Lewis's Estate

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Lewis's Estate

21 Pa. Super. 393, 1902 Pa. Super. LEXIS 368

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 19, 1902

DocketAppeal, No. 63

StatusPublished

This text of 21 Pa. Super. 393 (Lewis's Estate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lewis's Estate, 21 Pa. Super. 393, 1902 Pa. Super. LEXIS 368 (Pa. Ct. App. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

William W. Porter, J.,

The opinion of Judge Penrose in dismissing the exceptions [397]*397filed by William Lewis, Jr., in the court below contains sound reasons for the rejection of the claim. It, however, does not notice one argument presented for our consideration. It is urged that the relinquishment by William Lewis, Jr., of his office of executor operated as a consideration for the agreement of his mother to release to him a part of the income of the estate, to all of which she was entitled for life under the terms of the decedent’s will. Two answers are manifest. First, the parties specifically agreed that the act of the mother should be regarded as a gift. Inherent in the giver, in such case, is the right of revocation. Second, an agreement made in consideration of a relinquishment of a right to administer is against public policy, and unenforceable. See Bowers v. Bowers, 26 Pa. 74.

The decree of the court below is affirmed.

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

Opinion by

William W. Porter, J.,

The opinion of Judge Penrose in dismissing the exceptions [397]*397filed by William Lewis, Jr., in the court below contains sound reasons for the rejection of the claim. It, however, does not notice one argument presented for our consideration. It is urged that the relinquishment by William Lewis, Jr., of his office of executor operated as a consideration for the agreement of his mother to release to him a part of the income of the estate, to all of which she was entitled for life under the terms of the decedent’s will. Two answers are manifest. First, the parties specifically agreed that the act of the mother should be regarded as a gift. Inherent in the giver, in such case, is the right of revocation. Second, an agreement made in consideration of a relinquishment of a right to administer is against public policy, and unenforceable. See Bowers v. Bowers, 26 Pa. 74.

The decree of the court below is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 Pa. Super. 393, 1902 Pa. Super. LEXIS 368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewiss-estate-pasuperct-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack