Volume 287 — Pennsylvania State Reports

<p>The will in controversy effected a conversion of the Pennsylvania real estate owned by testatrix as of the time of her death: Cooper’s Est., 206 Pa. 628; Davidson v. Bright, 267 Pa. 580, 583; Brennan’s Est., 277 Pa. 509, 511, 512; Bergdoll’s Est., 258 Pa. 108; Chamberlain’s Est., 257 Pa. 113; Marr’s Est., 240 Pa. 38; Bahn’s Est., 57 Pa. Superior Ct. 457; Mellon v. Reed, 123 Pa. 114; McClure’s App., 72 Pa. 414, 417; Leiper v. Thomson, 60 Pa. 177; Roland v. Miller, 100 Pa. 47; Lloyd’s Est., 281 Pa. 379; Jones v. Caldwell, 97 Pa. 42.</p>

<p>The court below erroneously admitted in evidence statements prepared by an accountant determining the amount of coal to which appellant was entitled during the existence of causes beyond appellee’s control, notwithstanding such statements were not a summary of anything appearing upon appellee’s books or records but merely conclusions of the witness based on his construction of written instruments. and his interpretation of oral testimony.</p>

<p>Collectors having been collecting taxes and', charging fees for making levys without sales ever since the Act of 1872 was passed, and it is rather late now to raise the question: Price v. Lancaster Co., 189 Pa. 95; Phila. v. Ry. Co., 102 Pa. 190; Whitmire v. Twp., 17 Pa. Superior Ct. 399.</p>

<p>As to inclusion of objectionable items: Lytle, Campbell & Co. v. Somers, Fitter & Todd, 276 Pa. 409.</p>

The respective notes are of no binding effect on these two married women: Sibley v. Robertson, 212 Pa. 24; Wiltbank v. Tobler, 181 Pa. 103; Kile v. Kilner, 37 Pa. Superior Ct. 90; Slattery (Bros. v. Powers, 285 Pa. 286. The mere return of these invalid notes to those children, as provided by her will, is not a proper exercise of the widow’s power of appointment and does not represent that portion of the estate to which they are entitled under the will of the testator.