Mellier's Estate

Philadelphia County Orphans' Court

Mellier's Estate

22 Pa. D. & C. 612, 1935 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 211

CourtPennsylvania Orphans' Court, Philadelphia County

DecidedApril 5, 1935

Docketno. 2554 of 1934

StatusPublished

This text of 22 Pa. D. & C. 612 (Mellier'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

Mellier's Estate, 22 Pa. D. & C. 612, 1935 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 211 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Van Dusen, J.,

The exceptions filed by Jeannette Wallace all relate to the disallowance of the claim because of the finding by the auditing judge that there was a failure of consideration for the check upon which the claim is based. The conversation referred to in the adjudication is as follows: “Jeannette, this is to bring the body from Asbury Park. You know what my wishes are.” To which the claimant replied: “I will take care of it. I will carry out your wishes.”

This conversation indicates a relation of trust or agency rather than a relation of contract. Least of all is it a contract whereby claimant is to remove the body and he paid a lump sum as compensation for doing so. The terms are too vague.

This trust or agency has been sufficiently shown to rebut the presumption of consideration which is to he derived from the face of the check, but it has not been sufficiently shown to be enforceable. The terms of the trust or agency are [614]*614too vague, and we do not think that we have any power to reform or add to those terms, as, for example, by giving directions as to the style of the re-interment. The claim must, therefore, fail.

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

Van Dusen, J.,

The exceptions filed by Jeannette Wallace all relate to the disallowance of the claim because of the finding by the auditing judge that there was a failure of consideration for the check upon which the claim is based. The conversation referred to in the adjudication is as follows: “Jeannette, this is to bring the body from Asbury Park. You know what my wishes are.” To which the claimant replied: “I will take care of it. I will carry out your wishes.”

This conversation indicates a relation of trust or agency rather than a relation of contract. Least of all is it a contract whereby claimant is to remove the body and he paid a lump sum as compensation for doing so. The terms are too vague.

This trust or agency has been sufficiently shown to rebut the presumption of consideration which is to he derived from the face of the check, but it has not been sufficiently shown to be enforceable. The terms of the trust or agency are [614]*614too vague, and we do not think that we have any power to reform or add to those terms, as, for example, by giving directions as to the style of the re-interment. The claim must, therefore, fail.

The exceptions are dismissed and! the adjudication is confirmed absolutely.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 Pa. D. & C. 612, 1935 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melliers-estate-paorphctphilad-1935.