Legal Opinion

Poelcher v. Zink

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 4, 1954No. Appeal, 141PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Horace Stern,

While plaintiff’s claim in form is directed against the decedent’s estate, the controversy from a practical standpoint is really one between Margaret Poelcher, a daughter-in-law of the decedent, and Pauline Zink, one of his daughters. Peter Poelcher, the decedent, had eight children who are still living, but in his will he devised one-third of his entire estate to his wife, and, in the event of her prior decease, to his daughter, Pauline, the present defendant; and the remaining two-thirds also to Pauline. Therefore plaintiff’s recovery in this action…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Piper v. QueeneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  2. Miners Savings Bank v. NaylorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
  3. Commonwealth v. LuccittiSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
  4. Anderson v. BestSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
  5. Mumford v. CoghlinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1924

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Beeruk EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
  2. Dunn v. OrloffSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  3. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. BarnessDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1980
  4. Katski v. BoehmCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1968
  5. Bucks County Bank & Trust Co. v. DeGrootSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1973

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API