## Facts

- George H. Earle, Jr. died in 1928, leaving a will dated January 24, 1928.
- The will provided that if the net estate after taxes was at least $5,000,000, trustees must create a $100,000 trust “for the benefit of each and every male child of my sons who shall by birth inherit and bear the name of Earle,” with beneficiaries receiving income rather than principal during the trust term.
- The estate satisfied the $5,000,000 condition, and the trustees administered the trust and filed accounts.
- Anthony Wayne Earle, a grandson meeting the described relationship and surname condition, was born on July 11, 1949—more than twenty years after the testator’s death.
- At the audit of the trustees’ third account, Anthony’s guardian ad litem sought creation of a separate $100,000 trust for Anthony under the class-gift provision.
- The Orphans’ Court denied the request and approved distribution without setting up Anthony’s trust, concluding the class was closed and did not include post-death births.
- The guardian ad litem appealed from the Orphans’ Court decrees.

## Issues

1. Whether the will’s $100,000 trust gift “for the benefit of each and every male child of my sons” bearing the Earle name includes grandsons born after the testator’s death.
2. Whether the rule of convenience for class gifts required closing the class so as to exclude after-born beneficiaries despite broad, inclusive language.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Orphans’ Court decrees.
- The Court held that the class gift included qualifying grandsons born after the testator’s death.
- The Court directed that a $100,000 trust be established for Anthony Wayne Earle as a member of the described class.

## Legal Principles

- The controlling objective in construing a will is the testator’s actual intent as shown by the will’s language, read in light of circumstances at execution.
- The “rule of convenience” for class gifts (closing the class at a practical distribution point) is a default construction rule and yields to a contrary intent evident from the testamentary language.
- Broad, all-inclusive phrasing such as “each and every,” coupled with an eligibility definition based on relationship and surname rather than a time-of-being limitation, supports keeping the class open to include after-born members.
- A direction to create a separate fixed trust amount for each qualifying beneficiary can indicate an intent to benefit an expanding class, reducing the force of administrative convenience arguments for early class closing.

## Conclusion

Because the will’s language showed an intent to benefit all male-line grandsons of the testator’s sons who bear the Earle name, the class was not closed to exclude a qualifying grandson born after the testator’s death, and the trustees were required to establish a $100,000 trust for him.


In re Estate of Earle, 369 Pa. 52, 85 A.2d 90 (Pa. 1951)