In re Cameron's Estate

• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: MR. JUSTICE BENJAMIN R. JONES
• Citation: In re Cameron's Estate, 130 A.2d 173, 388 Pa. 25 (Pa. 1957)
• Decision Date: 18 March 1957
• Docket Number: 3494
• Parties: In re ESTATE of Mary E. CAMERON, a/k/a Mary Bolam Cameron, a/k/a Mary Bolam, Deceased. Appeal of the COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania.

Page 173

130 A.2d 173

388 Pa. 25

In re ESTATE of Mary E. CAMERON, a/k/a Mary Bolam Cameron a/k/a Mary Bolam, Deceased Appeal of the COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

March 18, 1957.

Thomas D. McBride, Atty. Gen., Joseph L. Cohen, Lois G. Forer, Deputy Attys. Gen., for appellant.

David E. Blakley, DuBois, for appellee.

Before CHARLES ALVIN JONES, C. J., and BELL, CHIDSEY, MUSMANNO, ARNOLD and BENJAMIN R. JONES, JJ.

BENJAMIN R. JONES, Justice.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has appealed from a decree of the Orphans' Court of Clearfield County which disallowed its claim against the decedent's estate for the reimbursement of public assistance funds allegedly received by decedent.

When Mary E. Cameron died, intestate, April 6, 1952, she left an estate which, according to the final account, had a balance therein of $12,843.20 subject to unpaid disputed claims of $14,182.78.

At audit the learned court below appointed an auditor, inter alia, to pass upon all unpaid and disputed claims including the Commonwealth's claim. After various hearings the auditor found as a fact (Finding of Fact 67) that there was 'due to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania the sum of $5,733.50 on all of its claims against the deceased' and made an award thereof. Exceptions taken by two of decedent's heirs-at-law to the auditor's report were sustained by the lower court for the assigned reason that the evidence concerning the endorsements of the public assistance checks by decedent was 'conflicting'. After reargument, these exceptions were reaffirmed by the court for the assigned reason that the auditor 'did not have sufficient evidence before him upon which to base his findings of fact.'

The present inquiry is whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the auditor's findings of fact upon which the claim of the Commonwealth was initially allowed. In re Curran's Estate, 310 Pa. 434, 439, 165 A. 842, 844, the extent of appellate review in this situation is clearly enunciated: where an auditor's findings of fact are overruled by a court and reasons are given for its action, it is the duty of the appellate court to fully and carefully examine such reasons "together with the entire record, and determine whether the action of the court in banc is justified, keeping in mind the weight to which the original findings are entitled and also the reasons given for their overthorw.' Belmont Laboratories v. Heist, 300 Pa. 542, 548, 151 A. 15, 17; Pilling v. Moore, 306 Pa. 406, 410, 160 A. 109'. See also: In re Mallory's Estate, 295 Pa. 406, 145 A. 577. Because of his better opportunity to judge of the intelligence and credibility of witnesses and their knowledge of the subject under investigation, an auditor's findings of fact from disputed testimony, while not equivalent to the verdict of a jury or to a Chancellor's findings, are entitled to great weight: Dingee v. Wood, 228 Pa. 250, 251, 252, 77 A. 440.

The burden of proving its claim rested upon the Commonwealth. The late Mr. Justice Stearne, speaking for this court in Re Moore Estate, 349 Pa. 236, 240, 36 A.2d 812, 814, said: 'The measure of proof required to prove a claim against a decedent's estate in the orphans' court is stated in Re Hirst's Estate, 274 Pa. 286, 288, 117 A. 682: 'A claim against the estate of a decedent must be as definite and precise as is required to recover a debt in an action at law. While formal pleadings are dispensed with, the claimant should produce evidence showing the nature and character of the debt, its origin, the terms of the contract and the exact amount claimed to be due." To the same effect: In re Deal's Estate, 321 Pa. 484, 488, 184 A. 453, 454; In re Braden Estate, 363 Pa. 42, 46, 68 A.2d 734, 736. Cf.: In re Donlevy's Estate, 323 Pa. 173, 176, 185 A. 740, 742; In re Winsmore's Estate, 325 Pa. 303, 304, 190 A. 892. A claim can be established against a decedent's estate only by evidence which is clear, direct and positive, or, as is sometimes expressed, clear, precise and indubitable. Stafford v. Reed, 363 Pa. 405, 70 A.2d 345; In re Mooney's Estate, 328 Pa. 273, 194 A. 893.

A clarification of the Commonwealth's claim can be achieved by dividing the claim into four time periods during which the Commonwealth avers it issued public assistance checks to decedent: (1) a claim based on checks issued prior to and including June 25, 1940; (2) a claim based on checks issued from January 27, 1945 to March 28, 1952; (3) a claim based on checks issued from June 25, § 940 to January 27, 1945; and (4) a claim based on checks issued subsequent to April 6, s952. The checks in the latter classification were issued in the weeks immediately subsequent to decedent's death and were endorsed and cashed, admittedly, by someone other than decedent, and for the amount of these checks the Commonwealth seeks no reimbursement.

We will consider the evidence concerning the claims during each of the three other time periods.

A.

Checks Issued Prior to June 25, 1940.

It is conceded that during this period public assistance checks payable to decedent in the amount of $644.50 were issued, that the decedent actually endorsed and received the proceeds of such checks and its portion of the Commonwealth's claim has been established beyond doubt.

B.

Checks Issued from January 27, 1945 to March 28, 1952.

The evidence indicates that during this period the Commonwealth issued checks totalling $3,571.60 payable to Mary E. Cameron. It is admitted that ten of these checks, representing a total sum of $222, were endorsed by a person other than decedent and that the Commonwealth's claim for reimbursement during this period should be reduced to $3,349.60.

In support of its claim the Commonwealth produced six witnesses, including two handwriting experts. The testimony of these witnesses, summarized, was as follows:

(1) James Patterson, Principal Claims Settlement Agent, described the method of keeping public assistance records and the manner of issuance of checks; the official records in his possession indicated that checks were mailed to Mary Cameron regularly from January 7, 1945 to March 28, 1952; among the official records in his possession were two applications for assistance executed by Mary Cameron on February 14, 1938 and May 24, 1940 respectively:

(2) R. W. Feitshans, Comptroller of Records in the DPA Pittsburgh regional office, testified that three separate Commonwealth departments were responsible for the accuracy of public assistance expenditures and for checks issued in connection therewith and that the records in his possession indicated a notification on June 25, 1942 that Mary Cameron had moved from 1408 Sedgwick Street to 3358 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh; further, the records indicated that checks were issued payable to decedent continuously from June 25, 1940 to June 13, 1952:

(3) Pearl Noechel, a DPA visitor, testified that on four occasions--October 29, 1941, January 28, 1942, February 13, 1942 and May 12, 1942--she visited Mary Cameron's home but on these occasions did not talk with Mary Cameron although on several of these occasions she conversed with a Mrs. Anthony (later identified as decedent's sister); on the occasion of her last visit the witness was informed that the Cameron family had moved to DuBois; at the Pittsburgh DPA district office the witness conversed for the first and only time with a woman who identified herself as Mary Cameron who was then at the office to report a change in her address; this witness identified Mary Cameron on a photograph (an identification later confirmed by exceptants' witness, Mrs. Bolam) and Mrs. Anthony in another photograph (an indentification later contradicated by Mrs. Bolam):

(4) Alfred Morasco, a former DPA visitor, testified not from his recollection but solely from the official records which indicated that he had seen Mary Cameron at her home on four occasions--September 11, 1944, June 20, 1945, January 20, 1947 and March 17, 1948--and at the Pittsburgh district office on March 25, 1948; he identified Mary Cameron in a photograph and identified her handwriting on a public assistance form executed March 25, 1948:

(5) Rudolph Hardt, Head Teller of the Allegheny Trust Company, Pittsburgh, Pa., testified that Mary Cameron opened a bank account in his institution on February 3, 1922, giving as her address 909 Progress Street, Pittsburgh, Pa.; that on November 14, 1930 she noted for the bank records a change of address to 15s8 Buena Vista Street, Pittsburgh, Pa., and closed her account count on March 9, 1939; he knew Mary Cameron, had cashed checks for her and recalled several occasions upon which she had appeared personally and recived the check proceeds; he identified ten checks issued during the period from June 27, 1947 to February 28, 1952 as having been cashed by him; he identified Mary Cameron's signature on the signature card in connection with her bank account and testified that the signatures on the checks were the same as the signature on the signature card; he was unable to state that he saw Mary Cameron cash any assistance checks between March 19, 1939 and June, 1947; after comparing signatures of Mary Cameron on checks issued in s937 and 1938 payable to John Cameron and re-endorsed by Mary Cameron with signatures of Mary Cameron on ten checks issued from June 27, 1947 to February 28, 1952 he noted a change in the handwriting style in connection with four letters--'C', 'M', 'y' and 'r'; conceding this change in handwriting style between 1938 and 1952, he nevertheless testified that in his opinion the signatures on the checks issued during this period were Mary Cameron's signatures:

(6) Lt. Stanley S. Smith, Document Examiner for the Pennsylvania State Police, testified that after an examination and comparison of genuine signatures of the decedent with the disputed endorsements on these checks, it was his opinion that the signatures in both instances were written by the same...