Skip to main content
· 3/13/1893

Shubart's Estate

Citations

  • 154 Pa. 230
  • 26 A. 202
  • 1893 Pa. LEXIS 874

Syllabus

<p>Will — Legacy charged on land for support of child.</p> <p>Testator charged on land devised to a son twenty-five hundred dollars, the interest on which at six per cent was to be used for the “ boarding, washing, mending and clothing ” of an invalid daughter of testator. It was further provided that “after the death” of the daughter “after all expenses and the funeral expenses be paid, the remainder of the twenty-five hundred dollars shall be equally divided” among testator’s other children. The daughter was an idiot without power of speech, and three years and a half before her death she was stricken with paralysis, becoming totally helpless and blind. During a period of some six years she lived with her brother, who eared for her, and at her death buried her. During the whole period that she lived with him he received one hundred and fifty dollars a year from the owner of the land charged with the legacy. Held, that the brother was entitled to receive, out of the principal of the legacy, three dollars a week for one hundred and eighty-two weeks nursing and personal attendance on his sister, and also the sums which he had expended for her burial and medical attendance.</p> <p>Services — Change of condition — Beceipt—Estoppel.</p> <p>The receipt of the interest on the legacy will not estop the claimant from recovering a quantum meruit for the duties and labors which were imposed by the changed condition and not contemplated by the claimant when he took his sister to care for her.</p> <p>Family relationship — Presumption.</p> <p>Where the parties are brother and sister and the brother claims compensation for the services, the burden of showing family relationship or other cause to exclude the implication of .a promise to pay for services is on the sister or her trustee.</p>

How courts have described this case

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

  • reaffirming our decisions in Ormes v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 512 A.2d 87 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986) (holding Department’s regulation invalid as being inconsistent with Pa. R.A.P. 1703(b)(3)
  • reaffirming our decisions in Ormes v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 512 A.2d 87 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986) (holding Department’s regulation invalid as being inconsistent with Pa. R.A.P. 1703(b)(3)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Dean, McCollum, Mitchell, Sterbett, 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.