Rhodes & Hannebauer Estates

Philadelphia County Orphans' Court

Rhodes & Hannebauer Estates

71 Pa. D. & C. 330, 1950 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 444

CourtPennsylvania Orphans' Court, Philadelphia County

DecidedJune 23, 1950

Docketnos. 3221 and 2540 of 1949

StatusPublished

This text of 71 Pa. D. & C. 330 (Rhodes & Hannebauer Estates) 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

Rhodes & Hannebauer Estates, 71 Pa. D. & C. 330, 1950 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 444 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The exceptions before us were filed in Rhodes Estate, which is a companion case to Hannebauer’s Estate, in which no exceptions were filed. Both cases involve the effect of sections 3, 12 and 13 of the new Intestate Act of 1947, P. L. 80, 20 PS §1.3(6), 1.12 and 1.13, upon the practice and procedure with respect to escheatable property, and were jointly heard by Judges Klein and Ladner but separate adjudications filed by each. An escheator had been appointed in the Hannebauer case, but not in the Rhodes matter.

We are in full agreement with what has been said in these two comprehensive adjudications and we approve the practice indicated. We. see no reason to restate or enlarge upon what has been so well said and therefore dismiss the exceptions before us.

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

Per Curiam,

The exceptions before us were filed in Rhodes Estate, which is a companion case to Hannebauer’s Estate, in which no exceptions were filed. Both cases involve the effect of sections 3, 12 and 13 of the new Intestate Act of 1947, P. L. 80, 20 PS §1.3(6), 1.12 and 1.13, upon the practice and procedure with respect to escheatable property, and were jointly heard by Judges Klein and Ladner but separate adjudications filed by each. An escheator had been appointed in the Hannebauer case, but not in the Rhodes matter.

We are in full agreement with what has been said in these two comprehensive adjudications and we approve the practice indicated. We. see no reason to restate or enlarge upon what has been so well said and therefore dismiss the exceptions before us.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 Pa. D. & C. 330, 1950 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rhodes-hannebauer-estates-paorphctphilad-1950.