Hill v. Hill's Administrator
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Common Pleas of Tioga county. This was an action on the case by Huldah Hill, the widow of Burdick Hill, deceased, against Daniel Hill, the acting administrator of the said Burdick Hill, for wrongfully refusing to set apart for the use of herself and family, $300 worth of the real estate of the said decedent.
Read the full summary
Error to the Common Pleas of Tioga county. This was an action on the case by Huldah Hill, the widow of Burdick Hill, deceased, against Daniel Hill, the acting administrator of the said Burdick Hill, for wrongfully refusing to set apart for the use of herself and family, $300 worth of the real estate of the said decedent. The principal question raised on the trial was, as to the proof-of the plaintiff’s marriage to the defendant’s intestate ; in respect to which, numerous exceptions were taken by the defendant. 1. The plaintiff offered in evidence her marriage certificate, dated the 29th…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Strong, J. —
Had the certificate of the marriage been offered by itself, it would not have been admissible. But it was offered in connection with the testimony of a witness, that Burdick Hill had exhibited it as a certificate of his marriage, had stated that he got it from the magistrate, and had read it to the witness. Taken in that connection, it was properly received, as furnishing some evidence, not of the marriage, but of Hill’s acknowledgment of the alleged marriage.
The notice to the administrator was also admissible in evidence. The want of an…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Marshall v. CarrSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- Broadrick v. BroadrickSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Foley v. GavinSupreme Court of Colorado · 1924
- Dailey v. FreySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
- Hooven v. HoovenSuperior Court of Delaware · 1925