Powell's Estate

Philadelphia County Orphans' Court

Powell's Estate

26 Pa. D. & C. 369, 1936 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 345

CourtPennsylvania Orphans' Court, Philadelphia County

DecidedApril 24, 1936

Docketno. 2663 of 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 26 Pa. D. & C. 369 (Powell'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

Powell's Estate, 26 Pa. D. & C. 369, 1936 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 345 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Sinkler, J.,

O’Connor’s Estate, 2 D. & C. 229, Schreckengost’s Estate, 77 Pa. Superior Ct. 235, and other cases relied upon by exceptants are to the effect that the burden rests upon him who seeks to secure forfeiture of the rights of a surviving spouse; but that when he has proved that the surviving spouse left the common abode the burden shifts and he or she must prove that a willful and malicious desertion did not occur. In the present case it is not proven that the surviving spouse left the final common abode. He left the family home in Philadelphia. The wife followed him to Idaho and there lived with him four years. If his original leaving was willful and malicious desertion she condoned it. Her leaving [370]*370caused the final separation. There is no evidence of desertion, willful and malicious or otherwise, by either spouse.

The-auditing judge correctly refused to hold that proof of nonsupport by the husband shifts the burden to him to show justification. He might well have held the evidence was not sufficient to establish failure to support. The testimony of the granddaughter upon the subject was properly stricken from the record. The grandson when asked whether decedent ever received support from her spouse replied, “to the best of my knowledge, no”, and this is the only evidence in this respect.

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

Sinkler, J.,

O’Connor’s Estate, 2 D. & C. 229, Schreckengost’s Estate, 77 Pa. Superior Ct. 235, and other cases relied upon by exceptants are to the effect that the burden rests upon him who seeks to secure forfeiture of the rights of a surviving spouse; but that when he has proved that the surviving spouse left the common abode the burden shifts and he or she must prove that a willful and malicious desertion did not occur. In the present case it is not proven that the surviving spouse left the final common abode. He left the family home in Philadelphia. The wife followed him to Idaho and there lived with him four years. If his original leaving was willful and malicious desertion she condoned it. Her leaving [370]*370caused the final separation. There is no evidence of desertion, willful and malicious or otherwise, by either spouse.

The-auditing judge correctly refused to hold that proof of nonsupport by the husband shifts the burden to him to show justification. He might well have held the evidence was not sufficient to establish failure to support. The testimony of the granddaughter upon the subject was properly stricken from the record. The grandson when asked whether decedent ever received support from her spouse replied, “to the best of my knowledge, no”, and this is the only evidence in this respect.

The exceptions are dismissed and the adjudication is confirmed absolutely.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 Pa. D. & C. 369, 1936 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/powells-estate-paorphctphilad-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack