Court Opinion

ID: 9645000
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:10:03.411093+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:21.242431
License: Public Domain

*394Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts:
The conclusion of the majority places too limited and too narrow an interpretation upon testator’s language, Ms intention and the future objects of his generosity. I am unable to conclude that testator, in 1889, in employing the words “children” and “issue”, intended to exclude the two adopted children of his grandson (adopted by him in 1941) from participating with that grandson’s natural children (at the grandson’s death in 1957) in the share of income formerly received by their father. I would construe testator’s language to include his grandson’s children by both adoption and birth. I dissent.
Mr. Justice Musmanno joins in this dissenting opinion.