Morgan's Estate

22 A.2d 87, 146 Pa. Super. 79, 1941 Pa. Super. LEXIS 187
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMay 7, 1941
DocketAppeal, 152
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 22 A.2d 87 (Morgan'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
Morgan's Estate, 22 A.2d 87, 146 Pa. Super. 79, 1941 Pa. Super. LEXIS 187 (Pa. Ct. App. 1941).

Opinion

Opinion by

Keller, P. J.,

This is an appeal by Violet S. Happer from a decree of the Orphans’ Court of Allegheny County entered September 12, 1940, dismissing her exceptions to the decree of said court entered June 19, 1940, which in turn dismissed her petition for citation 1 on appeal from *81 tlie probate of the will of her deceased aunt, Annie E. Morgan, and sustained said probate and the grant of letters testamentary thereon to John T. Swick, the appellee.

We are of opinion that on the testimony of John T. Swick himself and of the witnesses called by him, when considered with the testimony as to the decedent’s mental condition, the appeal should have been sustained and the probate of the will revoked and the letters testamentary issued thereon set aside.

The decedent, Annie E. Morgan, was a childless widow, eighty-five years old at the date of the execution of the alleged will on March 8, 1939. Since October 1927 she had been an inmate of the Allegheny County Hospital for Mental Diseases at Woodville. Prior to that she had been a guest or inmate of the G.A.R. Home at Hawkins Station, her deceased husband, Thomas Jefferson Morgan, having been a Union soldier in the Civil War, and as his widow she was in receipt of a pension from the United States government. On February 1, 1928 she was duly adjudged a weak-minded person unable to take care of her property and liable to dissipate and lose the same and become the victim of designing persons, and the Potter Title & Trust Company was appointed her guardian and remained such until her death. Her estate, at her death, consisted entirely of the surplus accumulations of her pension money remaining in the guardian’s hands after paying the expenses of her maintenance in the hospital.

It was testified that prior to said adjudication and the appointment of her guardian she had refused to endorse her pension checks, in consequence of which the pension was stopped, but was subsequently restored through the instrumentality — at least in part — of this appellant.

The appellee, John T. Swick, who is also the execu *82 tor of the will 2 and sole legatee under it of the estate remaining after payment of her funeral expenses and the erection of a monument on the family lot, was a young man twenty-two years old, not a blood relation of hers, but a grand-nephew of her deceased husband, the grandson of his sister, G-race Morgan Butler. As a boy twelve or thirteen years old he had gone with his mother, Sarah Butler Swick, and his aunt, Mrs. Amy Stuart, to see Mrs. Morgan at Woodville, and had called there five or six times with them during the intervening eight or ten years.

On August 2, 1937, when he was twenty years old, he had of his own motion written the superintendent of the hospital asking as to Mrs. Morgan’s physical and mental condition, and her ability to make a will. The superintendent had replied as follows:

*83 “Allegheny County Home Woodville, Pa.
Bingham Boyce, M.D. Superintendent
Hospital for Mental Diseases Tuberculosis Sanatorium Private Exchange Carnegie 2000
August 10, 1937
Mr. John T. Swick 2331 Arlington Ave. Pittsburgh, Penna.
Be: Annie E. Morgan
Dear Sir:
We have your letter of August 2 in which you inquire about the physical and mental condition of the above named woman who was regularly committed to the Mental Department of this Institution on the Certificate of two Examining Physicians on October 14, 1927.
The diagnosis of this woman is Senile Psychosis. This means that her judgment is poor, her memory is impaired, and she is not able to name people, still thinks she is at the G-.A.B. Home. Because of her inability to reason and understand the circumstances, we look upon her as being incompetent.
Because of this it would not be sensible to permit her to make a will.
Her general physical condition is very poor and she has failed considerably. Because of her advanced age together with her poor physical health, we cannot expect her to live much longer. She is, however, able with assistance to be out of bed much of the day. We do not know your interest or relationship in this case. When I mentioned your name to the patient she asked if that was Sarah Butler’s boy and she implied that she is an aunt of this woman.
*84 We understand that the Guardian has taken care of the maintenance for this woman here since her admission.
We would be glad to have you visit the patient and talk further to the Dr. in charge of the case if you so wish.
Your truly,
Bingham Boyce, M.D.
Superintendent.”

The term ‘senile psychosis’ used in the letter, it was testified, is the same as ‘senile dementia.’

There is no testimony in the record that Swick went to see Mrs. Morgan at Woodville between the date of that letter and the date of the will, March 8, 1939. There is no evidence that Mrs. Morgan knew that she had any estate in the hands of her guardian, or that she was being supported out of the pension paid her guardian by the United States, or that she knew that there were accumulations of that pension money held for her by her guardian. It is unquestioned that she was greatly concerned about her burial. She wanted to be buried beside her husband in a cemetery at Portersville, Butler County. That was the constant burden of her conversation. When she entered the G.A.R. Home at Hawkins Station, she left $300 with the officials of the home for that purpose, with directions that she was to be buried at Portersville. The fund was still available at her death but it was not used. It is revealing of her mental weakness that, although her burial was the thought uppermost in her mind, she had forgotten all about this fund which she had set aside for that purpose. There was also available a burial fund of $75, payable by the County Commissioners, in case the total burial expense did not exceed $400, (Act of May 2, 1929, P. L. 1278, Art. Y, sec. 423, 16 PS §423), which was not applied for or obtained The appellee paid for her burial at Portersville out of the *85 estate, which was inventoried and appraised at about $1500.

The decedent never instructed or requested Swick or anybody else to write her will. He was not a lawyer. When be bad last seen her lie was not of age. She bad told her husband’s nieces that she wanted to be buried at Portersville beside her husband, and, apparently on their

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

Related

Dettra Estate
30 Pa. D. & C.2d 555 (Philadelphia County Orphans' Court, 1963)
Lare Will
42 A.2d 801 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1944)
Zolyan's Estate
44 Pa. D. & C. 81 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1942)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 A.2d 87, 146 Pa. Super. 79, 1941 Pa. Super. LEXIS 187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgans-estate-pasuperct-1941.