Robert S. Frazer

This case involved a challenge to primary election results for county commissioner in Lackawanna County, where the petitioner sought to exclude votes from one district due to discrepancies in party registrations and ballots. The lower court dismissed the petition after finding insufficient evidence to disenfranchise voters. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the governing statute does not permit appeals from the return board's decisions, limiting review to certiorari without reweighing evidence or substituting discretion. The court further noted that the proceeding was one of vote computation rather than a full election contest, and the record showed no irregularity warranting interference.

electionsprocedure

The case involved an appeal by the Brookville Title and Trust Company from an Orphans’ Court order appointing the Farmers and Miners Trust Company as substituted trustee for the estate of David L. Taylor. The original trustee had reorganized after the 1933 banking holiday, forming a new entity and agreeing to cease operations and dissolve, prompting the beneficiaries to seek a new trustee. The lower court selected a different institution located in the testator's county with a director trusted by the decedent, rather than the reorganized bank. The Supreme Court affirmed the appointment, finding no abuse of discretion by the lower court in choosing the substitute trustee.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In Kelley v. Kalodner, a Philadelphia taxpayer filed suit seeking to enjoin enforcement of a 1935 Pennsylvania statute that imposed a graduated income tax on residents and certain nonresidents for school purposes, contending that the law violated the state constitution. The court assumed original jurisdiction and declared the act void in its entirety. The core reasoning was that the tax constituted, at least in part, a property tax subject to the uniformity requirement of Article IX, sections 1 and 2, which a progressive rate structure necessarily violates; the court found the valid and invalid provisions inseparable, rendering the entire levy unenforceable, and noted that prior voter rejections of constitutional amendments had preserved this limitation.

taxesproperty

This case concerned the interpretation of Sarah Ginn Harris Rapson's handwritten will to determine whether her husband received an absolute estate or only a life interest in the residuary estate. The court affirmed the lower court's ruling that the husband received an absolute interest. The decision rested on the explicit residuary gift in clause five of the will, combined with canons of construction that favor vesting a fee simple and avoid intestacy unless later clauses clearly indicate an intent to limit the estate; clauses six, seven, and nine were found not to impose such a limitation, as they addressed contingencies like sale of real estate or the husband's prior death without reducing the primary gift.

propertyfamily law

In Evans v. Provident Trust Co., the plaintiff mortgagor sought an injunction to prevent the defendant mortgagee from selling additional collateral bonds before foreclosing on the primary mortgaged property and establishing any deficiency under the 1934 Deficiency Judgment Act. The court affirmed dismissal of the bill, holding that the Act does not restrict a mortgagee's ability to realize on pledged collateral prior to foreclosure. The core reasoning was that the statute applies only after a foreclosure sale to ensure the mortgagor receives credit for the property's fair value against the judgment, without affecting the longstanding right of a secured creditor to pursue any available security until the debt is paid in full, consistent with the parties' agreements.

property

The case involved competing claims against the insufficient estate of Eliza Ann Metcalf for the costs of her long-term care in a state mental hospital, with the Commonwealth seeking $53.71 and the City of Philadelphia seeking $1,565. The Orphans’ Court awarded the available funds to the City, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that section 7 of the 1915 Act, which required pro rata distribution between state and county claims, had been superseded by section 13(a) of the 1917 Fiduciaries Act, which reenacted the longstanding rule giving preference to other debts and placing Commonwealth claims last. It rejected arguments that the 1915 provisions survived as a qualification on the 1917 statute, finding them wholly inconsistent. The decree directing payment to the City was therefore upheld.

propertyprocedure