In re Snyder's Estate

• Decision Date: 24 June 1922
• Docket Number: 91
• Citation: 118 A. 609,274 Pa. 574
• Parties: Snyder Estate
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

118 A. 609

274 Pa. 574

Snyder Estate

No. 91

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

June 24, 1922

Argued May 11, 1922

Appeal, No. 91, Oct. T., 1922, by Mary Snyder Drew, from decree of O.C. Allegheny Co., June T., 1921, No. 415 overruling exceptions to order appointing trustee ad litem in Estate of William P. Snyder, deceased. Affirmed.

Exceptions to order appointing trustee ad litem. Before TRIMBLE, J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Exceptions dismissed. Mary Snyder Drew, decedent's daughter appealed.

Error assigned, inter alia, was decree, quoting it.

The order is affirmed at cost of appellants.

John C. Bane, for appellant. -- The order was a pronounced abuse of judicial discretion. It was made without notice, and without argument or opportunity for argument by counsel. It was made without petition, citation, motion, request or hearing.

A. J. Barron, with him Geo. E. Alter, trustee ad litem, appellee.

Before MOSCHZISKER, C.J., FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Mary Snyder Drew, appellant here, petitioned the orphans' court, in the estate of her father, William P. Snyder, deceased, for the allowance of an appeal from the decision of the register of wills, admitting to probate certain writings, as the will of the decedent, with a codicil thereto; she asked that the probate be set aside and the letters testamentary revoked, also for an issue devisavit vel non and general relief, alleging that, at the dates of these writings, decedent was without testamentary capacity, by reason of long-continued illness and feebleness of mind. One of the respondents admitted the truth of all the averments in the petition, and the answers of the others categorically denied those alleging want of testamentary capacity.

At hearing, it developed that several of the parties in interest were minors, represented by guardians ad litem; that the will contained a separate use, spendthrift trust and other trusts to support remainders for unascertained persons, also a charitable bequest to a church; and that the widow of testator, named as one of the trustees, had elected to take against his will.

In support of the averments in her petition, appellant introduced the testimony of a large number of witnesses, none of whom were cross-examined by counsel for respondents, who stated to the court: "We have nothing to offer in defense, and, . . . in this...