Skip to main content
· 7/18/1895

Eichelberger's Estate

Citations

  • 170 Pa. 242
  • 32 A. 605
  • 1895 Pa. LEXIS 1393

Syllabus

<p>[Marked to be' reported.]</p> <p>Decedents' estates — Glaimfor services — Evidence.</p> <p>A claimant against a decedent’s estate for nursing decedent at night was a workman employed by decedent during, the day. A disinterested witness testified that when decedent began to fail physically, he told witness that he wanted claimant to stay with him at night, and he would get some one else in his place to do the day work. Witness so informed claimant, who said he would do the extra work himself, if he could get the extra man’s pay. This was communicated by witness to the decedent, who said he was willing to pay claimant for the work if he could stand it. This was reported to claimant by witness, and afterwards claimant was present with decedent and witness, and agreed to do the night work for pay. The amount of compensation was not named. In the following spring decedent told witness that claimant talked of leaving him, and asked him to see claimant to get him to stay; that he would pay him for his extra night services; that he had not done it yet; but he should continue on and he would pay him; that he would give it all to him at once, — that it would do him and his family more good. Held, that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a finding for claimant.</p> <p>Decedents' estates — Interest on legacies.</p> <p>The rule that pecuniary legacies bear interest from the end of one year after the testator’s death is not affected by the fact that distribution was delayed by a report in circulation that some female who was named claimed that she was married to the deceased, and entitled to a share in the estate.</p> <p>Interest upon a legacy begins to run from the time it becomes payable, and where no time for payment is fixed by the will, the direction of the act of Peb. 24, 1834, P. L. 83, must prevail unless there be language or circumstances apparent upon the face of the will, showing that the testator could not have intended the legacy to be payable at the end of the

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that the proper procedure to challenge denial of a proposed subdivision of land is properly brought in the court of common pleas in the county where the affected land is located upon receiving notice of the decision
  • erroneously filed equity complaint should be transferred pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 708(a) to the law side of the docket and be heard as an appeal from a governmental decision
  • erroneously filed equity complaint should be transferred pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 708(a) to the law side of the docket and be heard as an appeal from a governmental decision

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Claim, Fell, From, Green, Heininger, McCollum, Mitchell, Much, Relates, Sterrett, Williams

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.