Hasel v. Beilstein
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 189, Oct. T., 1896, by defendant, from decree of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., Dec. T., 1895, No. 838, on bill in equity. Bill in equity to compel a reassignment and red elivery of personal property. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court below.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 189, Oct. T., 1896, by defendant, from decree of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., Dec. T., 1895, No. 838, on bill in equity. Bill in equity to compel a reassignment and red elivery of personal property. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court below. At the trial, Charles Ober, George Shillinger and Father Kemper testified under objection and exception that the plaintiff was a man of very penurious and miserly habits, and that he would not trust, or give anything'to, any one. [13-17] Collieb, J., filed the following opinion: BINDINGS OE EACT. In 1891 the plaintiff, John Hasel,…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Mitchell,
It may be seriously questioned whether the learned judge below did not state the law too broadly when he held the general rule to be that whenever a person obtains by voluntary donation a large pecuniary benefit from another, he has the burden of proof to sustain the transaction. There is high English authority for such position, though Lord Romilly, in Cooke v. Lamotte, 15 Beavan, 234, cited by the judge below, adopts it with much reserve, but the American courts have not usually required such proof from the donee until he is put on the defensive by the…
2Cited by5 opinions
- McConville v. InghamSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
- Maxler v. HawkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- Weber v. KlineSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
- Estate of ColemanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Rosenthal's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939