PRICE v. WATKINS, 1 U.S. 8 (1763)
U.S. Supreme Court
PRICE v. WATKINS , 1 U.S. 8 (1763)1 U.S. 8 (Dall.)
Price v. Watkins
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1763
Special Verdict. The Question arose on these Words of a Will.
Item my Will is that after my Wife Ruth Price's Decease, or if she
shall alter her Condition and marry, then in such Case i devise and
bequeath unto my loving Friends I. W. and M. K. or to any one of
them, in case the other should die, in Trust and for the Intent to
sell and convey all that Mefluage & c. to any Person or Persons
that shall purchase the same, and the Money arising from the Sale
of the Premises shall be di ided between my Children herein after
named, when they attain severally to the Age of 21 Years or be
married, which shall first happen. Samuel Price one of the Children
attained the Age of 21 Years and married, and afterwards died
intestate and without issue, in the life Time of the Testators
Widow Ruth Price, who did never marry again. Then the Widow died,
and after her Death the Trustees sold, and the Administratrix of
Samuel brings this Suit for Samuel's proportionable part of the
Money arising from the Sale of the House. And the Question was,
whether this was a vested Legacy to Samuel, or whether it was
lapsed by his dying before the Trustees had power to sell, to wit,
in the life Time of the Testator's Widow. For the Plaintiff it was
urged, that Land ordered to be sold and converted into Money, was
to be considered as personal Estate. That this Land was to be sold
at all Events, so there was no Contingency. That both Events to
make a vesting in Samuel had happened, to wit, attaining the Age of
21 and marrying; and that this Case was exactly similar to the Case
of King versus Wilkes. Talbot's Cases 117. Besides which many other
Cases were cited for the Plaintiff viz. 2 Vern, 536. 1 Peer
Williams 109. 2 Peer Williams 320. 2. Ab. Ca. Eq. 548. 2 Vent. 347.
2 Vern. 758. 766. 4 Bac. Ab. 308. 2 Vent. 366. 2 Vern 72. 348. 424.
2 Ab. Ca. Eq. 654. For the Defendant it was said, that in Legacies
to be raised out of Land, the Time of Payment is the Time of
vesting, That in this Case the Land could not be considered as
personal Estate, till the Trustees had power to sell it, which was
not till after the Widow's Death, and that Samuel dying before, his
Legacy was lapsed and would merge for the Benefit of the Heirs. And
the Case of Qads and Ferry was much relied on, Vin. Devise 383. The
other C ses cited for the Defendant were 2d Vern. 92. 416. 208. 2
Peere Williams 276. 610. 484. 3 Peere Williams 210. But the Court
were clearly of Opinion, that it was a vested Legacy and Judgment
was given for the Plaintiff.[ Price v. Watkins 1 U.S. 8 (1763)
