Naugle's Estate
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeals, Nos. 4 and 5, Oct. T., 1920, by John O. Naugle et al., legatees, from decree of O. C. Lawrence Co., Sept. T., 1918, No. 38, making distribution in estate of Isaphena P. Naugle, deceased. Exceptions to report of A. Martin Graham, Esq. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts. The court dismissed the exceptions in an opinion by Emery, P. J. John C. Naugle and Marjorie Gillespie, legatees, appealed. Errors assigned were dismissal of exceptions, quoting them.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Simpson,
By the will of testatrix she gave her residuary estate in equal shares to her son George, the appellee, and her other two children, John and Marjorie, who are appellants here. Upon the audit of the account of her executors, appellee offered in evidence the following paper, which is all in the handwriting of testatrix:
“Rigby, Pa., Feb. 11th, 1908.
“I want my son George to look after me while i need care & i want him to be paid at rate of one dollar and a half a day out of my estate i want him to have full charge of my funeral arrangements & see that i am decently…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Wolcott v. HolcombMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
- Ring v. Phœnix Assurance Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
- Snyder v. McGillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
- Lawrence v. LeidighSupreme Court of Kansas · 1897
- Stafford v. St. JohnIndiana Supreme Court · 1905
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Ross v. LebermanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
- Naugle's Estate (No. 1)Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Rosario, K.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2023
- Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Rosario, K.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2023
- Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Rosario, K.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2023