Reck's Appeal
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Sharswood
delivered the opinion of the court, May 17th 1875.
All mere technical rules of construction must give way to the plainly expressed intention of a testator, if that intention is lаwful. It is a rule of common sense as well as law not to attempt to construe that which needs no construction. The tеstator in the will before us has said, in plain unmistakable English, that his widow should receive during her life the interest of one thousand dollаrs, to be put at interest by his executors, “ and should the interest оf the same be insufficient to provide for her, then as much of the principal as may be required.” After her death “the bаlance of the thousand dollars to be disposed of ” the same as the balance of his other property. Nothing but this balance was given over, whatever that balance might be. The children entitled to this balance undoubtedly took a vested interest in it, that is, in case of their death before thе widow, their respective shares would have passed tо their personal representatives. But what that interest would be, would depend upon what the balance was. It is cоntended, however, that as the widow made no demand for аny of the *436principal during her lifetime, the whole fund went over. But where is that condition written in the will? The words are, “as much of the рrincipal as may be required to provide for her.” The testator may have well anticipated that a state оf things might occur when others must provide for her. He did not mean that as long as the one thousand dollars lasted, she should be thrоwn upon public or private charity for support. Can it be doubted, then, that a person who has supplied her with necessaries, with nursing, and medical attendance during her last sicknеss, and a decent Christian burial on her decease, has an equitable claim upon this fund for reimbursement ? It would be to makе her sin in her grave to suppose that, with a right to call upоn any part of the whole of this fund, she did not intend so to do in ordеr to pay this honest and meritorious creditor. Her administratоr then had a right to call for the amount necessary for this purpose. The judgment of John Reck against the administrator, in an action in which he alleged a special contrаct with the widow for her support, in the absence of any аllegations of fraud or collusion with the administrator, was at lеast primá, facie, if not conclusive, evidence of the justice of the claim. We think, therefore, that the court bеlow erred in refusing to grant the prayer of the petition of the appellant.
Decree reversed, and now it is ordered and decreed that the executors of Joseph Blocher pay to the administrator of ‘Elizabeth Bloсher such amount of the principal sum of $1000, bequeathed fоr the support of the said Elizabeth Blocher, as shall be nеcessary and sufficient to satisfy the debt, interest and costs of the judgment of John Reck in the Court of-Common Pleas of Huntingdon county, No. 53, April term 1874, and that the costs of this appeal be paid by the appellees.