Mauser v. Mauser
| Decision Date | 17 May 1937 |
| Docket Number | 134 |
| Citation | 192 A. 137,326 Pa. 257 |
| Parties | Mauser et al., Appellants, v. Mauser et ux |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued April 19, 1937
Appeal, No. 134, Jan. T., 1937, from judgment of C.P. Montour Co., Sept. T., 1935, No. 1, in case of William H. Mauser individually and as administrator of Estate of Mahala Mauser et al. v. Alonzo Mauser et ux. Motion to quash dismissed and judgment affirmed.
Bill in equity.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Preliminary objections sustained and bill dismissed for want of jurisdiction, opinion by EVANS, P.J. Plaintiffs appealed.
Error assigned was final decree.
Motion to quash is dismissed and the judgment of the court below is affirmed.
H Mont. Smith, with him Hervey B. Smith, for appellants.
R. S. Hemingway, with him C. E. Kreisher, for appellees.
Before KEPHART, C.J., SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW, LINN, STERN and BARNES, JJ.
John F. Mauser died on December 7, 1930, giving to his widow, Mahala, a life estate in all his property with power to consume. In 1933 letters testamentary were issued to Alonzo, his son. Mahala died September 15, 1934, intestate, and on July 31, 1935, William, another son, was granted letters of administration on her estate. On the same day William and a third son, Charles, brought a bill in equity against Alonzo and his wife, alleging that the defendants had wrongfully converted property belonging to the estate of John F. Mauser to their own use, and had fraudulently induced Mahala, during her lifetime, to convey certain property to them, asking that they be declared trustees ex maleficio of all such property for the benefit of the complainants and heirs. The bill prays a discovery, an accounting and a distribution of the trust property to the remaindermen under the will of John F. Mauser according to their respective shares. Defendants filed a petition to dismiss the bill, challenging the jurisdiction of the court upon the grounds that the matter was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Orphans' Court. After hearing, defendants' petition was granted and the bill dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. This appeal followed.
Appellants assert that equity has jurisdiction of the matter in controversy because it is predicated upon the fraud of appellees in dealing with the property of the estate of John F. Mauser and because the Orphans' Court has no power to decree a discovery or to compel transfer of property now in the hands of the appellee Sarah. These contentions are utterly without foundation.
The purpose of the bill as to the items of property mentioned therein is to compel its return and a distribution of such property admittedly belonging to the estate of John which, it is charged, was wrongfully converted by appellees after his death. All of this property is within the jurisdiction of the Orphans' Court, regardless of who may now hold it. See McGovern's Estate, 322 Pa. 379; Cutler's Estate, 225 Pa. 167. The estates of John and his wife are being...
To continue reading
Request your trial