Case Name: Dickinson against Purvis and another executors of Byron
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1822-04-02
Citations: 8 Serg. & Rawle 71
Docket Number: 
Parties: Dickinson against Purvis and another executors of Byron.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Sergeant & Rawle)
Volume: 8
Pages: 71–72

Head Matter:
Dickinson against Purvis and another executors of Byron.
Bequest oí pouads^terling to a niee<* The legatee*' dies before leaving a hug-d^n^The”1" legacy is
THIS action was entered by agreement, and the following case submitted to the Court for their opinion.
Joshua Byron, of the county of Philadelphia, by his last will and testament, dated March 2d, 1819, after directing his executors, the defendants,- to sell and dispose of such real and personal property as he should die possessed of, and the discharge of his just debts, and bequeathing various, legacíes to different members of his family, says : — I give to Elizabeth Byron and her heirs, daughter of my brother William Byron, deceased, five hundred pounds. She is married, and her name, I believe, is Elizabeth Dickinson.” The testator died on the 19th of April, 1819. Elizabeth Dickinson, formerly Elizabeth Byron, died on the 23d March, 1819, leaving a husband, the plaintiff, and several children surviving her.
The question’ for the opinion of the Court was, whether the above mentioned legacy was lapsed.
Hopkinson, argued the case for the plaintiff.
Ewing, for the defendants,
was stoppéd by tbe Court. .

Opinion:
Per Curiam
This is an action for a legacy bequeathed* by Joshua Byron, to his niece Elizabeth Dickinson. The testator gave five hundred pounds sterling to her and her.heirs. She died before him, leaving a husband and children. -.It is an unfortunate case, but the law is clear. The legacy was lapsed by the death of the legatee in the life of the testator. The word heirs, cannot operate in favour of the issue. It is an improper expression, because personal property does not go the heirs, but to the personal representative. But the testator intended, by that expression, only to denote the absolute property which he gave to his niece, in the legacy bequeathed to her. She was to have the whole. Her children were hot in the contemplation of the.testator, and could take nothing by his will. We have an Act of Assembly £passeci jgth March, 1810) which prevents the lapse of legacies bequeathed to a child or other lineal descendant of the ^ . testator. But it does not reach the present case, and the Court is sorry for it. Judgment must be entered for the defendants.
Judgment for defendants.