# Meyers Estate

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

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9644702

## 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:** Dissent by Cohen
- **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/9644702

## Opinion text

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Cohen:
As I read Item Twenty-two of the will, the optionees can purchase the property at the price established by the appraiser only if that price represents, as directed by testatrix, “a fair and just value.” Nowhere do I see an indication by testatrix that the value arrived at by the appraisers is, ipso facto, the “fair and just value.” Accordingly, I see no reason why their valuation should be immune from attack merely because there was no fraud, accident or mistake. The function of the appraisers here is like their function in a situation where a testator directs them to value certain stock in his estate at “book value”. Whether they have so done is always subject to litigation unless the testator expressly directs otherwise.
The lower court prevented respondents from contraverting the valuation of the appraisers with testimony as to fair market value. I would reverse and remand with directions to have a hearing on the question of whether the appraisers’ valuation was a “fair and just” one. “Market value” is, of course, most relevant to the inquiry.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9644702. Public record. Not legal advice.