In re Estate of Oliver

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

In re Estate of Oliver

39 A. 72, 184 Pa. 306, 1898 Pa. LEXIS 894

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 3, 1898

DocketAppeal, No. 176

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A. 72 (In re Estate of Oliver) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Estate of Oliver, 39 A. 72, 184 Pa. 306, 1898 Pa. LEXIS 894 (Pa. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The act of May 14, 1857, quoted in the opinion of the court below, in effect created a new class of distributees in addition to those theretofore entitled to take under our intestate laws. In its terms, the act is general and makes no distinction between resident and nonresident parties. The undisputed facts of this case bring it clearly within the plain provisions of the act, and hence there was no error in holding that the appellee, whose deceased mother, through whom he claims, was born out of wedlock, but her parents afterwards married and died domiciled in England—may inherit a share in lands of which his uncle, ex parte materna, domiciled in this country, died seized and intestate, as fully as if his said mother had been born during the wedlock of her parents. There is nothing in the case that requires further discussion. The decree is affirmed on the opinion of the learned president of the orphans’ court, and the appeal is dismissed at appellant’s costs.

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

Per Curiam,

The act of May 14, 1857, quoted in the opinion of the court below, in effect created a new class of distributees in addition to those theretofore entitled to take under our intestate laws. In its terms, the act is general and makes no distinction between resident and nonresident parties. The undisputed facts of this case bring it clearly within the plain provisions of the act, and hence there was no error in holding that the appellee, whose deceased mother, through whom he claims, was born out of wedlock, but her parents afterwards married and died domiciled in England—may inherit a share in lands of which his uncle, ex parte materna, domiciled in this country, died seized and intestate, as fully as if his said mother had been born during the wedlock of her parents. There is nothing in the case that requires further discussion. The decree is affirmed on the opinion of the learned president of the orphans’ court, and the appeal is dismissed at appellant’s costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A. 72, 184 Pa. 306, 1898 Pa. LEXIS 894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-estate-of-oliver-pa-1898.