Case ID: f_83/html/0109-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DALLAS, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FOREST OIL CO. v. ERSKINE. SAME v. DAVIS. SAME v. REED. SAME v. CRAWFORD (three cases).
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    November 10, 1897.)
    Nos. 11-16.
    Wills — Life Estate — Remainders.
    A devise to testator’s son by name, “and to his children,” held to give a life ('state to the son, and an estate in remainder to his children living at testator’s death, which afterwards opened to let in after-born chiltlre»? Oil Co. v. Crawford, 23 C. C. A. 55, 77 Fed. 106, followed.
    In Error 1o the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
    These were actions of ejectment, brought by tbe Forest Oil Company against the several defendants, all of whom claimed title under the will of William Crawford. The circuit court, upon an agreed statement of facts, directed verdicts for the defendants, and the plaintiff brought the cases here on writ of error.
    B. W. Cummins, for plaintiff in error.
    J. H. Beal, for defendants in error.
    Before AOHESON and DALLAS, Circuit Judges, and KIBKPAT-BICK, DistrictJudge.
   DALLAS, Circuit Judge.

In each of these cases the question is the same as that which was decided by this court in Oil Co. v. Crawford, 23 C. C. A. 55, 77 Fed. 106; ’but the right of the respective plaintiffs in the present actions to have that question again adjudicated is unquestionable, although, of course, the learned judge of the court below rightly held that the decision to which we have referred had, for that court, settled the law. We, however, being at liberty to consider the mal,ter anew, have carefully done so; but attentive re-examination of the decisions of the supreme court of Pennsylvania has confirmed' us in the opinion heretofore expressed as to their effect, and therefore, as we still think those decisions must upon the subject in hand be regarded as controlling, the judgment of the circuit court in each of the six cases designated at the head of this paper is affirmed.