Sharpless's Estate
| Decision Date | 21 April 1890 |
| Citation | 134 Pa. 250 |
| Parties | ESTATE OF ELLA E. SHARPLESS. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before PAXSON, C. J., GREEN, CLARK, WILLIAMS, McCOLLUM and MITCHELL, JJ.
APPEAL BY PHEBE A. SHARPLESS FROM THE ORPHANS' COURT OF CHESTER COUNTY.
No. 90 July Term 1889, Sup. Ct.; court below, number and term not given.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Mr. Wayne MacVeagh (with him Mr. William M. Hayes), for the appellant.
Counsel cited: § 41, act of March 15, 1832, P. L. 146; Harrison's App., 100 Pa. 458; Schwilke's App., 100 Pa. 628; Knauss's App., 114 Pa. 10; Herster v. Herster, 116 Pa. 612, 626.
Mr. R. Jones Monaghan and Alfred P. Reid (with them Mr. Robert S. Waddell, Mr. J. F. E. Hause and Mr. H. T. Fairlamb), for the appellees.
Counsel cited: De Haven's App., 75 Pa. 340; Wainwright's App., 89 Pa. 226; Knauss's App., 114 Pa. 20; Harrison's App., 100 Pa. 460; Schwilke's App., 100 Pa. 631; Wilson v. Mitchell, 101 Pa. 505; Eddey's App., 109 Pa. 419; Herster v. Herster, 122 Pa. 264; Weigel v. Weigel, 5 W. 486; Harding v. Harding, 18 Pa. 340; 1 Williams on Executors, 350; Harrison v. Rowan, 3 Wash. C. C. 580; Vernon v. Kirk, 30 Pa. 218; Hoshauer v. Hoshauer, 26 Pa. 406; Linton's App., 104 Pa. 238; Provis v. Reed, 5 Bing. 435; Jackson v. Kniffen, 2 Johns. 31.
This case presents but a single point, whether there is sufficient evidence against the proffered will to entitle the contestant to an issue as to its validity. There is no doubt that an issue is matter of right, under the statute, where there is a substantial dispute upon a material question of fact, and that the test of substantiality in the dispute is that a verdict could be supported by the trial judge upon a review of all the evidence: De Haven's App., 75 Pa. 340; Harrison's App., 100 Pa. 460; Schwilke's App., 100 Pa. 631; Knauss's App., 114 Pa. 20.
The contestant presents evidence, in the first place, of the death of the decedent leaving no known will, the accounting in her estate by her guardian, running over a period of more than a year and resulting in a surcharge very large, not only in proportion to the decedent's estate, but to his own ability to pay. Under circumstances thus presenting, as contestant claims, a powerful motive for desperate measures, the proffered will is produced as discovered by accident in an out of the way and inappropriate place, loose among waste scraps of paper in an old atlas on top of a book-case. Passing, then, to the will itself, contestant claims that it is written upon a scrap of paper insignificant in size and inappropriate to such a purpose; that it lacks all the formalities of execution by a professional hand, and yet is expressed in a concise and business-like style, using quasi technical words, "order," "distribute," etc., such as indicate a writer of more experience and knowledge of affairs than the decedent herself possessed, to say nothing of the absence of any gifts, or even mention of personal trinkets or tokens to her girl friends, such as might naturally be looked for in the will of a young girl, fresh from school, coming into possession of what was regarded as a fortune. Attention is then called to the strange absence of all clue to the handwriting of the paper and the circumstances of its execution, and the unnatural failure of the decedent to mention to any one, either her young companions, or her relatives who are beneficiaries under the will, the fact of her having made it, reinforced by affirmative evidence that after the date of the paper produced, the decedent positively declared that she had not made a will.
From the evidence, of which this is an outline, contestant claims that the will was not in existence at the death of the alleged testatrix, but that it was written after her death, over her signature carelessly scribbled on a mere scrap of paper, and is, therefore, a forgery.
To meet this view of the case, the proponents start with the persuasive fact of an admittedly genuine signature to the will. They show the circumstances of the finding of the will by Caley during a visit at the Fronefield house, upon his own errand, and not by appointment. Looking into the provisions of the will itself, they show that it does what Ella Sharpless would naturally do with her estate, leave it to the relatives with whom she had lived from childhood, and who had been kind to her when a helpless orphan, rather than to the contestant, who, though nearer in blood, had held herself aloof during all the years when the child, at least, was innocent of offence, whatever the cause of the family estrangement may have been, and who...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lare Will
... ... April 11, 1945 ... Appeal, No. 106, March T., 1944, from decree of O.C., ... Allegheny Co., 1942, No. 9036, in Estate of Gertrude K. Lare, ... deceased. Decree reversed; further reargument refused June ... 29, 1945 ... Appeal ... from probate of will ... ...
-
Phillips' Estate
...arisen (DeHaven's App., 75 Pa. 337; Harrison's App., 100 Pa. 458, 460; Schwilke's App., 100 Pa. 628; Knauss's App., 114 Pa. 10; Sharpless's Est., 134 Pa. 250, 260; Herster Herster, 116 Pa. 612, 626; Roup's Est., 236 Pa. 31, 33, and other cases infra). The "absolute right of the parties" to ......
-
May v. Fidelity Trust Co.
...incapacity must be established by the weight of the evidence [In re] Lawrence's Estate, 286 Pa. 58, 132 A. 786. See, also, Sharpless's Estate, 134 Pa. 250, 19 A. 630. Here clearly is not. To the chancellor the verdict is advisory; hence, in such case, the rule that all evidence in support o......
-
Eble v. Fidelity Title & Trust Co.
...Pa. Superior Ct. 210; Herster v. Herster, 116 Pa. 612; Miller's Estate, 179 Pa. 645; 13 P. & L. Digest of Decisions, col. 22999; Sharpless's Estate, 134 Pa. 250; Dalmas Kemble, 215 Pa. 410; Boyd v. Boyd, 66 Pa. 283; Robinson v. Robinson, 203 Pa. 400; Perret v. Perret, 184 Pa. 131. W. A. Jor......