Keeney v. Handrick
Citations
- 148 Pa. 223
- 23 A. 1069
- 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1494
Syllabus
<p>Parol gift of personal property — Question for jury — Sufficiency of evidence.</p> <p>Shortly before Ms death, a decedent handed to Ms son-in-law, who resided with him, and between whom and the decedent the relations were intimate, certain bonds. The language used by the decedent at the time of the transfer of the bonds was equivocal, but there was testimony that at other times he had stated that he had given the bonds to Ms son-in-law, and that he meant to do well by Mm. A proceeding having been begun by one executor of decedent’s estate to recover these bonds from the alleged donee, who was a coexecutor, and who claimed them as having been given him by the decedent:</p> <p>Held, that the question was purely one of fact to be submitted to the jury, under proper instructions, and that the sufficiency of the evidence ■was for them.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- City solicitor's action in serving as counsel for hearing panel and later casting vote against employee seeking disability benefits constituted an impermissible commingling of prosecutorial and adjudicatory functions in violation of employee's due process rights.
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Green, Heydriok, McCollum, Mitchell, Paxson, Sterrett, Williams
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.