Court Opinion

ID: 9642183
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:51:32.724853+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:44.255987
License: Public Domain

O’BRIEN, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I agree with Mr. Justice Roberts that the language “transfer and convey” contained in the codicil does not “clearly and unambiguously” establish an intent to make a gift. However, neither am I convinced that the language evinces a clear and unambiguous intent that the property be sold. The language is unclear and ambiguous. The differing opinions of members of this Court indicate that the language is, in fact, subject to several reasonable interpretations.
In a case such as this, we must follow the precedent as established time and again in our decisional law. In Rainear Estate, 304 Pa. 529, 156 A. 166 (1931), we stated:
“If . .. the codicil is subject to two interpretations, one of which follows the main purpose as expressed in the will and the other is not consistent with it, the consistent interpretation will be adopted. . . . ”
Id., 304 Pa. at 543, 156 A. at 167. See also, In re Johnson Estate, 435 Pa. 303, 255 A.2d 571 (1969); In re Crooks Estate, 388 Pa. 125, 130 A.2d 185 (1957); In re Boyer Estate, 372 Pa. 553, 94 A.2d 721 (1953); In re Braun Estate, 358 Pa. 271, 56 A.2d 201 (1948); In re Horn Estate, 351 Pa. 131, 40 A.2d 471 (1945).
Appellant’s codicil must be construed in the context of the original will. Since the language is subject to interpretations of both a sale and a gift, adherence to the known intent of the testator to benefit his children through the residual estate must be achieved. This is accomplished by viewing the language in question as indicative of an intent to create a sale rather than a gift. The disputed language is thus reconciled to the main purpose of the will. Such a *489finding also comports with the mandate of Bissell’s Estate, 302 Pa. 27, 32, 153 A. 692, 694 (1940) that a “codicil will not disturb the disposition of the will further than is absolutely necessary for the purpose of giving it effect.”
The decree of the Orphans’ Court should be reversed.
ROBERTS, J., joins in this opinion.