Court Opinion

ID: 9735656
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:26:57.053752+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:00.696475
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Me. Justice Jones:
The majority opinion states that the “petition was sworn to and unless material facts therein alleged were denied or disproved, it was not necessary, under Or*338pkans’ Court practice, to require [the petitioner] to present testimony in support thereof.” I am unaware of any practice in the Orphans’ Court or in any other judicial forum which compels the hearing judge to sit by in silence while an attempt may possibly be in progress to effectuate a fraudulent scheme with the court’s quiescent sanction. It is, of course, true that, in an adversary proceeding, the untraversed averments of a sworn petition may be taken as established facts. But where, as here, testimony is adduced at the hearing on the petition which impugns the integrity of the proceeding, it is the prerogative of the presiding judge, which he should be alert to exercise, to search out the relevant circumstances and discover whether the court is being imposed upon. Until that is done, we should withhold speaking on the question of law related to the merits.
Mr. Justice Chidsey joins in this dissenting opinion.