Harrison's Estate
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Dissent
Mk. Justice Linn :
I dissent from the view of the majority on what is said to be “the larger question involved in this appeal,” stated in the opinion as follows: “May an existing will be rendered nugatory by proof of a subsequent writing alleged to have contained a revocation, where the writing itself is not produced?”
While the Wills Act prohibits oral revocation, no support can be found in the act for the proposition that a lost written revocation cannot be proved, if the secondary evidence is sufficient. The pertinent portions of the act are quoted by the majority: “Section 20 says: ‘No will…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Brackenridge v. Roberts and McIntyreTexas Supreme Court · 1925
- Brackenridge v. RobertsTexas Supreme Court · 1924
- Blackett v. ZieglerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1911
- In Re Estate of ThompsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- In Re Estate of JohnstonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.