Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealtestimonyprobatewill
appealtestimonyprobatewill

Related Cases

Gifford v. Estate of Gifford, 305 Ark. 46, 805 S.W.2d 71
View Case »
Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Wolfe, 243 N.C. 469, 91 S.E.2d 246
View Case »
Collins v. Lyon, Inc., 181 Va. 230, 24 S.E.2d 572
View Case »
McArthur v. McArthur, 224 Cal.App.4th 651, 168 Cal.Rptr.3d 785, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2580, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2955
View Case »
In the Matter of John Svenningsen, deceased. Maryann Campbell, et al., respondents; Elisabeth Anne, nan
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Harrison’s Estate, 316 Pa. 15, 173 A. 407, 94 A.L.R. 1019

Facts

Charles J. Harrison died leaving a will dated May 29, 1926, which was admitted to probate on November 14, 1932. Nelle H. Brydon, the decedent's daughter, claimed that her father executed a subsequent will on June 17, 1927, which was lost, concealed, or destroyed, and that this will revoked the earlier one. She petitioned the Orphans' Court to determine the validity of her claim, but the court denied her request, leading to her appeal.

Charles J. Harrison died leaving a will dated May 29, 1926, which was admitted to probate on November 14, 1932. On December 6, 1932, Nelle H. Brydon, decedent's daughter, presented a petition to the Orphans' Court for appeal from the act of the register in admitting the will to probate. Among other things, petitioner alleged that the decedent on June 17, 1927, had executed another will which had been lost, concealed, or destroyed, in which he revoked his prior will and disposed of his estate in equal parts to his two children, petitioner and Charles J. Harrison, Jr.

Issue

May a lost will be proven by the testimony of one witness and corroborating circumstances, or must there be two witnesses as the Wills Act prescribes?

May a lost will be proven by the testimony of one witness and corroborating circumstances or must there be two witnesses as the Wills Act prescribes?

Rule

Section 2 of the Wills Act (20 PS § 191) provides that ‘every will shall be in writing * * * signed * * * at the end thereof; * * * and, in all cases, shall be proved by the oaths or affirmations of two or more competent witnesses; otherwise, such will shall be of no effect.’

Section 2 of the Wills Act (20 PS § 191) provides that ‘every will shall be in writing * * * signed * * * at the end thereof; * * * and, in all cases, shall be proved by the oaths or affirmations of two or more competent witnesses; otherwise, such will shall be of no effect.’

Analysis

The court determined that the requirements for proving a lost will are strict and must be adhered to. It emphasized that the testimony of one witness, even if competent, cannot substitute for the required testimony of two witnesses. The court found that there was insufficient evidence to establish the execution and contents of the alleged lost will, as no witness could confirm seeing the decedent sign it, and the evidence presented did not meet the statutory requirements.

The court determined that the requirements for proving a lost will are strict and must be adhered to. It emphasized that the testimony of one witness, even if competent, cannot substitute for the required testimony of two witnesses.

Conclusion

The appellate court affirmed the decision of the Orphans' Court, concluding that the evidence did not satisfy the legal requirements for proving the existence of a lost will.

The appellate court affirmed the decision of the Orphans' Court, concluding that the evidence did not satisfy the legal requirements for proving the existence of a lost will.

Who won?

The prevailing party is the estate of Charles J. Harrison, as the court upheld the validity of the original will and denied the claims regarding the alleged lost will.

The prevailing party is the estate of Charles J. Harrison, as the court upheld the validity of the original will and denied the claims regarding the alleged lost will.

You must be