Legal Opinion · Dissent

Laughlin Estate

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 29, 1945No. Appeals, 165 and 166Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

Mr. Justice Drew:

I cannot agree with the opinion of the Court. I am certain it was error to apply the doctrine of hotchpot in distributing this estate.

There is involved construction of a part of Section Two of the will of Teresa Laughlin, who died in Philadelphia, on January 16, 1941, leaving three children to participate in the distribution of her estate.

The learned auditing judge, in his adjudication and decree nisi, applied the doctrine of hotchpot as the method of distribution. This was objected to by two of the children, and in passing on their exceptions the six…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Grothe's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
  2. Hogg's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  3. Long's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
  4. Miller's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1858
  5. Loesch's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936

7 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