Hook's Estate

Philadelphia County Orphans' Court

Hook's Estate

3 Pa. D. & C. 692, 1923 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 59

CourtPennsylvania Orphans' Court, Philadelphia County

DecidedOctober 19, 1923

DocketNo. 485

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Pa. D. & C. 692 (Hook'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

Hook's Estate, 3 Pa. D. & C. 692, 1923 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 59 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Gest, J.,

It is not necessary that the children of the decedent, in order to obtain their exemption under section 12 of the Fiduciaries Act of 1917, should be minors, or should have been dependent upon their father, but it is necessary, in the language of the act, that they should form [694]*694part of his family. This, indeed, was the law prior to the Fiduciaries Act: Palethorp’s Estate, 3 Dist. E. 145; Lane’s Estate, 6 Dist. E. 618; Stevenson’s Estate, 23 Dist. E. 747; Halbe’s Estate, 27 W. N. C. 440; Hoffman’s Estate, 25 Pa. C. C. Reps. 633, and Henkel’s Estate, 13 Pa. Superior Ct. 337.

From our examination of the case, we conclude that the claimant was not a part of the decedent’s family as intended by the act, and the auditing judge was correct in dismissing her claim.

As this disposes of the case, it is not necessary to consider the questions of laches, &c., which were argued at some length.

The 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

Gest, J.,

It is not necessary that the children of the decedent, in order to obtain their exemption under section 12 of the Fiduciaries Act of 1917, should be minors, or should have been dependent upon their father, but it is necessary, in the language of the act, that they should form [694]*694part of his family. This, indeed, was the law prior to the Fiduciaries Act: Palethorp’s Estate, 3 Dist. E. 145; Lane’s Estate, 6 Dist. E. 618; Stevenson’s Estate, 23 Dist. E. 747; Halbe’s Estate, 27 W. N. C. 440; Hoffman’s Estate, 25 Pa. C. C. Reps. 633, and Henkel’s Estate, 13 Pa. Superior Ct. 337.

From our examination of the case, we conclude that the claimant was not a part of the decedent’s family as intended by the act, and the auditing judge was correct in dismissing her claim.

As this disposes of the case, it is not necessary to consider the questions of laches, &c., which were argued at some length.

The exceptions are dismissed and the adjudication is confirmed absolutely.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Pa. D. & C. 692, 1923 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hooks-estate-paorphctphilad-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack