Powell v. Biddle, administrator de bonis non &'c. of S. Mifflin

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas · January 1, 1790
2 U.S. 70

Syllabus

Powell v Biddle, administrator de bonis non &'c. of S. Mifflin. THIS was an action of debt to recover a legacy, under the following circumstances. The testator by his last will and testament bequeathed “ unto his friend Samuel Powell, (son of Samuel Powell, of the City of Philadelphia, Carpenter), the sum of £ 100 in specie, to be put out to interest by his executors ; the whole principal and interest to be paid to the said Samuel Powell, when he shall attain 21 years of age : But in case he shall depart this life, in his minority, or before the said legacy be paid to him, then the same to sink into the residue of the testator’s estate, &c.” At the trial of the cause, evidence was offered, and admitted, to shew, that though the legacy was bequeathed to Samuel Powell, it was, in fact, intended for the plaintiff, whose christian name is William : And a verdict was, thereupon, allowed to he taken in favour of the plaintiff, for the principal sum, and interest ; subject to the opinion of the Court, on a rule to shew cause why there should not be a new trial. The facts proved were, that William, the plaintiff, had attained the age of 21 years ; that he was the younger son of the testator’s deceased daughter, who had been married to Samuel Powell, the carpenter, named in the will; that he was well known to the testator; and that the testator usually, by mistake, or by way of nickname, called him Samuel ; but that Samuel Powell, the carpenter, had another son, a mason, whose name wa

Full Opinion (556 characters)
Shippen President.
The court entertain no doubt in this case ; and, therefore, ought not to postpone a decision. The bequest was made to a person who was always called Samuel by the testator, though, in fact, named William; and whom the testator had nurtured and educated from his infancy ; when, on the other hand, he did not even know the person really called Samuel. The evidence to explain those facts was proper to be laid before the joy ; and their verdict perfectly accords with the law and equity of the case. Therefore,
Let the Rule be discharged.

Source: Caselaw Access Project (Harvard Law School). This page is informational and is not legal advice.