
    Hoch’s Appeal. [Wheeler’s Estate.]
    A testator, by his will, gave a farm to a devisee, placing a valuation upon it of $6000. He also bequeathed to the devisee of the farm the sum of $3000. He directed the distribution of his residuary estate to the parties named in his will, in pro rata shares, that is to say, in proportion- to the amounts they had already been “ bequeathed ” under the will. jffeld that the devisee of the farm was entitled to a distributive share of the residue based upon the aggregate of the devise and bequest.
    
    March 6, 1889.
    Appeal, No. 277, Jan. T. 1889, from a decree of O. O. Berks Co., dismissing exceptions of John Hoch, to the adjudication of the account of james Lord et al., executors of Caleb Wheeler, deceased, said Hoch being a residuary legatee. Green and Clark, JJ., absent.
    The decedent, by his will, left a large number of legacies to charitable institutions, relatives, and others. He further directed:
    “ Item 16. I give, devise and bequeath unto Emily Hopler, wife of Nathan Hopler, of Morris county, New Jersey, all that certain messuage, tenement and tract of land situate in Morris county, state of New Jersey, containing about one hundred acres, more or less, together with the appurtenances thereunto belonging, being the same premises on which the said Emily Hopler now lives — which premises I value at six thousand dollars ($6000) — to have and to hold the said messuage, tenement and tract of land, with the appurtenances, unto the said Emily Hopler, her heirs and assigns forever.
    “ Item 17. In addition to the last named bequest, I also give and bequeath unto the said Emily Hopler, the sum of three thousand dollars ($3000).”
    “ Item 25. And as to the residue of all my estate, real, personal and mixed, not hereinbefore devised or bequeathed, I desire that the same shall be distributed to all the parties named in this, my will, in pro rata shares — that is to .say, in proportion to the amounts they have already been granted under this will, namely, the person to whom I have bequeathed the sum of ten thousand dollars shall receive just double the amount out of my residuary estate that the person shall receive to -whom I have bequeathed the sum of five thousand dollars. Provided, however, that none of my residuary estate shall be distributed to the Board of Home Missions of the Presbyterian Church of the Hnited States, the Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church of the United States, the Lincoln Hniversity of Chester County, Pennsylvania, and the Presbyterian Board of Belief, these aforesaid exceptions being those named in Items One (1), Two (2), Three (3), and Four (4) of this my will, but that the sums already bequeathed to these respective institutions in Items 1, 2, 3, and 4, are in full of what they shall be entitled to receive out of my estate.”
    The executors were directed to sell, at public or private sale, the real and personal property not specifically devised, or accepted at the appraised value.
    By a codicil, testator provided as follows:
    “ Item 26. I give and bequeath to my grand-nephew, Henry W. Kendall, the property where he now lives, in Pinegrove, Pa., on. Mifflin Street, being the house and two adjoining lots formerly occupied by his grandfather, for his use during his life, and after his death to his children.”
    The opinion of the court, after quoting the will, etc., was as follows, by the auditing judge, Schwartz, P. J.:
    “The only contention arising is to the distribution of the residuum. The question arises upon the distribution of the residuary estate, so far as it relates to the devise and bequest of Emily Hopler. The testator bequeaths $3000 to her and a messuage and tenement and tract of land which he valued at $6000. The contention on the part of the legatees, other than the Hoplers, is that the residuary clause does not include the value of the farm in the distribution of the residuary estate. In other words, it is cpntended that Emily Hopler should stand in said distribution, as a legatee of $3000, and not as a beneficiary of $9000.
    “ The residuary clause bequeaths the balance, after the payment to his said beneficiaries, in proportion to the amounts respectively given them. By the plain terms of the will, the testator directs that the residuum of his estate be ‘ distributed to all the parties named therein in pro rata shares,’ except certain excluded ones; that is to say ‘ in proportion to the amounts they have already been granted under this will, namely, the person to whom I have bequeathed the sum of ten thousand dollars shall receive just double the amount out of my residuary estate that the person shall receive to whom I have bequeathed the sum of five thousand dollars,’ provided, however, that none of his residuary estate should go to his legatees named in Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 of his will.
    “It would appear that the testator, by excluding certain of his, legatees from participating in the residuary estate, intended not to exclude those not so excepted.
    “ What object could the testator have had in placing the valuation of $6000 upon the messuage devised to Emily Hopler, other than to fix the sum upon which should be based her interest in his residuary estate ?
    “ Counsel, however, contended that one of decedent’s revoked wills, offered and admitted in evidence, disclosed, when taken in connection with his will, that he did not intend that Emily should take part in the distribution of the residuum on account of the house devised to her. And this, for the reason that it contained devises without putting valuations thereon, the residuary clauses being similar in both wills. We do not see anything in this contention. If it became material to ascertain the value of such devises, the court would find a way to ascertain it.
    “This case, in our opinion, is ruled in Hoff and Tucker’s Appeal, 28 Pa. 51. The will in that case is in every respect similar to the one under consideration. All the rules which the court applied there are applicable here. Hence the interest of Emily Hopler in the residuum should and will be taken as if she had been bequeathed the sum of $9000.”
    In the revoked will, referred to in the above opinion, the residuary clause is identical with that in the last will. In the revoked will, there were also many pecuniary legacies and some specific devises of real estate. The devise and legacy to Emily Hopler were also substantially like those in the last will, excepting that in the latter the legacy is $3000 while in the former it was $1000. In the revoked will, there was a devise to Clara Wheeler and Nancy Wright, for life, and afterward to their children, of a house and store property situate in the borough of Lykens, Pennsylvania, upon which the testator placed no valuation. In the first codicil to the revoked will, is the following clause: “ It is also my will and I hereby order and direct that all sums of money or other valuable thing whatsoever charged against any and all persons in my account book under the head of ‘Advancements to persons named in my will’ since the making of my said last will and testament, bearing date the 15th day of July, 18J9, to which this is a codicil, shall be deducted from the amounts given them, respectively, in my said last will.”
    The following exception, inter alia, was filed to the adjudication:
    “6. The court erred in not finding and adjudging that the testator intended by the residuary clause in his will, to limit the distribution of his residuary estate to the parties named in the will, excepting those expressly excluded, in proportion to the amounts of money which the said parties had already been granted under the will.”
    The court dismissed the exceptions and confirmed the adjudication.
    
      The assignments of error specified the action of the court, 1, in finding and adjudging that the testator intended that Emily Hopler should participate in the distribution of the residuary estate in proportion to the aggregate of the value which the testator placed upon the messuage devised to her and the monied legacy of $3000; 2, in fixing $9000 as the basis of Emily Hopler’s distributive share of the residuary estate; 3, in not making the monied bequest of $3000 to Emily Hopler the sole basis of her distributive share of the residuary estate; 4, in distributing to Emily Hopler the sum of $10,203.29; and, 5, in dismissing appellant’s 6th exception, quoting it.
    
      Cyrus G. Derr, for appellant.
    The word “ amount,” in item 25, means “amount of money.” That is the popular meaning. The subsequent explanatory clauses dissipate any doubt. “ Double the amount out of my residuary estate ” must signify money, as the residue is converted into money and distributed as. such. The use of the word “ bequeath ” is to the same effect. If the testator had intended the devisees of real estate to participate in the residuary distribution, he would have placed a value upon all the real estate devised. The evidence of the revoked will, offered in evidence under the authority of Hirst’s Ap., 92 Pa. 491, strengthens this construction. In the revoked will, “amounts” mean pecuniary legacies, as the advancements could not be deducted from unvalued real estate.
    In Hoff and Tucker’s Appeal, supra, the residuary estate was directed to be “ equally divided as per ratio in the bequests herein made among my heirs and relatives.” The sole question raised was, as to whether the testator’s widow and step-son, who had been named as legatees, were embraced in the words “ heirs and relatives.”- The court, having first determined that the words “ heir and legatees ” embraced the widow and step-son, further determined that the non-valuation of the real estate, and the fact of the widow’s house having been devised for life, should not stand in the way of a carrying out of the intent of the testator, and it was, therefore, adjudged that, the value of the real estate should be ascertained by an auditor and that the widow should take the same interest in the residuary legacy that she took in the real estate, viz., a life interest. In determining, however, as to whether such is a proper construction of the residuary clause here, we must take into account all portions of the will which are at variance with that theory.
    
      H. A. Zieber, for appellee.
    The intent of the testator was plain, and there is no necessity to construe that which needs no construction. Deck’s Ap., 78 Pa. 482; Lieber’s Hermeneutics, 299, note k.
    The word “amount” does not necessarily mean “amount of money”; it means anything that can be summed up or added together. The word “bequeath” may include both devise and legacy. 1 Jarman on Wills, 146. It is used in item 17 to mean devise. This case is ruled by Hoff and Tucker’s Ap., 28 Pa. 51. The courts will follow such precedents. Provenchere’s Ap., 67 Pa. 462.
    March 6, 1889.
   Per Curiam,

Decree affirmed.  