Thomas Will

36 A.2d 819, 349 Pa. 212, 1944 Pa. LEXIS 433
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMarch 24, 1944
DocketAppeal, 44
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 36 A.2d 819 (Thomas Will) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Thomas Will, 36 A.2d 819, 349 Pa. 212, 1944 Pa. LEXIS 433 (Pa. 1944).

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Maxey,

This is an appeal from a decree of the Orphans’ Court of Allegheny County refusing a motion for an issue d. v. n. and directing the probate of a will.

The questions involved the mental capacity of the decedent and whether or not fraud, duress and undue influence had been practiced upon her, The Court below *217 held that there was not sufficient evidence to require the submission of the issues to the jury. We agree with this.

It appears in this case that the heirs and next of kin had not been joined as parties. We held in Miller’s Estate, 159 Pa. 562, 28 A. 441, that “Where the heirs at law of a decedent are not voluntarily parties to an issue devisavit vel non, or have not been brought in by citation, the orphans’ court has no jurisdiction to settle finally the validity of the will against such of the heirs as are not parties to the proceedings.” In Miller’s Estate, 166 Pa. 97, at p. 109, 31 A. 58, we said: “The act of 1832 prescribes the form of the precept to be issued by the register to the judges of the court of common pleas, in which is the direction that an issue be framed between the proponent and the caveator upon the merits of the controversy between them, and that the said judges cause all other persons who may be interested in the estate of the alleged testator ‘as heirs, relations, or next of kin, devisees, legatees, or executors to be warned that they may come into our said court and become parties to the said action if they shall see cause.’ ”

However, the omission referred to does not warrant our reversing the decree of the court below.

The decree is affirmed on the opinion of President Judge Trimble, costs to be paid by the appellant.

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

Related

Estate of Morante, V. Appeal of:Morante, V.
2025 Pa. Super. 176 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2025)
Pavelchak Will
1 Pa. Fid. 422 (Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, 1981)
Yesner Will
1 Pa. Fid. 90 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1981)
Banks' Estate
29 Pa. D. & C.2d 241 (Philadelphia County Orphans' Court, 1963)
Kerr v. O'Donovan
134 A.2d 213 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1957)
Cohen Will
51 A.2d 704 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1947)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
36 A.2d 819, 349 Pa. 212, 1944 Pa. LEXIS 433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-will-pa-1944.