Case Name: Jonas Preston against Raper Hoskins and William Corbett, administrators of Joseph Pennel
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1800-03
Citations: 2 Yeates 545
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jonas Preston against Raper Hoskins and William Corbett, administrators of Joseph Pennel.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Yeates)
Volume: 2
Pages: 545–546

Head Matter:
Jonas Preston against Raper Hoskins and William Corbett, administrators of Joseph Pennel.
A brother dying intestate in 1794, (after the 19th April 1794,) leaving neither wife nor children, his brother and sisters of the half blood are entitled to equal distributive shares of his personal estate with those of the full blood; the act of 19th April 1794, not providing for this ease.
Case stated for the opinion of the court.
Joseph Pennel died in 1794, (after the intestate law was passed,) intestate, as to part of his personal estate, without wife or child. Abigail Graham was the only surviving sister of the whole blood. John Pennel, a brother of the whole blood, died before Joseph, but left several children. Mary Corbett, a sister of the whole blood, died before Joseph, but loft a child. Hannah Pusey is alive, a sister of the half blood; Thomas Lee is alive, a brother of the half blood ; and Jonas Preston is alive, a brother of the half blood. Anne Corbett, a sister of the half blood, died before Joseph, leaving children.
A large sum of money, between 50001. and 6000Í. remains in the •bank, subject to the question, whether the half blood are entitled to any part of it ?
The present suit is for 1000Í. money had and received to the plaintiffs use. If the court should he of opinion for the plaintiff, it was agreed that the account should be adjusted by the attornies on both sides.
It was admitted, that before the act of assembly of 19th April 1794, (3 Dali. St. Laws, 521. 1 Wins. 53. 1 Yern. 437. Show. Pari. Ca. 108. Garth. 51. 1 Mod. 289), the brothers and sisters of the half blood were entitled to equal distributive shares with the brothers and sisters of tlis whole blood, of the personal estate. Mr. Ingersoll for the defendants, also agreed, that the present was a casus omissus in that act and unprovided for, and .that since the decision in the High Court of Errors and Appeals, (July 1799,) between Johnston v. Haine’s lessee, he did not think himself at liberty to contest the plaintiffs right to a distributive share of the personal estate whereof Joseph Pennel died intestate.
Mr. E. Tilghman, pro quer.

Opinion:
Per cwr.
Let judgment be entered for the plaintiff.