Case ID: pa_198/html/0636-01.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

Masson’s Estate.
    
      Will—Issue devisavit vel non—Forgery—Handwriting expert—Befusal of issue.
    
    The action of the orphans’ court in refusing an issue devisavit vel non to determine whether a signature to a paper purporting to be a will is a forgery, will be sustained, where the only evidence for the contestant- is the opinion of two alleged experts in handwriting, unsupported by any facts, while the genuineness of the signature is sustained by the testimony of thirty-one intelligent and reliable witnesses who were well acquainted with the decedent, and were familiar with his signature.
    Argued Jan. 30, 1901.
    Appeal, No. 333, Jan. T., 1900, by Millie J. Masson, from decree of O. C. Phila. Co., Jan. T., 1900, No. 298,. refusing an issue devisavit vel non in the Estate of Charles H. Masson, Deceased.
    Before McCollum, C. J., Mitchell, Brown, Mestrezat and Potter, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Appeal from register of wills.
    From the record it appeared that the contestant relied upon the opinion of Persifor Frazer and Webster A. Melcher who were called as expert witnesses in handwriting. These witnesses testified that in their opinion the signature of Charles H. Masson was forged. Thirty-one witnesses testified in favor of the validity of the will. The examining judge, Ferguson, J., recommended a decree dismissing the appeal. On exceptions the opinion of the examining judge was sustained, and a decree was entered dismissing the appeal.
    
      
      Error assigned was in dismissing the appeal.
    
      S. A. Wight, with him Alex. Simpson, Jr., for appellant.
    
      Robert W. Einletter and Q-eorge S. Q-raham, for appellees, were not heard.
    April 1, 1901:
   Per, Curiam,

No error was committed by the orphans’ court in refusing to grant an issue devisavit vel non in this case. The testimony relied on by the petitioner to sustain her averment that the alleged will was a forgery, was not sufficient to warrant an allowance of the issue she sought to obtain. The only testimony produced by her was that of two alleged experts “ upon the subject of handwriting,” who testified that in their opinion the will was forged. They did not testify to any fact, and their examination and comparison of numerous signatures and letters of the deceased with the will they assailed did not result in a convincing opinion. Against their opinion there was the testimony of thirty-one intelligent and reliable witnesses, whose statements were not controverted in any particular. These witnesses were well acquainted with Charles H. Masson in his lifetime, and were familiar with his signature. At least twenty-five of their number were called to testify to the signature to the will, and upon their inspection of it they pronounced it the signature of the testator. It was well said by Judge Ferguson in his opinion, “ No court would allow a verdict against this will to stand.”

The decree refusing the issue is therefore affirmed.