Case ID: pa_285/html/0287-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Flaherty’s Estate.
    
      Wills — Probate—Domicile—Issue devisavit vel non — Evidence— Appeals.
    
    A decree of the orphans’ court admitting a will to probate will not be reversed on the ground that testatrix was not domiciled in Pennsylvania, where the judge who presided at the hearing and the orphans’ court in banc decided that on the evidence submitted a verdict in favor of the foreign domicile could not be sustained.
    Argued January 7, 1926.
    Appeal, No. 126, Jan. T., 1926, by Susan R. Conkling, sister of testatrix, from decree of O. C. Phila. Co., April T., 1923, No. 1406, admitting will to probate, in Estate of Alice Cecelia Flaherty, deceased.
    jBefore Moschzisker, C. J., Frazer, Walling, Simpson, Kephart, Sadler and Schaerer, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Appeal from register of wills. Before Henderson, J. (on hearing).
    The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
    . Order of register of wills, admitting will to probate, affirmed. Opinion by Van Dusen, J.
    Susan R. Conkling, sister of testatrix, appealed.
    
      Error assigned was, inter alia, decree, quoting it.
    
      David Levinson, with him George G. Klauder, for appellant.
    
      David F. Maxwell, Leon J. Obermayer and Edmonds & Obermayer, for appellee,
    were not heard.
    January 18, 1926:
   Per Curiam,

The Orphans’ Court of Philadelphia County confirmed an order of the register of wills admitting to probate the will of Alice Cecelia Flaherty, deceased. Appellant contends that decedent’s domicile, at the time of her death, was in West Chester County, New York, and not in Philadelphia; but both the judge who presided at the hearing and the court below in bane decided, that the evidence would not warrant the granting of an issue on the question of domicile, since, on the proofs adduced, “a verdict in favor of a New York domicile could not be sustained.” We see no error and

The decree appealed from is affirmed at cost of appellant.