Fowler's Estate

Philadelphia County Orphans' Court

Fowler's Estate

21 Pa. D. & C. 82, 1934 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 26

CourtPennsylvania Orphans' Court, Philadelphia County

DecidedJune 1, 1934

StatusPublished

This text of 21 Pa. D. & C. 82 (Fowler's Estate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Orphans' Court, Philadelphia County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fowler's Estate, 21 Pa. D. & C. 82, 1934 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 26 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Lamorelle, P. J.,

We might well rest the dismissal of all exceptions on the opinion of the learned auditing judge, and this covers exceptions by a distributee, as well as that of the fiduciary. We feel impelled, however, to call attention to the elaborate discussion by Judge Gest in his dictum in Tobey’s Estate, 10 D. & C. 229, and to the opinion of the court, written by the same judge, in Frick’s Estate, 13 D. & C. 536; also to the fact so frequently determined by us, that exceptions by a fiduciary must, under our rules, be signed and sworn to (see Estate of Martha E. MacDonald, deceased, no. 3249 of 1932, per curiam, November 24, 1933); and to the further fact that counsel for the exceptant, in his statement of the question involved, states that all [84]*84the people agree, which is not so in fact, the Commonwealth having a claim and because of its claim being a party in interest. Further comment is unnecessary. All exceptions are dismissed, and the adjudication is confirmed absolutely.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Lamorelle, P. J.,

We might well rest the dismissal of all exceptions on the opinion of the learned auditing judge, and this covers exceptions by a distributee, as well as that of the fiduciary. We feel impelled, however, to call attention to the elaborate discussion by Judge Gest in his dictum in Tobey’s Estate, 10 D. & C. 229, and to the opinion of the court, written by the same judge, in Frick’s Estate, 13 D. & C. 536; also to the fact so frequently determined by us, that exceptions by a fiduciary must, under our rules, be signed and sworn to (see Estate of Martha E. MacDonald, deceased, no. 3249 of 1932, per curiam, November 24, 1933); and to the further fact that counsel for the exceptant, in his statement of the question involved, states that all [84]*84the people agree, which is not so in fact, the Commonwealth having a claim and because of its claim being a party in interest. Further comment is unnecessary. All exceptions are dismissed, and the adjudication is confirmed absolutely.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 Pa. D. & C. 82, 1934 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fowlers-estate-paorphctphilad-1934.