Hummel v. Kistner

37 A. 815, 182 Pa. 216, 1897 Pa. LEXIS 795
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided July 15, 1897·No. Appeal, No. 190·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

It is impossible to read the testimony in this case without [225]*225attaining the conviction that the several deeds and conveyances made by John Hummel to his children, including Mrs. Kistner, were made and intended by him as a distribution of his estate in his lifetime. The values of the several properties conveyed were nearly equal, and the facts and circumstances attending the preparation and execution of the several deeds are absolutely convincing that such was his purpose. The learned court below has so found as a fact, and we entirely approve of the finding. The declarations of the deceased to the scrivener who wrote the deed for one of the properties to Mrs. Kistner were not privileged, being made in the presence of both parties to the transaction. As a matter of course there was nothing in the testimony to justify a finding of fraud in the execution of the deeds, and the court has so found. Neither is there anything sufficing to bring the conveyances to Mrs. Kistner within the rule which prohibits large gifts to persons occupying confidential relations with the donors without explanatory evidence. As a daughter of the donor, Mrs. Kistner might mate personal solicitations for conveyances to her, especially as her brothers and sisters had already received similar deeds, without being required to furnish explanatory testimony. We are entirely satisfied with the disposition of the case made by the learned court below.

Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at the cost of the appellants.

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

Hummel v. Kistner, 37 A. 815, 182 Pa. 216, 1897 Pa. LEXIS 795 (Pa. 1897).

37 A. 815 (Hummel v. Kistner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Trupp v. Wolff
335 A.2d 171 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1975)
Cridge's Estate
137 A. 455 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1927)
Doll v. Loesel
136 A. 796 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1927)
Ratzlaff v. State
1926 OK 707 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1926)
Gleason v. Jones
79 Okla. 191 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1920)
In Re Will of Swartz
1920 OK 255 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1920)
York v. United States
224 F. 88 (Eighth Circuit, 1915)
Leitch v. Diamond National Bank
83 A. 416 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1912)
Koogle v. Cline
73 A. 672 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1909)