Legal Opinion
Russell Estate
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided June 25, 1956No. Appeal, 190PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Hoeace Steen,
*559The question here is whether the attempted proof of a gift inter vivos was sufficient to meet all factual and legal requirements. The court below held that it wag; in onr opinion it was not.
The essential facts are not in dispute and are as follows :
The decedent, Joseph P. Russell, was married in 1915 to the present appellant, Lillian Russell. He deserted her in 1937 and in 1939 she obtained in New York a judgment of separation from bed and board with an order for her support and in 1943 another order for support in the Municipal Court of Philadelphia.…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Shepard v. ShepardMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
- Millett v. TempleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
- Tucker v. BrownWashington Supreme Court · 1939
- Bond v. BuntingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1875
- Young v. PowerMississippi Supreme Court · 1866
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Mason v. RostadDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1984
- Zoob v. JordanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2004
- Kreisl v. KREISL.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
- Ross v. FierroDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
- Wayda v. WaydaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.