TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Bradley v. Bradley

BRADLEY against BRADLEY

Bradley v. Bradley, 4 Whart. 173 (1839)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 11, 1839
Judges
Said
Citations
4 Whart. 1731839 Pa. LEXIS 193
Headnotes
The presumption of law is, that the life of an absent person of whom nothing is known, expired at the end of seven years from the time that he was last known to be alive.
Summary
IN ERROR. This case came before the Court on a writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas of the City and County of Philadelphia, to which Court an issue had been directed by the Orphans’ Court for the County of Philadelphia, to determine at what time the death of one Francis Bradley took place. The issue was tried on the 7th of May, 1835, before King, President, who charged the jury, “that the question of presumption was a question of fact for the jury to find. It was admitted that Francis Bradley had been absent for sixteen years and upwards. It is therefore presumed that he is dead. The law presumes a man to be dead after seven years absence, or seven years from the time that he was last heard of. In this case it is for the advantage of the plaintiff) that Francis Bradley should be considered to have died at the end of sixteen years, and for the advantage of the defendant that he should be considered as dead at the end of seven years. We give you the law that the death is to be presumed at seven years after his absence, and after the last time he was heard of.” The jury found accordingly; and exception having been taken to the charge, the cause was removed to this Court, and error assigned to the charge. The case was argued at December term, 1837, but in consequence of the pendency of the case of Burr v. Sim, in which a similar question was to be argued, a decision was not given.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Said

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

And now, at this term,' The Chief Justice said —

The ruling principle in this case, which has been held under advisement for further discussion in Burr v.Sim, * was put to the jury with peculiar accuracy. The presumption is that the life material to the question expired at the end of seven years from the time that the person was last known to be alive; and the direction conformed to it.

Judgment affirmed.

Ante, p. 150.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1862–1863: 11896–1897: 11910–1911: 11916–1917: 11918–1919: 218622026peak 1918 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Connor v. New York Life Insurance179 A.D. 596 (1917)
  2. In re Mutual Benefit Co.34 A. 283 (Pa. 1896)
  3. Groner v. Supreme Tent of the Knights of the Maccabees of the World108 A. 437 (Pa. 1919)
  4. Freeman's Estate227 Pa. 154 (1910)
  5. Clarke v. Canfield15 N.J. Eq. 119 (1862)
  6. Police Beneficiary Ass'n v. Ætna Life Ins.69 Pa. Super. 460 (1918)

Most recent

  1. Groner v. Supreme Tent of the Knights of the Maccabees of the World108 A. 437 (Pa. 1919)
  2. Police Beneficiary Ass'n v. Ætna Life Ins.69 Pa. Super. 460 (1918)
  3. Connor v. New York Life Insurance179 A.D. 596 (1917)
  4. Freeman's Estate227 Pa. 154 (1910)
  5. In re Mutual Benefit Co.34 A. 283 (Pa. 1896)
  6. Clarke v. Canfield15 N.J. Eq. 119 (1862)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list