# Meyers Estate

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · January 5, 1965 · 416 Pa. 516

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9644701

## Case

- **Full name:** Meyers Estate
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** January 5, 1965
- **Citations:** 416 Pa. 516; 206 A.2d 37; 1965 Pa. LEXIS 714
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Roberts
- **Judges:** Bell, Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9644701

## Opinion text

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts:
I join in the opinion of the Chief Justice. In my view, the issue raised in this appeal is whether the testatrix’s intent, as expressed in her will, was such that the value fixed by the appraisers was to be conclusive. A reading of the will satisfies me that such was, in fact, her intent.
The method of selecting the appraisers was carefully set out in the will. The entire import of the testamentary direction indicates that, having given Davis and the other executors the opportunity to participate in the selection of the appraisers, testatrix would be content with the results produced. Testatrix recorded her confident belief that the panel of appraisers, so constituted, would fix a just and a fair value. She also announced her satisfaction with the value so determined and thereby rejected any attack on the valuation itself.
*522 In effect, she provided that her real estate, valued in accordance with her designated plan, for purposes of the purchase option granted to her fiduciary-legatee, was not subject to question. In the absence of fraud or other impropriety, her expressed desire must prevail.
Mr. Justice Jones and Mr. Justice Eagen join in this concurring opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9644701. Public record. Not legal advice.