Estate of Hemphill

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania January 25, 1897

Estate of Hemphill, 180 Pa. 87 (Pa. 1897)

36 A. 406; 1897 Pa. LEXIS 879

Dean, Fell, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Sterrett, Williams

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

The facts of this case sufficiently appear in the adjudication of the learned auditing judge. As stated by appellant, there was a petition and a demurrer thereto, but they were practically superseded by the proceedings on the settlement of the executor’s account.

The assignments of .error are to the action of the court in banc dismissing appellant’s twelve exceptions to the adjudication and confirming the latter. The controlling question presented by the specifications was fully considered and correctly decided by the learned auditing judge. It is unnecessary to add anything to what he has so well said, and we therefore affirm the decree on his opinion and dismiss the appeal at appellant's costs.

Reference

Full Case Name: Estate of Elizabeth Hemphill. Appeal of Caroline G. Hunsworth
Cited By: 3 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Decedents' estates — Gift—Donatio mprtis causa — Evidence. At the audit of an executor’s account a sister of the decedent claimed a large number of securities as a donatio mortis causa. It appeared that a certificate of deposit for the securities was found with some manuscript poetry in a wooden box which had belonged to the decedent. The evidence showed that the decedent had two boxes, one of wood and one of tin, in which she kept her papers, and that she had repeatedly told the claimant and others that she wished the claimant to have these boxes. She stated to a servant that the boxes were for the claimant, but she kept them in her own possession until late in the day preceding her death, and when she was unconscious the servant brought the claimant, who was in a room adjoining decedent’s chamber, the boxes in question, saying, “Here, Mrs. H., are those two boxes which Miss E. said were for you, and wished you to have.” She brought at the same time two tags, upon which the name of the claimant had been written at the decedent’s request some days before, but whether the tags were attached to the boxes, or were simply lying on them, the witness was unable to say. The witness stated that she took the boxes of her own motion and gave them to the claimant. The decedent’s whole estate consisted of a dwelling house, $7,800 in cash, some inexpensive furniture, and the securities amounting to over $80,000, represented by the certificate of deposit. The decedent by her will gave the claimant the house, but directed her to pay to each of two other sisters a sum equivalent to one third of the value of the house. The residue of the estate was divided amongst charities. The securities were not mentioned in the will. A witness against the claimant testified that nine days before decedent’s death, decedent had told her that the box was to go to her sister, but that the valuable papers were to be sent to her counsel. Held, that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a gift to the claimant of the securities represented by the certificate of deposit.