A.2d 905 | Pa. | 1939
The sole question is whether decedent's will contains a residuary clause.
Some of the bequests are to charities, and, as testator died within a month after the execution of the will, these gifts will fall into the residuary estate if there is one; otherwise they will go to the next of kin (Act of June 7, 1917, P. L. 403, sec. 15 (c)). A nephew of testator, not named as a beneficiary in the will, presented to the orphans' court a petition for a citation upon the executor to show cause why an account should not be filed. This he had a right to do only if he has *302 an interest in the estate (Act of June 7, 1917, P. L. 447, sec. 46 (a)). The court below held that the will did not contain a residuary clause, that the void charitable bequests go to the next of kin, and that the petitioner therefore had a standing to cite the executor to file an account, which the court accordingly ordered the executor to do. Two of the beneficiaries named in what they allege to be the residuary clause were allowed by the court to intervene, and now appeal from the court's order.
The will is made up of numbered sections, the contents of which may be summarized as follows:
1. Debts and funeral expenses to be paid by the executor.
2. All real estate except property 1734 North 6th Street, Harrisburg, (which was the home of testator and his wife), to be sold upon his decease.
3. "I direct that the proceeds from the sale of property with all other moneys or stocks shall be invested by my executor," and the income paid to testator's wife for and during her life.
4. Upon the death of the wife various sums of money to be given to certain named persons and corporations, some of them charities.
5. "The balance, if any, to be divided into ten equal parts between" ten named persons.
On the death of the wife the property 1734 North 6th Street to be sold by the executor and the proceeds divided among three named charities.
6. In the event of the death of any of the beneficiaries named in the fifth paragraph, prior to the death of the wife, their shares to go to the others.
"Lastly." The appointment of the executor.
It is the contention of appellants that the first part of the fifth paragraph constitutes a residuary clause, while appellee contends that it bequeaths the balance only of a portion of the estate. We are of opinion that the court below was in error in adopting the latter view. *303
A residuary clause is one which covers all of the estate not disposed of after providing for debts and particular legacies and devises. No technical mode of expression is necessary to constitute such a clause. "Balance" is the vernacular for the legal phrase "rest, residue and remainder": see Thompson'sEstate,
If the alternative construction of the word "balance" is adopted, the result in effect is nevertheless the same, for even though it be limited to the items in paragraph 3, those items themselves constitute the balance of the estate, and paragraph 5 then provides for a final or ultimate residue, as in Carson's Estate,
We find nothing in the will which indicates that the residuary legatees were not to become entitled to that which the law grants them where the will does not provide otherwise, namely, the right to share among themselves the invalidated charitable bequests. No doubt testator did not anticipate the happening of this contingency, but, in the absence of an expression on his part of a contrary intention, they, and not the next of kin, are the persons entitled.
The order of the court below is reversed; costs to be paid by appellee. *305