Taylor's Estate

Philadelphia County Orphans' Court

Taylor's Estate

26 Pa. D. & C. 475, 1936 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 316

CourtPennsylvania Orphans' Court, Philadelphia County

DecidedJune 5, 1936

Docketno. 1659 of 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 26 Pa. D. & C. 475 (Taylor'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

Taylor's Estate, 26 Pa. D. & C. 475, 1936 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 316 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Stearne, J.,

Had claimant’s proof, as to an alleged inter vivos gift of the saving fund accounts, [477]*477been solely dependent upon the transfer of the funds to claimant’s own name through decedent’s letter of attorney, it may well be that no substantial dispute would have been shown to exist which necessitated an issue to the common pleas court. However, the learned counsel for exceptant overlooks the effect of the testimony of three witnesses that decedent was alleged to have admitted that decedent had given the funds to claimant. Under such circumstances, the auditing judge was clearly correct in his ruling and for the reasons given by him.

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

Stearne, J.,

Had claimant’s proof, as to an alleged inter vivos gift of the saving fund accounts, [477]*477been solely dependent upon the transfer of the funds to claimant’s own name through decedent’s letter of attorney, it may well be that no substantial dispute would have been shown to exist which necessitated an issue to the common pleas court. However, the learned counsel for exceptant overlooks the effect of the testimony of three witnesses that decedent was alleged to have admitted that decedent had given the funds to claimant. Under such circumstances, the auditing judge was clearly correct in his ruling and for the reasons given by him.

The exceptions are dismissed and the adjudication is confirmed absolutely.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 Pa. D. & C. 475, 1936 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylors-estate-paorphctphilad-1936.