Legal Opinion · Dissent

Harrison's Estate

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 21, 1934No. Appeal, 55Published

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

  1. Brackenridge v. Roberts and McIntyreTexas Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Brackenridge v. RobertsTexas Supreme Court · 1924
  3. Blackett v. ZieglerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1911
  4. In Re Estate of ThompsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  5. In Re Estate of JohnstonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922

9 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