Legal Opinion · Dissent

Onofrey v. Wolliver

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 22, 1944No. Appeal, 158Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

Mr. Justice Drew:

I am firmly convinced that the majority opinion is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, and that the reversal of the learned court below is contrary to law and justice.

The majority admit that “Had the printed portion of the deposit card remained unmodified by any other terms, the defendants would have been joint owners of the fund, with the right of survivorship, and the fund, or any portion thereof, would not have been a part of the mother’s estate”. But the majority hold that since there was upon the card the written words “Pay to Dtrs…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Mardis, Administratrix v. SteenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
  2. Patterson's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
  3. Turner v. ScottSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1867
  4. Reap v. Wyoming Valley Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  5. Grady v. SheehanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1917

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