Since, however, the statute speaks directly to the subject matter of the actual “residuary clause,” 20 Pa.C.S. § 2514(11) (emphasis added), Appellant’s view does not reflect the same literal approach to the statute that she seeks to have applied to another of its parts. 12 . As noted, Subsections (10) and (11) are a re-enactment of Subsections (9) and (10) of Section 14 of the Wills Act of 1947; these supplanted Section 15(c) of the Wills Act of 1917, Act of June 7, 1915, P.L. 403 (superseded). Appellant acknowledges that she would have no interest in the outcome of the present will contest if the presumption as directed in Section 15(c) were to be applied to Dr. Burger's will. See Brief of Appellant at 24 (citing In re Armstrong's Estate, 347 Pa. 23, 25-26, 31 A.2d 528, 529 (1943) (<HOLDING>); In re Morgan’s Estate, 340 Pa. 465, 467, 17
holding that where the will did not provide the life tenant with the power to sell and it was not necessary to sell the property for the payment of estate expenses the life tenant was not entitled to the proceeds from the sale of the property instead the proceeds became a part of the residuary estate holding that if testamentary trust fails proceeds are distributed to the residuary legatee holding that under section 15c lapsed residuary gifts fell to the remaining residuary beneficiary holding that if the trust becomes operative thereafter fails and cy pres is inapplicable the devolution of the trust goes to the heirs at law and not to residuary legatees holding that heirs at law of testatrix were not necessary parties to action where trust fails cy pres is inapplicable and the will contained a residuary clause and finding no basis to distinguish between the situation where the trust does or does not become operative