Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1920

Bisbing's Estate

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Decided March 8, 1920 · Brown, Frazer, Kephart, Simpson, Walling

266 Pa. 529; 109 A. 670; 1920 Pa. LEXIS 604

Cases that cite this one

30 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Kerwin Estate (Pa. 1952)
Jamison v. Williams (Pa. Super. Ct. 1948)
Cline's Estate (Pa. Super. Ct. 1937)
State v. Alford (N.C. 1979)
Commonwealth ex rel. McDermott v. McDermott (Pa. Super. Ct. 1975)
Commonwealth ex rel. DeShields v. DeShields (Pa. Super. Ct. 1958)
Jordan v. Mohan (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1951)
Jordan v. Mohan (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1951)
Ksionska v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co. (Pa. Super. Ct. 1951)
Pierce v. Pierce (Pa. 1946)
Commonwealth Ex Rel. Highland v. Highland (Pa. Super. Ct. 1946)
Spencer v. Feitelson & Sons (Pa. Super. Ct. 1945)
In re Estate of Zemmick (Belmont County Probate Court 1945)
Kilduff v. American Cyanamid & Chemical Corp. (Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas 1943)
Mays' Estate (Pa. Super. Ct. 1940)
Pegee v. Ricchini (Pa. Super. Ct. 1940)
Balanti v. Stineman Coal & Coke Co. (Pa. Super. Ct. 1938)
Fitzpatrick v. Miller (Pa. Super. Ct. 1937)
Caddy v. Johnstown Firemen's Relief Ass'n (Pa. Super. Ct. 1937)
McGrath's Estate (Pa. 1935)
Evans Estate (Philadelphia County Orphans' Court 1963)
Nikitka's Estate (Pa. 1942)
Baker v. Mitchell (Pa. Super. Ct. 1940)
Commonwealth v. Bockes (Pa. Super. Ct. 1931)
In re the Estate of Holben (Pa. Super. Ct. 1928)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

Eugene Bisbing died intestate in 1917, and the appellant claims the statutory interest of a widow in his estate. She admits they never were married, her testi*531mony as to this being as follows: “Q. He asked yon to get married? A. Yes. Q. And you declined? A. Yes.” She further admitted that her relations with the decedent were illicit at their inception, and continued so until his death. Under the circumstances serious consideration cannot be given to appellant’s claim, founded solely upon cohabitation and reputation. Cohabitation and. reputation are not marriage; they are but circumstances from which marriage may be presumed, but such presumption may always be rebutted and will wholly disappear in the face of proof that no marriage in fact had taken place: Hunt’s App., 86 Pa. 294.

Appeal dismissed at appellant’s costs.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.