¶1although intimating that if the question had been a new one, he might have ruled it otherwise, declined the comparison of the merits of the two opinions, on the ground that, sitting here in Pennsylvania, it was his duty, in order to avoid a conflict of opinion, to take the law as he found it last decided, but without expressing an opinion as to what might be his course in case the question should be carried elsewhere. This is about the substance of what he was understood to say. Admitting the evidence, therefore, which was offered to show a parol republication, he instructed the jury that it must be of two witnesses, proving the intention to republish and establishing the identity of the will beyond all question.
7 F. Cas. 696
Dike v. Kuhns
U.S. District Court
Decided November 18, 1857
U.S. District Court · decided 1857-11-18
TThis was an action of ejectment brought by Nathaniel P. Dyke against Joseph H. Kuhns and wife to recover a tract of land in Westmoreland county.] The plaintiff claimed under Mrs. Mary Oust, who was a sister, and one of the heirs at law. of Matthew Jack, deceased. The defendants claimed under the will of the said Matthew Jack, dated in 182S, and devising all his property to his brother William.
Decided 1857-11-18