Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

149 Pa. 362

Snider v. Snider

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 23, 1892

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1892-05-23

Appeal, No. 460, Jan. T., 1892, by plaintiff, Edward Snider, executor of John Snider, deceased, from judgment of C. P. Fayette Co., June T., 1891, No. 846, for defendant, John Snider, Jr., on case stated. Assumpsit on defendant’s note. From the case stated, it appeared that the note sued on was dated May 7, 1883. Under the will of John Snider, deceased, dated April 11,1889, the defendant took only an undivided third of certain real estate in remainder.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1938

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The clause of the will above quoted is as clear as language "can make it, that the note in question is to be treated by the executors as an advancement. While a testator may not turn an advancement into a debt, it is well settled that he may turn a debt into an advancement. It was contended, however, that to so treat it would produce inequality, and that there was no share coming to John Snider, Jr., from which this advancement could be deducted. All this is outside of the case stated. If inequality is the result, it is neither the fault of the court below nor of this court, but the re sponsibility therefor must rest with the testator himself. Aside from this, we cannot know that he did not intend to create this very inequality. ’ ’”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 234 Mo. App. 663 - Hanssen v. Karbe

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1892-05-23

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam,

¶1The fifth paragraph of the will of John Snider provides that: “ All notes or other evidences of indebtedness, which may be *363held by me at the time of my death, against any of my children or sons-in-law, shall be treated by my executors as advancements, and deducted from the shares of the respective beneficiaries under this my will.”

¶2This action was brought in the court below by the executor of John Snider, deceased, against John Snider, Jr., who was a son of the testator, upon a note for $2,000, dated May 7, 1883-

¶3The clause of the will above quoted is as clear as language can make it, that the note in question is to be treated by the executors as an advancement. While a testator may not turn an advancement into a debt, it is well settled that he may turn a debt into an advancement. It was contended, however, that to so treat it would produce inequality, and that there was no-share coming to John Snider, Jr., from which this advancement could be deducted. All this is outside of the case stated. If inequality is the result, it is neither the fault of the court below nor of this court, but the responsibility therefor must rest with the testator himself. Aside from this, we cannot know that he did not intend to create this very inequality.

¶4The decree is affirmed, and the appeal dismissed at the costs of the appellant.

/149/pa/362 · .json · Public domain