Legal Opinion

Martin Estate

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 26, 1950No. Appeal, 98PublishedCited by 63 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Bell,

Mary Martin died testate, leaving a surviving husband but no issue. The Record does not contain a copy of her home drawn will but the will did not contain a residuary clause. The husband elected to take against the will and thereafter claimed that he was entitled, under the Intestate Laws, to $10,000 and one-half (%) of the balance of the estate of which his wife died intestate. In pursuance of his said right, the husband petitioned to have his allowance of $10,000 set aside to him out of certain real estate of which the decedent died intestate.

These facts raise a…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Orlosky v. HaskellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  2. Tarlo's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  3. National Transit Co. v. BoardmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  4. Phipps v. KirkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  5. Appeal of LeeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889

3Cited by63 opinions

  1. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board v. State College Area School DistrictSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  2. Martin v. SoblotneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  3. Tp. of Moon v. POL. OFFICE. OF TP. OF MOONSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  4. STANDER v. KelleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1969
  5. McCormick v. Columbus Conveyer Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989

58 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