Richardson's Estate
| Decision Date | 17 February 1890 |
| Citation | 132 Pa. 292 |
| Parties | ESTATE OF W. T. RICHARDSON, DECEASED. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before PAXSON, C. J., STERRETT, GREEN, CLARK, WILLIAMS, McCOLLUM and MITCHELL, JJ.
APPEAL BY MATILDA RICHARDSON FROM THE ORPHANS' COURT OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY.
No. 32 July Term 1889, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 34 October Term 1888, O. C.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Mr. J. Howard Gendell (with him M. John M. Campbell and Mr. A. A. Hirst), for the appellant.
Counsel cited: Dorsey v. Dorsey, 7 W. 349; Colvin v. Reed, 55 Pa. 375; Reel v. Elder, 62 Pa. 308; VanStorch v. Griffin, 71 Pa. 240; Platt's App., 80 Pa. 501; Steel v. Smith, 7 W. & S. 447; Story on Conf. of L., § 20; Cheely v. Clayton, 110 U. S. 701; Barrett v. Failing, 111 U. S. 523; Bigelow on Estoppel, 48; McKee v. McKee, 14 Pa. 236; Wall v. Wall, 123 Pa. 545; Keen v. Coleman, 39 Pa. 299; Keen v. Hartman, 48 Pa. 497.
Mr. George H. Earle, Jr., and Mr. Richard P. White, for the appellees, were not heard.
The brief filed cited, inter alia: Huffman v. Stiger, 1 Pittsb. 185; Potts v. Potts, 10 W. N. 102; 2 Bish., M. & D., ch. 9; Ripple v. Ripple, 1 R. 388; Foulk v. Brown, 2 W. 215; Biddle v. Bank, 109 Pa. 357; Hayes' App., 113 Pa. 385; Maulfair's App., 110 Pa. 402; Fidelity Co.'s App., 115 Pa. 157; Baily v. Baily, 44 Pa. 274.
This case is affirmed upon the opinion of the learned judge of the Orphans' Court upon the exceptions.
Decree affirmed and the appeal dismissed at the costs of the appellants.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Custer
...a man who had procured a divorce in Mexico, did not render a mother unfit to be given custody of her child. See also Richardson's Estate, 132 Pa. 292, 19 A. 82, which held that after a divorce procured under conditions somewhat similar to those here involved, the respondent might, by delay ......
-
In re Watt's Estate
...only if Veronica Watt was attacking the validity of a divorce which she obtained but that, obviously, is not the present situation. In Richardson, supra, the facts were as in 1849, Richardson married one Matilda Little and had two children by her; in 1857 the parties separated and Richardso......
-
Watt's Estate, In re
...gives rise to an estoppel'. The court in reaching this conclusion relied on Romanski Estate, 354 Pa. 261, 47 A.2d 233, Richardson's Estate, 132 Pa. 292, 19 A. 82, and U. S. National Bank in Johnstown et al. v. Drabish, 187 Pa.Super. 169, 144 A.2d 640. In Romanski, supra, this Court held tha......
-
Hollingshead v. Hollingshead
...be a work of supererogation, if, indeed, possible. Among them may be mentioned Elliott v. Wohlfrom, 55 Cal. 384; Richardson's Estate, 132 Pa. 292, 19 Atl. 82; Loud v. Loud, 129 Mass. 14 (rested on "connivance"); Re Morrisson, 52 Hun, 102, 5 N. Y. Supp. 90; Re Swales, 60 App. Div. 599, 70 N.......