M'Conkey v. M'Conkey
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the common pleas of York county. William H. M’Conkey, by his guardian, against James M’Con-key, administrator of Hugh M’Conkey, deceased. Case stated to be considered as a special verdict, and subject to a writ of error. Hugh M’Conkey, Sen., the defendant’s decedent, died intestate in September 1837, leaving to survive him four children and the issue of two deceased children.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the common pleas of York county. William H. M’Conkey, by his guardian, against James M’Con-key, administrator of Hugh M’Conkey, deceased. Case stated to be considered as a special verdict, and subject to a writ of error. Hugh M’Conkey, Sen., the defendant’s decedent, died intestate in September 1837, leaving to survive him four children and the issue of two deceased children. The defendant became his administrator, and settled his account in the orphans’ court of York county, showing a balance of personal property in his hands of 15S6 dollars 55 cents. Hugh M’Conkey, Jun., the son of…
1Per curiam
Ilgenfritz’s appeal was decided without adverting to the statute of 1833, which declares that “the issue of such deceased child, grandchild, or other descendant, shall take, by representation of their parents respectively, such share only as would have descended to such parents had they been living at the death of the intestate.” On this principle of representation, and not of substitution, had been decided Earnest v. Earnest; and the oversight in Ilgenfritz’s appeal, is one for which it is difficult to account. It is very plain that the construction put upon the statute in the present case…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Ellis v. BrownNew York Supreme Court · 1849
- Wattenbarger v. PayneMissouri Court of Appeals · 1912
- Callery's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Carruth v. WalkerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1859
- Wallace v. KeyserSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1856
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.