Perret v. Perret
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 101, Oct. T., 1897, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., June Term, 1896, No. 769, on verdict for defendant. Issue devisavit vel non. Before Stowe, P. J. The facts appear by the 0£>inion of the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 101, Oct. T., 1897, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., June Term, 1896, No. 769, on verdict for defendant. Issue devisavit vel non. Before Stowe, P. J. The facts appear by the 0£>inion of the Supreme Court. At the trial defendant offered to prove by the witness on the stand that he was present in the courthouse a short time before the death of Michael Perret; that Mrs. Sarah Perret and Eliza Perret were present, and that, in the presence of the witnesses, Sarah Perret said to Henry Perret, “ Never mind, Henry, I will cut you off to-night without a cent,”…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb.. Justice Gbeen,
This proceeding was an issue certified from the register of wills of Allegheny county to the court of common pleas No. 1, to try the question of undue influence exerted upon the testator, Michael Perret, by his wife and daughter, in the making of his last will. The plaintiffs are the widow and daughter of the testator, and the defendant is his only son. The will in question was executed on the 11th day of February, 1896, and the *139testator died on the 17th day of the same month. The precept included a charge of mental unsoundness, but on the trial that issue was…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wilson v. MitchellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1882
3Cited by2 opinions
- Murphy v. NettMontana Supreme Court · 1913
- Alexander v. Coatesville Boiler Works, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Chester County1930