網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

losses which with usual credits reduce l in trust for her husband, and consethe balance to $285.21 ; that exceptions quently that he had such an estate in the have been filed to his account; and that land as descended to his heirs and was the balance which should be in his handschargeable with the payment of his will be found to be $1860.21.

debts”. While the decedent is relieved There is no dispute as to the fact that from any charge of fraudulent intent, George R. Evans was justly indebted to her husband's act nullified the force of the petitioner, or as to the law that the technicalities and opened a way for the conveyance of the farm to Sue Evans by petitioner to get his own regardless of her husband did not relieve him nor dis- forms of procedure, otherwise needful, charge it from his indebtedness to the if in so doing he injures no innocent petitioner. But it is contended that the party. Without attempting to carry the petitioner is deserving of no considera- dictum of Mr. Justice Williams to its tion because of his delay, that "the policy logical conclusion, we submit that George of the law is to favor the vigilant not R. Evans being the debtor, the fraudulent those who have slept on their rights". grantor, and as administrator accounted

As the petitioner learned only in 1910 and asked for distribution, hardly would that George R. Evans had conveyed his he have been in a position to have denied farm to his wife, and it was fraudulently petitioner's claim had the demand been done as to him, he can not be censured made at the audit of his account. No for not having begun this proceeding' one else interested in the estate could earlier; but if any one will be injured by have successfully opposed it because they reason of his slumber since then he is were interested only in the estate of the deserving of no special consideration. decedent, and the money owing the petiMuch of this time was wasted, as we tioner was no part of it, therefore, they learn from him and which we assume is would have had no standing. By reaadmitted, by reason of his efforts to col- son of fraud technical forms may be lect the debt from one who was jointly leaped that substantial justice may be liable with George R. Evans. But what done.

But what-done. Part of the proceeds of the sale ever his excuse, or if he has none, no one of the farm was in gremio legis, and, as but he has been injured in the slightest in Paxson's Estate, 225 Pa., 204, the degree by reason of the delay. It is true petitioner could have successfully dethat George R. Evans profited, for the manded his claim at the audit of the acincome would be as much less as the in- count of George R. Evans, administraterest on the amount by which the prin- tor of the estate of the decedent. This cipal would have been reduced to pay was not done because of the fraud, a the claim, and necessarily all the distri- part of the deception having been a hidbutees would suffer accordingly if the ing from him of essential facts necessary petitioner now should be permitted to for his initiative. As soon as he discovcollect interest in addition to the face of ered them he pursued a remedy open to his judgment. But the question of in- him, which has culminated in this proterest is eliminated by the petitioner's ceeding to open the decree of distribuvoluntary declaration that he claims none. tion entered Vay 28, 1908. The opening

It is admitted that he was the victim of this decree will virtually decree that of a fraud, if not an actual fraud, a con- a sum of money equal to the petitioner's structive one. Mr. Justice Williams in demand was in the hands of the adminKelly's Appeal, 77 Pa., 232, considerately istrator of the decedent's estate, but it expressed the position of a wife who was can be said it has passed out of his hands the grantee of her husband without con- and is now in Court as a trust fund. sideration, and his words can be fittingly True it is that the form has been changed, applied: " it seems to me that the pre- but the fact is not disguised that it repsumption is that she took title in trust resents the farm and the equitable title for her husband'; not that she took it for to part of it is in the petitioner. George the purposes of defrauding his credi- R. Evans as tenant by curtesy was en

that the wife took the legal title | titled to the enjoyment of the farm for

tor's" ;

life, but for reasons agreeable to the Estate of Sue Smith deceased. parties interested it was sold and one Consumption of estate by life tenantselected as custodian of the proceeds,

Practice. in effect a trustee to invest them and

Where a decedent's widow and executrix to turn over the income thereof to the tenant by curtesy. The relative positions remainder to her children, used the estate as

whom was given the whole estate for life with of the parties have not been changed, nor her own and invested the funds in her own have their rights been impeached, why, name, on her death without leaving any estherefore, may not the petitoner partici- tate of her own, the account of her adminpate in the distribution about to be made. istrator will be confirmed as if that of the

administrator of herself, “who was execuAll matters are within the jurisdiction trix” of the first decedent, and the balance of this Court, all accounts are subject awarded to the children under his will. to its adjudication,--the adminstration

Adjudication. 0. C. of Lancaster account was, the trustee's account is, and

County, August Term 1914, No. 23. an account of an administrator of the estate of George R. Evans would be. Coyle & Keller, for accountant. All facts are admitted and no one can October 1, 1914. By Smith, P. J. be injured. It would seem like trifling and bring reproach upon the adminstra

Sue Smith, who died June II, 1914, tion of justice, in additon to complicat was the second wife and widow of John ing circuity, multiplying costs and de- D. Smith, and one of the executors of vastating the estate of the decedent, to

his will. To her by the will was given

a life interest in his estate with redeclare it necessary to raise an administration on George R. Evans, for it would be only she was possessed of the whole estate, the supposed estate of mainder to his two sons, Jacob W. Smith

. As a supposed estate to treat the amount of his indebtedness, subject to which he which she used as her own, investing the conveyed the farm to his wife, as his funds in her name instead as trustee. estate, with a view of having the peti

She left no estate, but upon her death tioner present his claim. It will only letters of administration were granted be following in the path made by the as if upon her estate, and while apparCourt in Garman's Estate, 211 Pa., 264, ently it was settled the administration to permit the petitioner to participate in actually was an assembling of his estate. the distribution now to be made of the

The account is confirmed as if that fund brought into Court by S. K. Orr, of the administrator of the estate of Sue trustee. “ Distribution is the only mat

Smithwho had been the executor of the ter necessary to complete" everything been dead more than six years and it is

will of John D. Smith, and, as he has which concerns the parties. Wagner's Estate, 227 Pa., 460 (465).

expedient, the balance is awarded in The petitoner presented his claim at equal shares to Jacob W. Smith and the audit, but later withdrew it and Edmund II. Smith under the will of asked for the impounding of a fund to John D. Smith. abide the disposition of this rule. As both matters are contemporaneous and are disposed of, we refuse to impound,

Styers' Estate. but do reinstate his claim. The demurrer Orphans' court practice-Exceptionsis not sustained. The rule is made ab

Widow's exemption-Act of April 1, solute in so far as the prayer for a review of the decree is concerned.

1909, P. L. 87. By adjudication filed the same day the 1. Exceptions to depositions should set Court awarded H. Frank Eshleman his alleged to be deficient, and contain an offer

forth the matter wherein the depositions are claim in full viz.: $282.90 to which to prove same. award exceptions have been filed.

2. The death of a widow after she has claimed her exemption does not deprive her estate of the same.

3. The Act of April 1, 1909, P. L. 87, is a

statute relating to descent, and where a man This exception is entirely insufficient. dies leaving a widow and no issue, but col- There is no reference to what was lateral heirs, and the widow dies before appraisement of real estate is made, his admin

omitted and no offer to supply the istrator will be directed to appraise same to omitted part. Where an exception is to the value of $5,000.00 for her estate.

the admission of evidence, the exception Estate of William H. Styers, deceased. should show what evidence was impropIn the Orphans' Court of Northampton erly admitted, and where the evidence is County. Petition for rule on adminis- excluded, the evidence offered should be trator to file appraisement of personal Where the officer taking the deposition

. property, and to make appraisement of Where the officer taking the deposition real estate. Rule absolute.

has acted improperly, a motion should

be taken in support of the application. John D. Hoffman, for petitioner. The whole subject is discussed in ReinFrank P. McCluskey, contra.

bold's Estate, in North. Co. Rep. 377.

After reading the depositions, we are of September 28, 1914. Opinion by opinion that the petition has established, STEWART, J.

as a matter of fact, that the widow From the petition of William H. Derr. claimed her $300.00 widow's exemption, executor of Mary E. Styers, it appears and also asked to have the real estate that William H. Styers died on the 27th to the value of $5,000.00 appraised to day of July, 1913, intestate, leaving a

her before her death. The testimony widow, Mary E. Styers, and collateral taken by depositions disposes of the conheirs, but no issue; that Wilson R. tention as to the widow's exemption of Brown was appointed administrator of $300.00. She undoubtedly made her the estate of William H. Stvers; that claim both for the exemption and for the Mary E. Styers died on the 20th of No- $5.000.00. With respect to the former, vember, 1913, testate. The petition al- it has been decided in Lafferty's Estate, leged that the widow, right after the 16 Philadelphia, 211, as follows: "The death of the decedent, demanded of the death of a widow three days after filing administrator her widow's exemption un- petition for exemption, and before the der the Act of 1851 and also demanded approval of the appraisement by the to have appraised to her $5,000.00 of the court, does not invalidate her claim." In real estate under the Act of 1909. Peti- | Buddy's Estate, 7 Co. Ct. Rep., 466, it tion prayed that the appraisement of the was held: “Where a widow has made personal property should be made and her claim the fact of her death before filed and confirmed in court, and that the its final confirmation is no consequence; appraisement of the real estate should the title to the property elected to be be directed to be made. A rule was

retained is vested in her from the time granted on the collateral heirs of William of the demand.” See also Daggett’s EsH. Styers to show cause why this should tate, same volume, 338. With respect not be done. Answers were filed by to the latter amount, however, no claim the collateral heirs in which they alleged was necessary.

The Act of April 1, that the real estate did not descend to | 1909, P. L. 87, is an act of descent, as its Mary E. Styers, but on her death went to title and provisions plainly indicate. The a party for life, and on his death to a superior court has discussed the nature sister of the whole blood of William H. of the act in Moore's Estate, 59 Pa. Styers. Depositions were thereupon Super. Ct., 76; and the supreme court taken in support of the facts set forth in in Gilbert's Estate, 227 Pa. St., 648; the petition, and an exception was filed Guenthoer's Estate, 235 Pa. St., 67; to the depositions. This must first be Gwynn's Estate No. 1, 239 Pa. St., 238 considered. The exception filed is as ( valuable for the procedure) ; Buckland's follows: " That the depositions of Wilson Estate, same volume, at 608; and PurBrown does not contain all of the evi- sell's Estate, 244 Pa. St., 407. It is undence as given by said Wilson Brown at necessary to discuss the numerous authe time of taking the depositions." | thorities cited by the learned counsel on

each side. If Buckland's Estate had | undoubtedly in accord with advanced been found by counsel and cited to the juridical ideas. As soon, however, as court, we could have disposed of this the marriage of widows was legalized by case upon the argument. It is the exact Act XV of 1856, the legislature had case herein presented and rules it in wisely to lay down the rule of divesting. favor of the petitioner.

A change of an important and almost And now, September 28, 1914, excep- universal social custom, even without the tion is dismissed, and rule granted Febru- intervention of the Legislative Council ary 16, 1914, on Wilson R. Brown, ad- of India or of any of the Provincial Govministrator of William H. Styers, de- ernments, would similarly require a ceased, to show cause why he should not change in the customary law of India, have appraised and set apart of the real i. e., the Hindu Law. The correlation property claimed by said Mary E. Styers in most cases is such that without a out of the estate of said William H. change in law the change of custom Styers, deceased, to a value not exceed- would tell very hard on a large number ing $5,000.00 and have the appraisement of the members of society. Suppose signed and certified by the appraisers and ante-puberty marriages of Hindu girls returned to court for approval and filing were abolished and post-puberty maramong the records thereof in pursuance riages became the custom—such a custom of the Act of 1909, P. L. 87-88, and would in the near future lead to a large also that your honorable court grant a number of the females in the higher rule on said Wilson R. Brown, adminis- castes remaining spinsters, if not all their trator of William H. Styers, deceased, to lives at least to a good age. The rule show cause why the $300.00 widow's in- of society that every female should be ventory and appraisement, should not be married and be a member of another duly signed and certified and returned to family or gotra being violently shaken court for approval and filing among the and the bar of age being moved, the records thereof, is made absolute. state of Indian society would in a short

time be the same as that of European

American Society. Daughters, in

Hindu law, do not inherit their fathers'
Legal Miscellany. estate with sons, as it was under Roman

Law and is under the Indian Succession
Act (which follows the Roman Law)

and the Mussulman Law. What will Law and Social Customs in India.

the fate of these spinsters be without Every developed system of law har- material modification of Hindu Law? monizes with natural love and affection The practice of making wills providing and manners and customs of the people for unmarried daughters is not yet comto whom it applies. The different parts mon and years may pass before they of the system are so related to each will be common. We should also reother and so interlap, that any material member that wills are not allowed to change in social custom must necessitate be made by members of joint families a corresponding change in law; for other and an entire change in the copercenary wise the most mischievous consequence system would be needed to enable memmight follow. The widow 'in certain bers to dispose of their shares by wills. cases inherits her deceased husband's No provision is made in Hindu Law for estate in Bengal, and in a separated fam- making suitable provision for spinsters in ily, in the rest of India ; and as remar- a joint family, and they would be entirely Tiąge of widows was universally con- at the mercy of male members. Hindu sidered to be improper in the higher widows generally lead the lives of ascastes, and in the lower castes which imi- cetics, their wants are few and no comtated them it was practically abolished, parison may be made between these even if the custom existed in ancient two classes of dependent members. In times, this part of the law of India was fact, the rights of dependent female

or

members in a family are so interwoven | not like the idea of being non-Hindus.with the rights, duties and obligations An Ex. Judge of the Calcutta High Court of male members that any violent change in the Contemporary Law Review. in the social custom of ante-puberty marriage of girls would render legislation imperative without delay. But I am afraid there are not many who would

Sir Rufus Isaacs. like the intervention of the State in al- The new lord chief justice, Sir Rufus tering Hindu Law. At present it is Isaacs, was “the bad boy of the school,” against the policy of the State.

according to one of his old masters. Changes in Hindu Law would also “ Lessons," says the latter," he left unbe necessary if intercaste marriages were learned, classwork he shirked and misallowed. The Hindu law-givers have chief was his only devotion. Furtherlaid down definite rules as to mainten- more, he delighted in inspiring others ance and succession of children born of in his wicked ways. He was always in intercaste marriages. The position of a | disgrace or being caned, and yet, with Sudra wife and her children born of a all, was very merry and deliciously humarriage with a man of a higher caste, morous.” even if such marriages be deemed valid Undoubtedly the secret of Sir Rufus' in the Kali Yuga, would be intolerable success is his amazing capacity for work. in the present state of ideas, and a change For years it was his custom to get up at in the law of succession would be im- 4 o'clock in the morning to tackle his perative. The custom moulded in the briefs. In this respect he was followKali Yuga has a law suitable to it. The ing the example of his predecessor, Lord archaic system of intercaste marriages Alverstone, who used invariably to get cannot be revived without correspond- up between 5 and 6 o'clock in the morning changes in Hindu Law.

ing. On one occasion he wanted to talk We do not intend to condemn social over a certain point in a brief with one reforms. They are necessary and many of his juniors. He asked the young man of them are urgently needed with the to call in the morning. "At what time?" changes of ideas brought about by the asked the young barrister. "At half mixture with other and apparently more past 6 at my house," was the reply. The civilized nations, but revolutions and re- young man arrived on the stroke of the forms must be differentiated. The pro- moment, but in order to keep the apgress and development of Hindu Law pointment he sat up all night. have been checked under British judicial

Passionately fond of music, Lord Aladministration. ny social revolution verstone in his early days possessed a would require a change in the system of very excellent voice. On one occasion, Hindu jurisprudence, and reformers when he was Sir Richard Webster, he must think of it and the ways and means concluded a political meeting by singof harmonizing law to changed social ing a sacred solo. At the close á gaunt customs before they countenance any in- spinster rose at the back of the audience novations.

and said: “With your face and voice, Where are we drifting to? This must Sir Richard, you ought to be teaching be a question agitating the mind of every the gospel truth to the poor heathen inthoughtful man. Post-puberty marriages stead of telling honest folk to be poliare becoming frequent from a variety of

tical."

- London Tit Bits. reasons influencing society; one of them is the growing evil of demands of dowries in marriages at least in Northern India. " Why is she getting a divorce?" How would the law be amended to meet “On the ground of misrepresentation. the altered state of things particularly She says that before they were married to provide for the number of spinsters he claimed to be well off.” that may grow up. Who can effect a “And what does he say?" change in law now-a-days? We would

he
was,

but didn't know it.”

He says

« 上一頁繼續 »