Jackson v. Tozer

Citations

• 154 Pa. 223
• 26 A. 226
• 1893 Pa. LEXIS 873

Syllabus

<p>Witt — Issue devisavit vel non — Evidence—Submitting construction of paper to jury — Verdict—Amendment to verdict — Practice, G. P.</p> <p>On the trial of an issue devisavit vel non, the paper admitted to probate was as follows: “Pen Argyl, August 17th, 1887. High James Rogers do give to John Jackson Sr. my property known as Pen argyl Hotel and the land ajoining in Pen argyl in Northampton County, P. A. (Signed )</p> <p>James Rogers.” The issue turned upon the question whether the paper was testamentary in its character. Rogers committed suicide Sept, 6,1887, in his room, and the above paper was found lying on the top of a closed trunk in an unsealed envelope addressed to John Jackson, Sr. Plaintiff asked the court to charge the jury that if they believed James Rogers “ intended the paper, offered as his will, to take effect only after his death, the verdict must be for the plaintiff.” This was affirmed, and the jury ' were also told that if they believed under the evidence the paper was intended as a present gift at the time of its date, their verdict should be for the defendant. The jury returned a verdict as follows: “We agree that the document written by James Rogers was his wish that it should take effect at the time it was written.” The court amended the verdict so as to read, “verdict for defendant,”and upon this verdict judgment was entered. Held, that the judgment should be affirmed.</p> <p>It seems that the practice of submitting the construction of such a paper to the jury, is not to be commended.</p>