necessity of strict requirement in Pennsylvania

1947In Gilbraith’s Estate, 270 Pa. 288 , 113 *633 A. 361, a leading case which has been consistently followed, Mr. Justice Simpson stated at page 291: “We said in Carpenter v. Hays, 153 Pa. 432, 434 , and have since frequently repeated, ‘without variableness or shadow of turning’ therefrom, that ‘Claims against a dead man’s estate, which might have been made against himself, while living, are always subjects of just suspicion, and our books, from Graham v. Graham, 34 Pa. 475 , to Miller’s Est., 136 Pa. 239 (249), are full of expressions by this court of the necessity of strict requirement of proof

1947In Gilbraith’s Estate, 270 Pa. 288 , 113 A. 361 , a leading case which has been consistently followed, Mr. Justice Simpson stated at page 291: ‘We said in Carpenter v. Hays, 153 Pa. 432, 434 , and have since frequently repeated, “without variableness or shadow of turning” therefrom, that “claims against a dead man’s estate, which might have been made against himself, while living, are always subjects of just suspicion, and our books, from Graham v. Graham, 34 Pa. 475 , to Miller’s Est., 136 Pa. 239 (249), are full of expressions by this court of the necessity of strict requirement of proof and

1947In Gilbraith’s Estate, 270 Pa. 288 , 113 *633 A. 361, a leading case which has been consistently followed, Mr. Justice Simpson stated at page 291: “We said in Carpenter v. Hays, 153 Pa. 432, 434 , and have since frequently repeated, ‘without variableness or shadow of turning’ therefrom, that ‘Claims against a dead man’s estate, which might have been made against himself, while living, are always subjects of just suspicion, and our books, from Graham v. Graham, 34 Pa. 475 , to Miller’s Est., 136 Pa. 239 (249), are full of expressions by this court of the necessity of strict requirement of proof

1947In Gilbraith’s Estate, 270 Pa. 288 , 113 A. 361 , a leading case which has been consistently followed, Mr. Justice Simpson stated at page 291: ‘We said in Carpenter v. Hays, 153 Pa. 432, 434 , and have since frequently repeated, “without variableness or shadow of turning” therefrom, that “claims against a dead man’s estate, which might have been made against himself, while living, are always subjects of just suspicion, and our books, from Graham v. Graham, 34 Pa. 475 , to Miller’s Est., 136 Pa. 239 (249), are full of expressions by this court of the necessity of strict requirement of proof and

1947In Gilbraith’s Estate, 270 Pa. 288 , 113 *633 A. 361, a leading case which has been consistently followed, Mr. Justice Simpson stated at page 291: “We said in Carpenter v. Hays, 153 Pa. 432, 434 , and have since frequently repeated, ‘without variableness or shadow of turning’ therefrom, that ‘Claims against a dead man’s estate, which might have been made against himself, while living, are always subjects of just suspicion, and our books, from Graham v. Graham, 34 Pa. 475 , to Miller’s Est., 136 Pa. 239 (249), are full of expressions by this court of the necessity of strict requirement of proof

1947In Gilbraith’s Estate, 270 Pa. 288 , 113 A. 361 , a leading case which has been consistently followed, Mr. Justice Simpson stated at page 291: ‘We said in Carpenter v. Hays, 153 Pa. 432, 434 , and have since frequently repeated, “without variableness or shadow of turning” therefrom, that “claims against a dead man’s estate, which might have been made against himself, while living, are always subjects of just suspicion, and our books, from Graham v. Graham, 34 Pa. 475 , to Miller’s Est., 136 Pa. 239 (249), are full of expressions by this court of the necessity of strict requirement of proof and

1947In Gilbraith’s Estate, 270 Pa. 288 , 113 *633 A. 361, a leading case which has been consistently followed, Mr. Justice Simpson stated at page 291: “We said in Carpenter v. Hays, 153 Pa. 432, 434 , and have since frequently repeated, ‘without variableness or shadow of turning’ therefrom, that ‘Claims against a dead man’s estate, which might have been made against himself, while living, are always subjects of just suspicion, and our books, from Graham v. Graham, 34 Pa. 475 , to Miller’s Est., 136 Pa. 239 (249), are full of expressions by this court of the necessity of strict requirement of proof

1947In Gilbraith’s Estate, 270 Pa. 288 , 113 A. 361 , a leading case which has been consistently followed, Mr. Justice Simpson stated at page 291: ‘We said in Carpenter v. Hays, 153 Pa. 432, 434 , and have since frequently repeated, “without variableness or shadow of turning” therefrom, that “claims against a dead man’s estate, which might have been made against himself, while living, are always subjects of just suspicion, and our books, from Graham v. Graham, 34 Pa. 475 , to Miller’s Est., 136 Pa. 239 (249), are full of expressions by this court of the necessity of strict requirement of proof and

1947In Gilbraith’s Estate, 270 Pa. 288 , 113 *633 A. 361, a leading case which has been consistently followed, Mr. Justice Simpson stated at page 291: “We said in Carpenter v. Hays, 153 Pa. 432, 434 , and have since frequently repeated, ‘without variableness or shadow of turning’ therefrom, that ‘Claims against a dead man’s estate, which might have been made against himself, while living, are always subjects of just suspicion, and our books, from Graham v. Graham, 34 Pa. 475 , to Miller’s Est., 136 Pa. 239 (249), are full of expressions by this court of the necessity of strict requirement of proof

1947In Gilbraith’s Estate, 270 Pa. 288 , 113 A. 361 , a leading case which has been consistently followed, Mr. Justice Simpson stated at page 291: ‘We said in Carpenter v. Hays, 153 Pa. 432, 434 , and have since frequently repeated, “without variableness or shadow of turning” therefrom, that “claims against a dead man’s estate, which might have been made against himself, while living, are always subjects of just suspicion, and our books, from Graham v. Graham, 34 Pa. 475 , to Miller’s Est., 136 Pa. 239 (249), are full of expressions by this court of the necessity of strict requirement of proof and

1947In Gilbraith’s Estate, 270 Pa. 288 , 113 *633 A. 361, a leading case which has been consistently followed, Mr. Justice Simpson stated at page 291: “We said in Carpenter v. Hays, 153 Pa. 432, 434 , and have since frequently repeated, ‘without variableness or shadow of turning’ therefrom, that ‘Claims against a dead man’s estate, which might have been made against himself, while living, are always subjects of just suspicion, and our books, from Graham v. Graham, 34 Pa. 475 , to Miller’s Est., 136 Pa. 239 (249), are full of expressions by this court of the necessity of strict requirement of proof

1947In Gilbraith’s Estate, 270 Pa. 288 , 113 *633 A. 361, a leading case which has been consistently followed, Mr. Justice Simpson stated at page 291: “We said in Carpenter v. Hays, 153 Pa. 432, 434 , and have since frequently repeated, ‘without variableness or shadow of turning’ therefrom, that ‘Claims against a dead man’s estate, which might have been made against himself, while living, are always subjects of just suspicion, and our books, from Graham v. Graham, 34 Pa. 475 , to Miller’s Est., 136 Pa. 239 (249), are full of expressions by this court of the necessity of strict requirement of proof

1947In Gilbraith’s Estate, 270 Pa. 288 , 113 *633 A. 361, a leading case which has been consistently followed, Mr. Justice Simpson stated at page 291: “We said in Carpenter v. Hays, 153 Pa. 432, 434 , and have since frequently repeated, ‘without variableness or shadow of turning’ therefrom, that ‘Claims against a dead man’s estate, which might have been made against himself, while living, are always subjects of just suspicion, and our books, from Graham v. Graham, 34 Pa. 475 , to Miller’s Est., 136 Pa. 239 (249), are full of expressions by this court of the necessity of strict requirement of proof

1947In Gilbraith’s Estate, 270 Pa. 288 , 113 A. 361 , a leading case which has been consistently followed, Mr. Justice Simpson stated at page 291: ‘We said in Carpenter v. Hays, 153 Pa. 432, 434 , and have since frequently repeated, “without variableness or shadow of turning” therefrom, that “claims against a dead man’s estate, which might have been made against himself, while living, are always subjects of just suspicion, and our books, from Graham v. Graham, 34 Pa. 475 , to Miller’s Est., 136 Pa. 239 (249), are full of expressions by this court of the necessity of strict requirement of proof and

1947In Gilbraith’s Estate, 270 Pa. 288 , 113 *633 A. 361, a leading case which has been consistently followed, Mr. Justice Simpson stated at page 291: “We said in Carpenter v. Hays, 153 Pa. 432, 434 , and have since frequently repeated, ‘without variableness or shadow of turning’ therefrom, that ‘Claims against a dead man’s estate, which might have been made against himself, while living, are always subjects of just suspicion, and our books, from Graham v. Graham, 34 Pa. 475 , to Miller’s Est., 136 Pa. 239 (249), are full of expressions by this court of the necessity of strict requirement of proof

1947In Gilbraith’s Estate, 270 Pa. 288 , 113 *633 A. 361, a leading case which has been consistently followed, Mr. Justice Simpson stated at page 291: “We said in Carpenter v. Hays, 153 Pa. 432, 434 , and have since frequently repeated, ‘without variableness or shadow of turning’ therefrom, that ‘Claims against a dead man’s estate, which might have been made against himself, while living, are always subjects of just suspicion, and our books, from Graham v. Graham, 34 Pa. 475 , to Miller’s Est., 136 Pa. 239 (249), are full of expressions by this court of the necessity of strict requirement of proof

1947In Gilbraith’s Estate, 270 Pa. 288 , 113 *633 A. 361, a leading case which has been consistently followed, Mr. Justice Simpson stated at page 291: “We said in Carpenter v. Hays, 153 Pa. 432, 434 , and have since frequently repeated, ‘without variableness or shadow of turning’ therefrom, that ‘Claims against a dead man’s estate, which might have been made against himself, while living, are always subjects of just suspicion, and our books, from Graham v. Graham, 34 Pa. 475 , to Miller’s Est., 136 Pa. 239 (249), are full of expressions by this court of the necessity of strict requirement of proof

1947In Gilbraith’s Estate, 270 Pa. 288 , 113 A. 361 , a leading case which has been consistently followed, Mr. Justice Simpson stated at page 291: ‘We said in Carpenter v. Hays, 153 Pa. 432, 434 , and have since frequently repeated, “without variableness or shadow of turning” therefrom, that “claims against a dead man’s estate, which might have been made against himself, while living, are always subjects of just suspicion, and our books, from Graham v. Graham, 34 Pa. 475 , to Miller’s Est., 136 Pa. 239 (249), are full of expressions by this court of the necessity of strict requirement of proof and

1947In Gilbraith’s Estate, 270 Pa. 288 , 113 *633 A. 361, a leading case which has been consistently followed, Mr. Justice Simpson stated at page 291: “We said in Carpenter v. Hays, 153 Pa. 432, 434 , and have since frequently repeated, ‘without variableness or shadow of turning’ therefrom, that ‘Claims against a dead man’s estate, which might have been made against himself, while living, are always subjects of just suspicion, and our books, from Graham v. Graham, 34 Pa. 475 , to Miller’s Est., 136 Pa. 239 (249), are full of expressions by this court of the necessity of strict requirement of proof

1947In Gilbraith’s Estate, 270 Pa. 288 , 113 A. 361 , a leading case which has been consistently followed, Mr. Justice Simpson stated at page 291: ‘We said in Carpenter v. Hays, 153 Pa. 432, 434 , and have since frequently repeated, “without variableness or shadow of turning” therefrom, that “claims against a dead man’s estate, which might have been made against himself, while living, are always subjects of just suspicion, and our books, from Graham v. Graham, 34 Pa. 475 , to Miller’s Est., 136 Pa. 239 (249), are full of expressions by this court of the necessity of strict requirement of proof and

1947In Gilbraith’s Estate, 270 Pa. 288 , 113 *633 A. 361, a leading case which has been consistently followed, Mr. Justice Simpson stated at page 291: “We said in Carpenter v. Hays, 153 Pa. 432, 434 , and have since frequently repeated, ‘without variableness or shadow of turning’ therefrom, that ‘Claims against a dead man’s estate, which might have been made against himself, while living, are always subjects of just suspicion, and our books, from Graham v. Graham, 34 Pa. 475 , to Miller’s Est., 136 Pa. 239 (249), are full of expressions by this court of the necessity of strict requirement of proof

1947In Gilbraith’s Estate, 270 Pa. 288 , 113 A. 361 , a leading case which has been consistently followed, Mr. Justice Simpson stated at page 291: ‘We said in Carpenter v. Hays, 153 Pa. 432, 434 , and have since frequently repeated, “without variableness or shadow of turning” therefrom, that “claims against a dead man’s estate, which might have been made against himself, while living, are always subjects of just suspicion, and our books, from Graham v. Graham, 34 Pa. 475 , to Miller’s Est., 136 Pa. 239 (249), are full of expressions by this court of the necessity of strict requirement of proof and

1947In Gilbraith’s Estate, 270 Pa. 288 , 113 *633 A. 361, a leading case which has been consistently followed, Mr. Justice Simpson stated at page 291: “We said in Carpenter v. Hays, 153 Pa. 432, 434 , and have since frequently repeated, ‘without variableness or shadow of turning’ therefrom, that ‘Claims against a dead man’s estate, which might have been made against himself, while living, are always subjects of just suspicion, and our books, from Graham v. Graham, 34 Pa. 475 , to Miller’s Est., 136 Pa. 239 (249), are full of expressions by this court of the necessity of strict requirement of proof

1940It is true, as appellants point out, and as the Supreme Court said in Hirst’s Estate, 274 Pa. 286 , 117 A. 682 , that claims against a dead man’s estate, which might have been made against him while living, are always subjects of just suspicion, and are faced with the necessity of strict requirement of proof.

1940It is true, as appellants point out, and as the Supreme Court said in Hirst’s Estate, 274 Pa. 286 , 117 A. 682 , that claims against a dead man’s estate, which might have been made against him while living, are always subjects of just suspicion, and are faced with the necessity of strict requirement of proof.

1922Aside from this, however, it is a stale claim against an estate, and meets the objection expressed in Gilbraith’s Est., 270 Pa. 288, 291 , that “ ‘Claims against a dead man’s estate, which might have been made against himself, while living, are always subjects of just suspicion, and our books, from Graham v. Graham, 34 Pa. 475 , to Miller’s Est., 136 Pa. 239, 249 , are full of expressions by this court of the necessity of strict requirement of proof.’ ......Experience has demonstrated not only the wisdom of these rules, but the necessity for even more strictly adhering to them, and we propose

1921In the nature of things it is less potent against a claim for two or three months’ wages, than for two or three years. ......As said by our late Brother Clark in Gregory v. Com., 121 Pa. 611 , ‘the presumption will gather strength with each succeeding year, and' "the evidence to overthrow it must, of course, be correspondingly increased.’ ” Experience has demonstrated not only the wisdom of these rules, but the necessity for even more strictly adhering to them, and we propose to use the light thus cast upon our pathway.

1901Such claims are always subjects of just suspicion, and our books are full of expressions of the necessity of strict requirement of proof and the firm control of juries in such cases : Carpenter v. Hays, 153 Pa. 432 ; Mueller’s Estate, 159 Pa. 590 ; Hughes’s Estate, 176 Pa. 387; Weaver’s Estate, 182 Pa. 349 ; Miller’s Estate, 188 Pa. 214 ; Savage’s Appeal (Hayes’s Estate).

1901Such claims are always subjects of just suspicion, and our books are full of expressions of the necessity of strict requirement of proof and the firm control of juries in such cases : Carpenter v. Hays, 153 Pa. 432 ; Mueller’s Estate, 159 Pa. 590 ; Hughes’s Estate, 176 Pa. 387; Weaver’s Estate, 182 Pa. 349 ; Miller’s Estate, 188 Pa. 214 ; Savage’s Appeal (Hayes’s Estate).

1901Such claims are always subjects of just suspicion, and our books are full of expressions of the necessity of strict requirement of proof and the firm control of juries in such cases : Carpenter v. Hays, 153 Pa. 432 ; Mueller’s Estate, 159 Pa. 590 ; Hughes’s Estate, 176 Pa. 387; Weaver’s Estate, 182 Pa. 349 ; Miller’s Estate, 188 Pa. 214 ; Savage’s Appeal (Hayes’s Estate).

1901Such claims are always subjects of just suspicion, and our books are full of expressions of the necessity of strict requirement of proof and the firm control of juries in such cases : Carpenter v. Hays, 153 Pa. 432 ; Mueller’s Estate, 159 Pa. 590 ; Hughes’s Estate, 176 Pa. 387; Weaver’s Estate, 182 Pa. 349 ; Miller’s Estate, 188 Pa. 214 ; Savage’s Appeal (Hayes’s Estate).