Summary
In Landis v. Landis, 343 Pa. 252, it was held in an equity proceeding to determine the ownership of a note, the title to which was prima facie in an estate, the exclusive jurisdiction was in the Orphans' Court and, until the Orphans' Court submitted an issue to it for trial, the Court of Common Pleas was without jurisdiction, and the bill was dismissed. It was said in this case by the Supreme Court, "Appellant cannot short-circuit the case into the common pleas by merely pleading facts which, if properly proven, may establish her title."
Summary of this case from Stemple v. CarsonOpinion
October 3, 1941.
November 24, 1941.
Orphans' court — Jurisdiction — Court of Common Pleas — Property of decedent — Substantial dispute as to ownership — Note payable to decedent — Alleged oral trust.
1. In a proceeding in equity to establish and enforce an alleged oral trust in a demand promissory note payable to decedent whose estate was being administered in the orphans' court by defendants, who were the executors, it was held that a decree was properly entered dismissing the bill for want of jurisdiction in the common pleas court. [253-4]
2. In such case, the note in controversy being payable, on its face, to the decedent, it was presumed, in the absence of endorsement by him during his lifetime, that ownership continued in him up to the time of his death. [254]
3. Title being prima facie in the estate, it was exclusively for the orphans' court to determine, in limine, whether the evidence disclosed a substantial dispute as to ownership of the asset, and the court of common pleas was without jurisdiction to entertain the cause until and unless the orphans' court, having first determined that question in plaintiff's favor, should have submitted to it for trial the issue of title. [254]
Argued October 3, 1941.
Before SCHAFFER, C. J.; MAXEY, DREW, LINN, STERN and PATTERSON, JJ.
Appeal, No. 116, Jan. T., 1941, from decree of C. P. Lancaster Co., Equity Docket No. 9, page 94, in case of Anna Mary Landis v. D. Allen Landis et al. Decree affirmed.
Bill in equity.
Preliminary objections sustained and decree entered in effect dismissing bill, without prejudice to petitioner's right to present a petition to the orphans' court, opinion by SCHAEFFER, P. J. Plaintiff appealed.
A. W. Brubaker, with him H. Clay Burkholder, for appellant.
Paul A. Mueller, for appellee.
Harry H. Landis, Sr., died on June 1, 1934, domiciled in Lancaster County, leaving to survive him, in addition to his widow, two sons, D. Allen Landis and Harry H. Landis, Jr., whom he appointed executors of his estate, and a daughter, Anna Mary Landis. On December 20, 1939, Anna Mary Landis filed this bill in equity against the sons, in their individual capacity, to establish and enforce an alleged oral trust in a $15,000 promissory note which was given to the decedent, payable to him on demand, by Harry H. Landis, Jr., on March 9, 1933, and is now in the possession of D. Allen Landis, unendorsed, averring that the decedent, "in order to equalize gifts and advancements which he had made to his two sons and losses which he had sustained by reason of assistance rendered to his two sons", had delivered the note to D. Allen Landis subject to an oral trust for her, the daughter's, maintenance and support. Preliminary objections filed by Harry H. Landis, Jr., denying the jurisdiction of the court of common pleas over the subject matter of the controversy were sustained, after argument, and a decree was entered in effect dismissing the bill, without prejudice to petitioner's right to present a petition to the orphans' court for allowance of her claim. From that decree she has taken this appeal.
The appeal cannot be sustained. As the note in controversy is payable, on its face, to the decedent, it is presumed, in the absence of endorsement by him during his lifetime, that ownership continued in him up to the time of his death. See Paxson's Estate, 225 Pa. 204, 210; Keyser's Estate, 329 Pa. 514, 521; Anno. 30 A.L.R. 1492. Title being prima facie in the estate, which is now being administered in the orphans' court, it is exclusively for that court to determine, in limine, whether appellant's assertions are supported by evidence which in law shows a substantial dispute as to ownership of the asset, and the court of common pleas is without jurisdiction to entertain the cause until and unless the orphans' court, having first determined that question in appellant's favor, shall have submitted to it for trial the issue of title. See Keyser's Estate, supra; Crisswell's Estate, 334 Pa. 266, 271. Appellant cannot short-circuit the case into the common pleas by merely pleading facts which, if properly proven, may establish her title: Crisswell's Estate, supra, 271.
Decree affirmed at appellant's cost.