Toner v. Taggart
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
r a ,'HIS was an appeal from a pro forma decree of the Orphan’s Court of Philadelphia county, The aPPebee; who was administrator of Philip Toner, filed his account in the register’s office; and the auditors to whom it was referred, found a balance in his hands of 10,233 dollars 38 cents, of which 2233 dollars 38 cents was“ passed to the credit of Toner's estate, and 8000 dollar credited to the appellee as retained by him, undt r the circumstances hereafter stated.
Read the full summary
r a ,'HIS was an appeal from a pro forma decree of the Orphan’s Court of Philadelphia county, The aPPebee; who was administrator of Philip Toner, filed his account in the register’s office; and the auditors to whom it was referred, found a balance in his hands of 10,233 dollars 38 cents, of which 2233 dollars 38 cents was“ passed to the credit of Toner's estate, and 8000 dollar credited to the appellee as retained by him, undt r the circumstances hereafter stated. Upon this report a decree passed in his favour without prejudice, and an appeal was entered on behalf of the next of kin. The…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
after minutely stating the facts, and the writing found after Toner’s death, delivered his opinion as follows:
It has been contended by the counsel for the appellant, (the decree having been entered in the Orphan’s Court by-consent, in order to bring the case before this Court) that this writing was no more than an inchoate act, which was never completed. That Toner by keeping it secretly in his *496own hands, shewed his intent that it should have no effect ” during his life, and that as a will it could not operate, having nothing about it of a testamentary nature. On the other hand,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Bristol v. WarnerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1848
- Leddel's v. StarrNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1869
- Carter v. KingCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1857