Turner's Estate

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Turner's Estate, 167 Pa. 609 (Pa. 1895)
31 A. 867; 1895 Pa. LEXIS 955
Geeen, McCollum, Mitchell, Steebett, Williams

Turner's Estate

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

An examination of this record has satisfied us that the learned judge’s findings of fact, rulings on questions of evidence and conclusions of law, complained of in the assignments of error, are substantially correct. There is nothing in either of the specifications that requires a reversal or modification of the decree, and they are therefore dismissed.

Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed with costs to be paid by appellant.

Reference

Full Case Name
Edward I. Turner's Estate. Virginia Whitney's Appeal
Cited By
5 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Will — Legacy—Evidence. A legacy named in a will was by way of compensation for services rendered by the legatee. Shortly after the will was made the legatee said to a witness that testator had remembered her in his will, “ and that she had a notion to get her money now.” A few days afterwards she presented testator’s check at bank for an amount double the amount of the legacy. The legatee did not deny or explain this testimony although she had permission to do so. Held, that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a finding that the legacy had been paid and satisfied by testator during his lifetime. Evidence — Attorney and client — Confidential communication. In the above case one of the witnesses against the legatee was an attorney at law who had been counsel for testator for many years, and had written his will. He had also been counsel for the legatee in small matters. He testified that he went to testator’s house to see him about some business, and met the legatee at the door, who requested him to use his influence with testator to assist her in getting the amount of her legacy paid to her during testator’s lifetime, which the witness declined to do. Held, that the legatee’s communication to the witness was not a confidential communication, and that his evidence was admissible.