Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

ARROTT ESTATE (03/22/66)

decided: March 22, 1966.

ARROTT ESTATE


Appeal from decree of Orphans' Court of Allegheny County, No. 7112 of 1942, in re estate of Charles F. Arrott, deceased.

COUNSEL

John C. Hanna, with him Metz, Cook, Hanna & Kelly, for appellants.

James S. Crawford, III, guardian and trustee ad litem, appellee.

Bell, C. J., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien and Roberts, JJ. Opinion by Mr. Justice Roberts. Concurring Opinion by Mr. Chief Justice Bell.

Author: Roberts

[ 421 Pa. Page 276]

The present appeal is another in that line of cases which have come before this Court raising questions relating to the application of the Principal and Income Act of 1945*fn1 and its successor, the Principal and Income Act of 1947,*fn2 to trusts created prior to the effective dates of those Acts.*fn3

Charles F. Arrott died on May 22, 1942. In his will, dated three months prior to his death, he devised his residuary estate in trust, directing the net income

[ 421 Pa. Page 277]

    to be paid to his children and the remainder interest to their issue.*fn4

On March 4, 1960, the trustees filed their third and partial account, covering the administration of the trust for the period extending from April 4, 1957 to September 30, 1959, in the Orphans' Court of Allegheny County. Exceptions to this account were filed on April 19, 1960 by the life tenants challenging the allocation by the trustees of certain stock dividends and the proceeds from the sale of certain stock and stock rights to corpus.

On April 20, 1960, the account was called for audit. At the hearing, counsel for the trustees presented a petition for distribution which contained suggested apportionments made in accordance with the principles of the Pennsylvania Rule of Apportionment, which, at that time, the parties assumed to be the applicable law. At the request of counsel for the life tenants, the hearing was continued to afford him time to study the suggested apportionments, and, if possible, to reach agreement with the trustees.

On June 7, 1961, the hearing was resumed. A petition for limited review of the trustees' second and partial account was submitted by counsel for the life tenants and an order entered by the court directing a citation on the trustees to show cause why the adjudication and decree of distribution entered pursuant to the trustees' second and partial account should not be opened and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.