Hines v. Hines

<p>Appeal, No. 124, Oct. T., 1897, by Ada Morehouse, from decree of O. C. Washington Co., May T., 1897, No. 27, on appeal from register of wills.</p> <p>McCollum, Mitchell and Fell, JJ., dissent.</p> <p>Appeal from register of wills refusing letters of administration.</p> <p>McIlvaine, P. J., found the facts to be as follows :</p> <p>In the year 1885 Richard IT. Stull, a citizen and resident of Washington county, married Hannah Margaret Lewis. They had born to them one child, a son, Samuel A. Stull. On February 7,1894, Hannah Margaret Stull, nee Lewis, was divorced from Richard H. Stull by the court of common pleas of Washington county on the grounds that he, the said Richard H. Stull, had committed the crime of adultery with one Ada Widdup, the appellant in this case. On the 5th day of April, 1894, Richard H. Stull and the said Ada Widdup were married in Cumberland, Maryland. They left Washington county, Pennsylvania, and went to Cumberland, Maryland, for the sole purpose of being married and to evade, as they thought, offending against the act of assembly of Pennsylvania, approved March 13, 1815, which prohibited their being married. Immediately after the marriage ceremony was performed.in Cumberland they boarded a railroad train and returned to their home in this county and lived together as man and wife until the 11th of June, 1895, when Richard II. Stull died. He died testate, mating Ada Widdup the principal beneficiary of his will. Stiers .Lewis was appointed .guardian of Samuel A. Stull, the only child of Richard H. Stull and Hannah Margaret Stull, who, on behalf of his ward, contested the probate of this will. On December 16, 1896, after a trial in the court of common ¡pleas, the will was decided by this court null and void, and Ada Widdup (who is -now Mrs. Morehouse), as widow of the said Richard H. Stull, applied for letters of administration. Stiers Lewis, guai’dian of Samuel A. Stull, the only child of Richard PI. ¡Stxxll, objected to the granting of let

This is an appeal from a will contest wherein the decedent executed the will at the hospital where he was a patient. Two hospital employees signed the will as attesting witnesses, and their signatures were then notarized by another staff member. After the decedent died, his son contested the validity of the will, and the matter was set for a hearing. The proponent of the will attempted to serve subpoenas on the two attesting witnesses at the hospital where they signed the will, one by process server and the other by certified mail. Neither attempt at service was successful, and consequently, neither of the attesting witnesses appeared at the will contest hearing. The notary did appear and testified as to the identity and presence of the attesting witnesses at the will's execution. The proponent of the will sought to have both witnesses declared unavailable. The trial court declared unavailable the witness who was served using a process server but declined to do the same regarding the witness who was served by certified mail. Consequently, the court determined that the will was invalid. The proponent of the will appealed, asserting that the trial court abused its discretion when it made a distinction between serving a subpoena using a process server and serving a subpoena by certified mail. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.