Legal Opinion · Dissent

Rosenthal's Estate

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 19, 1939No. Appeal, 175Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

Mb. Justice Dbbw :

The keystone of the opinion of the majority is found in the expression: “. . . the evidence clearly supports the findings made below to the effect . . . that the transaction was ‘unaffected by any taint of undue influence, imposition or deception’ and ‘was the free and intelligent act of [Mrs. Rosenthal] fully explained to [her] and done with a knowledge of its consequences.’ ” I cannot possibly subscribe to this conclusion.

I am convinced that a confidential relation existed in this case. The doctrine that the courts will regard a transaction between…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Leedom v. PalmerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  2. Ten Eyck v. . WhitbeckNew York Court of Appeals · 1898
  3. McCown v. FraserSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  4. McConville v. InghamSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
  5. Nesbit v. . LockmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1866

22 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