Opinion
March 12, 1930.
April 18, 1930.
Decedent's estate — Audit — Exceptions to — Loan or gift — Evidence.
In the distribution of a decedent's estate, the decedent's mother presented a claim for $2,000.00. She alleged that she loaned the money to her daughter, but there was no testimony of the giving of a note or obligation by the decedent or that the claimant ever received or demanded interest. Furthermore there was no evidence that the claimant, prior to the decedent's death, regarded the transaction as a loan, rather than a gift. To prove the receipt of the money by the daughter, the claimant called as witnesses at the audit two of the decedent's children, both of whom testified that the claimant gave the money to their mother as a gift.
In such circumstances there was evidence to support the finding of the auditor, that the transaction was a gift and not a loan and the exceptions to the auditor's report were properly dismissed.
Findings of fact by an orphans' court on a claim against a decedent's estate have the force and effect of a verdict of a jury, and will not be disturbed if there is sufficient evidence to support them.
Appeal No. 29, March Term, 1930, by Emma E. Johnson, from judgment of O.C., York County, in the case of Estate of Elsie R. Wilhide, Deceased.
Before TREXLER, P.J., KELLER, LINN, GAWTHROP, CUNNINGHAM, BALDRIDGE and GRAFF, JJ. Affirmed.
Exception to auditor's report. Before SHERWOOD, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
The court dismissed the exceptions. Exceptant appealed.
Error assigned, was the order of court.
W.W. Van Baman, for appellant.
Wm. B. Gemmill, for appellee.
Argued March 12, 1930.
The appellant, mother of decedent, presented a claim against the latter's estate for $2,000, alleged to have been lent the daughter about two and a half years before her death. To prove the receipt of the money by her daughter she called as witnesses at the audit the son and daughter of the decedent, both of whom testified that appellant had given the money to their mother, as a gift, towards the purchase of a home. No note or obligation was given by the decedent to appellant. No interest was paid or demanded, nor is there any evidence of any claim on the part of appellant that the transaction was a loan and not a gift prior to decedent's death: Kaufmann's Est., 293 Pa. 73, 76; Hirst's Est., 274 Pa. 286, 288. It was not disputed that appellant had previously made a gift of a considerable part of her estate to her children; or that she had lived with decedent in the latter's home for approximately thirteen years.
The auditor found, after giving consideration to all the evidence, that the transaction was a gift and not a loan. There was evidence to support the finding. The court below approved the finding, holding the evidence to be clear and convincing, and sufficient to show that the transaction was open, voluntary and fully understood by appellant, whether or not the decedent held a confidential relation to her. Under such circumstances an appellate court, in the absence of clear error, which is not here apparent, must give the finding, so approved by the court, the effect of the verdict of a jury: Gross' Est., 284 Pa. 73, 78.
The assignments of error are overruled and the decree is affirmed, at the costs of the appellant.