Hassinger's Appeal

10 Pa. 454, 1849 Pa. LEXIS 253
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided July 2, 1849·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

There are certainly primé facie rights to priority of administration; but they may be controlled by evidence of incompetence, or unfitness from circumstances. The interest of David S. Hassinger, as administrator of his sister, would [455]*455be directly antagonistic to Ms interest as an administrator of his father, whose estate he would, in effect, settle with himself so far as the estate of Miss Hassinger should be concerned. But both the Hassingers, and the G-loningers, with their husbands, are in contest for the administration of her estate; and it ought to be committed to an impartial stranger to them, who alone would have their confidence, or would perhaps deserve it.

Decree affirmed.

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

Hassinger's Appeal, 10 Pa. 454, 1849 Pa. LEXIS 253 (Pa. 1849).

10 Pa. 454 (Hassinger's Appeal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Estate of Osborne
525 A.2d 788 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1987)
Schulz Estate
139 A.2d 560 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1958)
Friese's Estate
176 A. 225 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1934)
Estate of Failor
10 Pa. Super. 253 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1899)