O'Donnell v. Gaffney
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 100, Oct. T., 1902, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Sept. T.; 1900, No. 433, on verdict for defendant in case of William A. O’Donnell, Administrator, v. Margaret Gaffney. Trespass in the nature of trover and conversion.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 100, Oct. T., 1902, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Sept. T.; 1900, No. 433, on verdict for defendant in case of William A. O’Donnell, Administrator, v. Margaret Gaffney. Trespass in the nature of trover and conversion. Before McCarthy, J. At the trial it appeared that the action was brought by William A. O’Donnell, administrator of Bridget Darragh, to recover from defendant thirteen shares of stock of the Union Traction Company which the defendant claimed by gift donatio mortis causa. The defendant was the sister of Mrs. Darragh. The evidence tended to…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Beaver, J.,
We have just considered, in Hawn v. Stoler, Exr., ante, p. 307, the elements which enter into and the conditions under which a valid donatio mortis causa may be made.. It is not necessary to repeat them here.
The assignments of error relate to the answers of the trial judge to the several points of charge submitted by the defendant and embody complaints of a very general character as to what the court did not do. The points of charge submitted by *319the defendant numbered ten in all. Six wére affirmed and four declined. The assignments of error relate to the affirmance by the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Hafer v. McKelveySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
- Kinsinger v. Keasbey & Mattison Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County1960
- Byer's EstatePennsylvania Orphans' Court, Philadelphia County · 1928